Dave Rubin and Russell Brand Process the Shooting of Charlie Kirk in Raw Real-Time Conversation
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
A Tribute to Charlie Kirk: The Dialogue Champion Murdered for Bridging Political Divides at 31
33:01
Kim Iversen Reacts to Charlie Kirk Assassination at Utah Valley University Event
37:06
Bari Weiss and Ben Shapiro Mourn Charlie Kirk After Assassination at Utah Valley University
1:24:32
Dave Rubin and Russell Brand Process the Shooting of Charlie Kirk in Raw Real-Time Conversation
Dave Rubin and Russell Brand recorded this unscripted conversation moments after learning that Charlie Kirk had been shot at Utah Valley University. With no confirmed information about his condition, the two friends grapple with shock, fear, and the broader questions this tragedy raises about political discourse, online rhetoric, and violence in America. Rubin, who worked closely with Kirk for years, shares personal stories while Brand reflects on the responsibility content creators bear in an increasingly polarized climate. This raw, unedited dialogue captures two people trying to make sense of an unthinkable moment as it unfolds.
Dave Rubin opens with a heavy disclaimer: what follows is not a normal show. He and Russell Brand recorded this conversation just as news broke that Charlie Kirk had been shot at Utah Valley University. At the time of recording, Kirk's condition remained unknown, with conflicting reports circulating online. Rubin had planned to begin the episode celebrating his producer Sage's wedding from the previous week, but instead found himself facing every content creator's nightmare—trying to process a tragedy involving a close friend in real time.
Rubin describes seeing the video of the shooting, though he chooses not to show it. Recording at 3:01 PM Eastern time on Wednesday, he explains that one Twitter report suggested Kirk was at the hospital, but beyond that, information remained scarce. The shock in his voice is palpable as he struggles to articulate his feelings about a friend whose fate hangs in the balance.
Charlie Kirk: Provocateur, Christian, Friend
Russell Brand offers his perspective on Kirk's role in the cultural landscape. He describes Kirk as someone who undeniably provokes—a characteristic embodied in Turning Point USA's "Prove Me Wrong" campus events. But Brand emphasizes a crucial distinction: Kirk is authentic. Whether you agree with him or not, Kirk genuinely believes what he says. He's not performing for profit or clout; he's a Christian and a Republican for whom Turning Point USA represents his life's work.
Brand raises a troubling question: in an era where heated rhetoric has become almost performative, where people casually use phrases like "that person should be killed" online, when does discourse cross from the realm of debate into real-world violence? Kirk enjoys combative discussion, but the fundamental assumption is that such engagement occurs within reason and certainly doesn't result in someone getting shot.
Rubin shares his history with Kirk, recounting the year and a half he spent doing events through Turning Point alongside Kirk and Candace Owens. Those tours involved police escorts, pulled fire alarms, constant threats, people throwing objects, and someone dumping hot coffee on him. Both Rubin and Brand have experienced various degrees of hostility at public events, making this violence feel simultaneously shocking and, disturbingly, not entirely surprising.
The Stew of Cultural Toxicity
Rubin reflects on a question that has haunted him: can something be both shocking and not surprising? He believes the answer is yes, because that's precisely how he feels about this shooting. He traces the roots of this moment back over a decade to when he was among a small group of people questioning safe spaces, trigger warnings, and the casual labeling of everyone as Nazis. Mainstream outlets like The New York Times dismissed these concerns as making mountains out of molehills.
But Rubin's fear was always about the long-term consequences. What happens when you raise entire generations to be terrified of ideas? When you tell young people the earth will end in 12 years, that the country is fundamentally racist, add gender ideology to the mix, and then amplify everything through the doom-scrolling culture of social media? The result, Rubin suggests, is a toxic stew that makes violence not just possible but almost inevitable.
Brand connects this to the broader phenomenon of how commodities and topics become weaponized in political discourse. Whether it's the Cracker Barrel logo or Tesla cars, everything gets pulled into a machine that demands people pick a side. Even with something as serious as a shooting, there's pressure to determine whether it's good or bad for "my side." This tribalistic framing prevents genuine human connection and understanding.
The Van Jones Moment and Escalating Rhetoric
Rubin brings up a CNN segment from just two days prior that now seems chillingly prescient. Host Abby Phillip, discussing the murder of a 23-year-old woman in Charlotte, suggested the case was giving "fodder to people like Charlie Kirk." She specifically named Kirk—a detail Rubin notes doesn't happen accidentally but reflects a producer's decision. Van Jones then claimed there was no reason to think the murder was racially motivated, but that "people like Charlie" wanted it to be, despite video evidence of the perpetrator saying twice, "I got that white girl."
In Rubin's analysis, rocket fuel had been poured on anti-Kirk rhetoric in the 48 hours before someone shot him. Charlie Kirk had become what Brand describes as an "avatar" for the extreme right in left-wing circles—a token name you could invoke to represent everything you oppose. But as Brand points out, Kirk is also a person, vulnerable and mortal, whose life might never be the same or might even end as a result of his wounds.
