Hasan Piker was set to debate Charlie Kirk. Now he’s warning of a “Reichstag fire moment.”

On September 25, the left-wing Twitch streamer and political commentator Hasan Piker was supposed to debate Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk. But one hour into an eight-hour stream on Wednesday, Piker’s chat started posting that Kirk got shot.

“Oh my God, he definitely got shot in the neck,” Piker said, his hand covering his mouth as he watched the footage (which was not on the livestream). “Oh, fuck.” After a few moments of silence, Piker told his audience not to watch the clip. “There’s very little chance that he will survive that.”

Piker was immediately clear that what happened to Kirk was reprehensible, telling his viewers not to joke about the killing—and that what followed likely would be, too. “The reverberation of people seeking out vengeance in the aftermath of this violent, abhorrent incident is going to be genuinely worrisome,” he said.

We reached out to Piker to discuss Kirk’s murder and its aftermath, including his concerns that President Donald Trump, who called Kirk a “martyr” and moved immediately to blame the political left, will lead his followers in using Kirk’s death to clamp down on progressive organizing.

How are you feeling? What’s been going through your head since you learned that Charlie Kirk was shot, and then the news that he died, on stream?

I was pretty distraught after watching the horrifying incident. It’s obviously a little different when you watch someone that you’ve known for many years, someone that you have been ideologically opposed to, but sat across from on multiple occasions, and someone who—we were supposed to debate two weeks from now.

When you see someone like that get shot, it’s very different. I don’t think human beings are supposed to see that. It’s definitely horrifying. I don’t even know what his family feels like. I don’t even want to think about that, but it was a traumatic incident that, unfortunately, is all too common in this country.

That experience for me is new, but it’s not new for many Americans who have experienced that they are the unfortunate victims of sending their children to school where a school shooting takes place, right? And Charlie Kirk’s assassination also happened at a school—that happened to be the 46th school shooting of the year so far, and the 47th took place in Colorado, only an hour after, where two kids were shot and critically injured. It’s not something that people are supposed to experience. But unfortunately, that experience is all too common in acountry like ours.

You’ve talked about some people seeing far-right rhetoric as inherently violent. How do you think about the differences between what you do and what Charlie Kirk did—where your views are rooted, and the kinds of conversations you want to have?

My worldview is empathy-first politics. I think Charlie Kirk said it best when he said that empathy is a made-up concept that he thinks is problematic. He thinks it is just a made-up concept that people have designed to advance a leftist agenda, something along those lines. I think that dichotomy perfectly demonstrates the way we view the world.

I believe in universal programs for everyone, unconditionally, regardless of their ideological background, their ethnic background, their nationality. I believe everyone has a right to health care. Everyone has a right to a free college education, a chance for upward social mobility, decent housing, decent job, good wages, just an opportunity to better themselves and the next generation, that is at the root of my worldview. That’s what I believe in in an uncompromising manner.

Whereas I think reactionary ideals oftentimes revolve around striking the clock of progress back to the best of their ability, and assuming that if we were to maintain some semblance of traditionalism, some semblance of conservatism in the way that we govern, that society would improve.

I don’t agree with that, of course, because a lot of that traditionalism and a lot of that conservatism is ultimately about targeting marginalized, vulnerable populations and trying to design a society away from a class structure and a society defined by inalienable characteristics and traits that people can’t change, that must be excised. And the most extreme version of that we have seen time and time again, I think, has been very damaging throughout history, absolutely.

What concerns do you have about Trump and other right-wing figures using Kirk’s death to crack down on their perceived political enemies?

They’ve already started doing that. I think Donald Trump, his first statement immediately after Charlie Kirk’s untimely demise was to, without even profiling the shooter, go on this mission. [Trump and other right-wingers] were like, “This was done by radical leftist extremism, and it must be destroyed.”

The State Department has already made an announcement saying that they are going to look at people’s profiles at the point of entry into the country to see if they actually sufficiently grieved Charlie Kirk—which is, of course, a violation of the First Amendment, regardless of whether I personally think that’s inappropriate or not. I’m just simply talking about how ridiculous it is to make this kind of enforcement a priority and how unconstitutional it is.

