Erica Kirk Sidesteps a Direct Question on Trump’s Rhetoric at CBS Town Hall

A CBS town hall featuring Erica Kirk took an uncomfortable turn when she was asked a direct and carefully framed question about Donald Trump’s role in escalating political rhetoric in the United States—and her response left many viewers unsatisfied.

The exchange centered on a broader concern that has defined American politics for nearly a decade: the normalization of extreme language from the highest levels of power. Critics argue that Donald Trump has established what can only be described as a monopoly on rhetorical escalation, pushing political discourse to new lows with alarming regularity. From birther conspiracies about Barack Obama, to chants of “Lock her up” in 2016, to election fraud lies, and now repeated calls to punish, imprison, or even execute political opponents, Trump’s language has reshaped the political atmosphere in profound ways.

This context set the stage for a question posed by Hunter Kak, a Utah Valley University student and the last person to speak publicly with Charlie Kirk during the debate that preceded Kirk’s murder. Hunter, who has since spoken openly about the trauma of that moment, was invited by CBS to ask Erica Kirk a follow-up question—one that focused squarely on top-down political radicalization.

A Carefully Crafted Question

Hunter began by acknowledging Erica Kirk’s public calls for peace and unity. He also condemned people on his own side of the political spectrum who cheered Charlie Kirk’s death, making clear that he viewed such reactions as morally indefensible. But he then shifted to the heart of his concern: the outsized responsibility of powerful leaders.

Hunter pointed to Donald Trump as the most influential political figure in the world, emphasizing that when someone in that position uses violent or dehumanizing language, the consequences are far more severe than when it comes from anonymous individuals online. He cited Trump’s recent calls for Democratic lawmakers to be tried for sedition—punishable by death—and his reposting of messages explicitly calling to “hang them.”

Hunter’s request was simple and direct: if we are serious about stopping political violence, shouldn’t we hold leaders on both sides to the same standard? In that spirit, he asked Erica Kirk whether she would condemn Donald Trump’s violent rhetoric.

A Non-Answer Disguised as a Moral Lecture

Erica Kirk’s response did not address Trump by name. Instead, she reframed the issue entirely.

She spoke about personal responsibility, parenting, family values, and the dangers of children being exposed to harmful content online. She emphasized that political violence is wrong, cited her own family’s experience with violence, and urged parents to “step up” rather than handing children devices and allowing them to fall down radicalizing online rabbit holes.

While none of these points are inherently wrong, they were largely irrelevant to the question that had been asked.

Hunter was not asking about bottom-up radicalization driven by poor parenting or excessive screen time. He was asking about top-down radicalization—the kind that flows from presidents, party leaders, and influential figures whose words shape national norms. Erica Kirk’s response functioned as a rhetorical sidestep, shifting responsibility away from those in power and onto families and individuals.

When Hunter followed up by asking whether political leaders have a responsibility to lower the temperature, Kirk replied that “everyone” shares that responsibility, once again avoiding any specific condemnation of Trump.

Why the Distinction Matters

The failure to directly address Trump’s rhetoric is not a minor omission—it strikes at the core of the problem. Parenting choices, internet regulation, and media consumption all matter, but they cannot neutralize the impact of a president who routinely models extreme behavior.

A teenager can be raised in a healthy, supportive environment and still be exposed to presidential statements calling political opponents “vermin,” “gnats,” or traitors who deserve execution. A child can be shielded from social media and still turn on the television, read a newspaper at school, or hear classmates repeating what the president said the night before.

When the president of the United States repeatedly claims elections are stolen, calls for mass punishment of political enemies, or legitimizes violence through rhetoric, it creates an alternate reality for millions of people. The events of January 6—and the more than 1,500 arrests that followed—are a stark example of how powerful and dangerous presidential rhetoric can be.

The Weight of Leadership

No one is arguing that Democrats or liberals have never said irresponsible things. Online spaces across the political spectrum can be ugly and extreme. But the difference lies in power. During Joe Biden’s presidency, there were no repeated calls from the Oval Office to “hang” Republicans, no systematic dehumanization of political opponents as animals or traitors, and no sustained campaign to convince supporters that democracy itself was a lie.

That asymmetry matters.

Hunter Kak’s question was not a trap. It was an invitation to model moral leadership by acknowledging that Donald Trump’s words carry extraordinary weight—and that they have contributed significantly to the toxic political climate we now inhabit.

Erica Kirk chose not to accept that invitation.

A Missed Opportunity

In the end, Kirk’s answer came across as polished but evasive, empathetic in tone but hollow in substance. By refusing to name Trump or directly confront his rhetoric, she reinforced the perception that calls for “unity” often collapse when accountability becomes inconvenient.

What she said was not entirely wrong. It just wasn’t an answer.

And in a moment when Americans are desperate for honesty about how we arrived at this level of political volatility, sidestepping the role of the most powerful political figure in the country feels less like leadership—and more like avoidance.