The Impossible Balance
Both Rubin and Brand wrestle with their own roles in this ecosystem. Brand describes them as "the shock jocks of our time," pioneers in online political commentary who must now confront how they participate in creating an environment where violence becomes possible. Rubin admits he thinks about this constantly, particularly during his August break when he considered how to do his show better—"better" meaning in a way that might deescalate rather than simply narrate civilization's decline.
But therein lies the dilemma: how do you forcefully oppose bad ideas without contributing to an atmosphere of escalating tension? Rubin points to examples like the communist running for mayor of New York City. He doesn't want anyone to shoot such a person, obviously, but the ideas are genuinely terrible. How do you discuss horrible ideas without either righteous anger or mockery? And if you choose humor as your tool, as Rubin and Brand often do, does that sufficiently deescalate, or does it merely add entertainment value to the broader cultural conflict?
Brand suggests the answer might lie in grace—specifically, the Christian principle of non-judgment, love, and tolerance that Charlie Kirk himself professes. Rather than approaching political opponents like the mayor with mockery or ridicule, Brand proposes attempting to understand why such figures become successful, doing so with love and appreciation rather than entertainment value as the primary goal. He references the Oscar Wilde quote tattooed on his arm: "If you want to tell people the truth, you better make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you."
Live and Let Live—But What If They Won't?
Brand raises a structural question: perhaps the solution is devolving power so that different communities can live according to their values. If New York wants a communist mayor, maybe New York should have one. Some people want to provide gender therapy to their children; others want to raise them Amish. Are Americans going to shoot each other until only one set of ideas remains?
Rubin acknowledges the appeal of "live and let live" but identifies the fundamental problem: one set of people is okay with that approach, and another set isn't. What do you do when you're willing to leave others alone, but they want what you have or seek to encroach on your values and territory? This asymmetry, in Rubin's view, makes pure tolerance an incomplete solution.
The Kobe Story and Life's Fragility
Rubin shares a personal story about Kobe Bryant's death that illuminates the fragility of life. A day or two before Bryant died, Rubin was living in LA and happened to flip past the Lakers channel. He saw Bryant looking better than ever—healthy, bearded, wearing a sharp suit, embodying someone living his best life. Rubin watched for a minute, then changed the channel.
The next day, while waiting for an Uber to LAX, Rubin saw the news about the helicopter crash. He immediately teared up, despite never having met Bryant. His Uber driver, a young Black man in his late twenties or early thirties, was hysterically crying—bawling like a child. Rubin told him they didn't need to rush, and for half an hour they just sat there talking about Kobe, working through the grief together.
The point of the story, beyond its emotional power, is the reminder it offers: Rubin saw someone at the peak of life, and the next day that person was gone. This tenuous nature of existence applies equally to Charlie Kirk lying in a hospital with a gunshot wound.
The Brutal Reality Sets In
As the conversation continues, Rubin and Brand receive an update. Though the specific details aren't shared aloud, the gravity in Rubin's voice suggests the news is not good. Rubin mentions having seen the video of Kirk being shot and describes it as disturbing. The two decide to end the recording rather than continue processing in real time.
Before signing off, Brand offers a prayer—a genuine, heartfelt plea that cuts through the intellectual analysis that preceded it. He asks God to show them what can be authentically learned from this tragedy. Is there a way to reach out to one another differently? He acknowledges that the final video will soon have millions of views, with some people joking, others crying, and all attempting to deploy it for their own benefit and advantage.
Brand prays for comfort for those genuinely affected, for Kirk's family, and for fatal consequences to be avoided if possible. He reminds listeners that less high-profile people suffer and die every day in ways that don't impact the public because of lack of connection, but death is universal and inevitable. His prayer calls for appreciation of life, celebration of beautiful things like marriage and family, and for a way beyond the "incessant blizzard of entertainment, vitriol, and rhetoric."
He asks that he and Rubin, as participants in this media ecosystem, find ways to be "valuable guardians of something that goes beyond continually escalating these tensions." The prayer ends with a direct appeal: "In the name of Jesus, please look after dear Charlie and his family. Amen."
An Unscripted Moment of Humanity
This conversation represents something rare in modern political media: two people who make their living commenting on current events caught completely off guard by tragedy, processing it without preparation or agenda. There are no talking points, no carefully crafted narratives, just two friends trying to make sense of violence directed at someone they know.
The discussion raises questions without providing easy answers. How much responsibility do content creators bear for the cultural atmosphere? Can you forcefully oppose ideas while promoting peace? Is mockery a tool of de-escalation or escalation? Where is the line between passionate advocacy and dangerous rhetoric?
What emerges most clearly is the humanity of all involved—Kirk as more than a political avatar, Rubin and Brand as more than political commentators, even political opponents as more than abstractions to be defeated. In the face of real violence and potential death, the performance falls away, leaving only the recognition that these are actual people whose lives matter beyond their utility in political warfare.
As Rubin noted at the opening, this is not a normal show. It's a document of a specific moment when the abstract became terrifyingly concrete, when rhetoric met reality, and when two people in the media tried to grapple with what that means for how they do their work and live their lives.