And it’s very clear that they’re using this as a Reichstag fire moment, very clearly, using this as an opportunity to further persecute and prosecute political dissidents.

What do you think it says about the state of our media ecosystem and state of mind as a country that we’re reacting to this with such fervor, compared to other political violence, like the atrocities in Gaza?

I think there are many different reasons for this. Myself, I am very close to the situation, and as someone who has talked about the ongoing genocide of Palestinians since far before October 7, and has consistently talked about the genocide every single day post–October 7, I assume for like many Americans, seeing someone that they’ve seen on television get assassinated like this is probably a little bit more traumatic, because it hits close to home.

But the overall reflection on foreign policy decisions that are ultimately incredibly consequential for the lives of millions of Palestinians is oftentimes simply seen as collateral damage. There is a collateralization of human lives when they are seen as an unfortunate byproduct of our endless violence and bloodshed overseas. It sucks and it’s it’s sad to see, but it is the overall attitude.

Obviously, some people recognize how cruel this is, and they take action. But I think many others, even naysayers, even people who are critical of the state of Israel, people who are critical of American foreign policy, still see it as something a little bit different than the assassination of a high-profile person.

It’s clear to me that they see it differently than the wholesale slaughter of schoolchildren as well, because we didn’t see flags at half mast in the aftermath of 45 other school shootings. We didn’t see it.

Donald Trump didn’t even attend the funeral, as a symbolic gesture of the Minnesota Democratic state legislator—that was a high-profile political assassination, where the far-right shooter had numerous targets, virtually every single person involved in the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota.

And yet Republicans either made fun of the incident, even though it was harrowing—or they decided that the shooter was actually a radical leftist and moved along, and they just never really apologized for it. They never cared to show any grace whatsoever, even when it was a colleague, right? So I think we are living in an increasingly polarized time, or at the very least, I think people are becoming more vicious in the way that they communicate.

I personally think this is a foreseeable consequence of our material conditions deteriorating and people becoming more and more angry and resentful towards institutions, towards those in positions of power, and they feel rudderless, directionless in that anger. So these violent incidents continue, decentralized forms of violence and adventurism continue, and I fear that it will only continue to increase in frequency and magnitude.

Is there something that you see for a way for society to steer us away from further going down this path?

I think that radical change and the progressive direction must be presented by a truly anti-fascist party, a truly progressive party. And unfortunately, I think right now, the Democrats are simply plugging their ears and closing their eyes to the realities of growing fascism in this country.

Even before that, the the material conditions that have created this perfect environment for fascism to grow in this country: not addressing any of the economic pain that people experience, and simply offering platitudes or saying that we must defend these institutions at a time when people want these institutions to be blown up, is very clearly not the solution, and it pushes people in the opposite direction.

The direction where Republicans will take advantage of that anger, that growing anger and enmity, and redirect that anger back to vulnerable populations, marginalized communities, immigrants, trans people, gay people, Black people, women and very successfully capture the attention of a lot of these people that don’t really know why they’re mad, successfully shift their priorities away from the systems to more vulnerable neighbors that these people have that are much easier to dominate with, with legislation, much easier to dominate, with a militant police force, much easier to dominate than than to tackle the affordability crisis, for example, And that’s where we’re at in our increasingly violent rhetoric. That’s where we’re at with our increasingly violent political system.

What do you think of the whitewashing of Kirk’s legacy, and the kinds of things that he proudly said? Why do you think that’s happening?

I think it’s dangerous and maybe even part delusional. I always say that right-wing politics, conservatism, more often than not, revolves around hallucinating an alternative reality. It’s always born out of collective hysteria, right? I think it’s also delusional to look at that, to look at growing anger and resentment in this country and just simply say, well, some of the more extremist figureheads, especially if they have mass appeal, are simply young activists who wanted to have discourse, who wanted to have spirited debate.

