Democratic strategist Gabi Finlayson’s fiery attack on Charlie Kirk’s campus tour—branding it a “martyr tour” and “content farm for white supremacy”—has come under sharp scrutiny after Kirk’s shocking assassination just days later, sparking outrage, grief, and a bitter national debate over whether reckless political rhetoric is fueling deadly consequences.

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, remarks made just days before his death by Democratic political consultant Gabi Finlayson have resurfaced, fueling an already heated national conversation about rhetoric, responsibility, and the blurred line between political critique and inflammatory speech.

Finlayson, who has previously been associated with campaign work for President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, delivered a fiery critique of Kirk and his “American Comeback Tour” at a public forum, labeling the series of campus events as nothing less than a “campus martyr tour” and “a content farm for white supremacy.”

“Today’s fresh hell is that Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, is bringing his so-called American Comeback Tour to two campuses near you,” Finlayson said during her address, drawing groans and scattered applause from the audience.

“Boo! He is starting his tour at UVU on September 10th, and then he’ll be back in Utah on the 30th at Utah State.

Terrible.

Demon boy.”

Her choice of words immediately sparked controversy, even before the shocking news of Kirk’s assassination days later.

Social media lit up with both support and outrage, with critics accusing Finlayson of demonizing a political opponent to the point of dehumanization, while her allies insisted she was speaking uncomfortable truths about the dangers of far-right organizing on college campuses.

Finlayson went on to describe Kirk as someone who had built an empire on division.

“Charlie Kirk is one of these campus tour speakers that always sparks controversy, and for a very good reason,” she continued.

“When he was 18 years old, he founded something called Turning Point USA, which is essentially a network across the country of different college clubs focused on spreading the good word of the far right.

So when he founded this, it was supposed to be a non-partisan debate platform where we would get people together in good faith and have discussions about things.

And now, in 2025, it is certainly not that.”

Her characterization of Turning Point USA as a “content farm for white supremacy, cancel culture martyrdom, conspiracy theorists, and mega conventions where little baby fascists get to cosplay as freedom fighters” set the tone for an intense debate.

Critics argue that comments like these exemplify the growing trend of hyperbolic rhetoric in American politics, where opponents are painted in the darkest possible terms rather than engaged with in substantive debate.

The timing of Finlayson’s remarks could not have been more explosive.

Just days later, Kirk, 31, was shot and killed in what authorities have described as a politically motivated assassination.

The loss stunned supporters of the conservative activist, who had spent more than a decade building Turning Point USA into one of the most influential youth conservative organizations in the country.

To his allies, he was a tireless advocate for patriotism, religious faith, and free-market principles; to his critics, he was a dangerous provocateur who normalized extremist rhetoric under the guise of youthful activism.

Now, Finlayson’s words are being replayed, dissected, and weaponized across the media landscape.

Conservative commentators argue that her description of Kirk as “demon boy” and her insistence that his movement was little more than a pipeline for radicalization contributed to an atmosphere of hostility that may have emboldened extremists.

Meanwhile, progressives counter that holding Finlayson accountable for Kirk’s death is itself a bad-faith tactic meant to deflect from uncomfortable discussions about Turning Point USA’s actual influence on the political culture of college campuses.

Kirk’s “American Comeback Tour,” which Finlayson derided, had been scheduled to continue through the fall with stops at more than a dozen universities nationwide.

His assassination has left organizers scrambling, but his widow Erika Kirk has vowed the tour will go on.

“Charlie’s message will not be silenced,” she said in an emotional livestream, promising to honor her husband’s legacy by continuing his mission.

Meanwhile, students and faculty at the campuses scheduled to host Kirk are divided.

Some insist that universities must remain platforms for free expression, even for controversial voices, while others argue that figures like Kirk bring only division, not dialogue.

At Utah Valley University and Utah State, where Kirk had been scheduled to speak, candlelight vigils have been organized by student groups both in memory of his life and in protest of the vitriol that surrounded his death.

As the country grapples with the shocking violence of Kirk’s assassination, Finlayson’s words have become a flashpoint in a larger debate: how much responsibility do public figures bear for the climate of discourse they help create? Was her “demon boy” remark simply sharp political rhetoric, or an example of the dangerous dehumanization that corrodes democratic debate?

For now, what remains is a nation staring at the widening gap between left and right, between those who saw Charlie Kirk as a patriot and those who saw him as a provocateur.

The echoes of Finlayson’s critique continue to ring, raising the uncomfortable question of whether political language in America has crossed a line from passionate opposition into something far more combustible—and what that means for the future of public life.