It’s very obvious that the Steven Crowders of the world and the Ben Shapiros of the world, and even Charlie Kirk as well, [are] not actually invested in the Socratic method, but were just using easy slam dunks against hysterical college freshmen to make their side seem more appealing, seem stronger. It was entertainment. It was political entertainment, for the most part. For some weird reason, I think aesthetic fetishists and civility fetishists, more often than not, are liberals.

Having said that, I think we must be honest about the role that Charlie Kirk played—especially liberals. I find it very damaging that the first interaction that many older liberals and many older Americans are going to have with Charlie Kirk is going to be from these reputable institutions, a completely whitewashed perspective, without actually accurately reflecting on his political output as a political actor.

Charlie Kirk was a very successful political actor. He believed and stood by his principles and stood by his opinions, no matter how extreme I found them, no matter how distasteful or morally repugnant I found them. It’s a dishonest assessment to refuse to reckon with some of those opinions that he was very proud of.

I think it’s also a disservice to your audience if you don’t actually reveal what his positions were and then allow your audience to make up their minds for themselves on whether or not this person was simply a moderate voice and a champion of truth and justice, or if they were a very apt, very successful conservative firebrand and an agent provocateur of the highest order, who was one of Donald Trump’s most beloved advisors by the end of his by the end of his life.

You mentioned on your stream yesterday this idea of Kirk creating “content” and “propaganda” versus actual debate, and testing your ideas and truth against those who disagree. What did you mean by that? 

I think it’s all content and propaganda down to what I do as well. Propaganda is just PR marketing and advocacy, and that’s precisely what Charlie Kirk was doing, and that’s, in many respects, what I do. Debates are one part of that. The reason why I think debates can be constructive and instructive is that there is always a 20 percent in the margins, in the middle, that can go in either direction.

I think there are plenty of people who look to debates, that back-and-forth, to perhaps, for the first time ever, actually see the opposing side and their arguments and their talking points in the most honest way they possibly can. That’s the reason why I think debates can still be useful overall, and that’s precisely the reason why I was willing and able to debate Charlie Kirk.

So I’m not saying it’s unproductive completely, but I think the way that the format is designed—the way that people talk about it is the actual reason for it.

Has Kirk’s murder changed how you think about doing public events?

There’s definitely an environment of fear right now. I am never going to let fear dictate my life. If I, obviously, was fearful of death threats, threats being made to my life or my safety, I probably would have to choose a different business. Death threats are, unfortunately, a very common part of what I do. Seeing it materialize in front of me in real time is a very different story.

There’s also an air of vengeance right now where a lot of people are, where a lot of people are, understandably frustrated, understandably angry. I think in all of that anger and resentment, they are redirecting their attention back to those who they perceive as being responsible for this.

One of the things I find very interesting about this is that they say Charlie Kirk wanted to debate people and engage in a real back-and-forth, an earnest back-and-forth with interlocutors, right? Good-faith free speech conversations.

Well, I’m one of those people that he obviously wanted to do that with. I was the person he was supposed to debate, the high-profile person he was supposed to debate on the other side. And yet, many conservatives have decided that our back and forth throughout the years was the reason why he was assassinated.

When I find this sort of violence to be completely abhorrent and repugnant, and also even from the position of self-interest—like, why would I advocate for Charlie Kirk to ever be dealt with violently if I, myself, was going to sit next to him in a public event? The knives are out there. They’re looking for a target, and they put me in the crosshairs. It seems in ways that many right-wingers always had, but it’s definitely escalated a bit.

But as I’ve said over and over again, I’m just going to wait for the temperature to cool down a little bit and then most likely, go back to doing the same things that I was doing. There is always going to be a threat, but we just have to keep continuing, because the work continues.

Anything else you’d like to leave us with?

It’s been an interesting past 48 hours. Tensions are high. Emotions are high. A lot of people are very frustrated. They feel like they need a pressure valve. They need to release this pressure, this anger that has fomented and has grown. I worry that in the absence of good leadership, good governance that earnestly seeks to address their material conditions deteriorating, people will redirect their attention to dominating marginalized populations. It’s only going to get worse. So we need radical empathy more than anything else.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.