Stephen King, one of the world's most recognisable authors, has apologised for spreading a false claim about murdered activist Charlie Kirk, but the row is still raging.
King accused Kirk of promoting violence against gay people before deleting his post, admitting the mistake and trying to move on. Yet senior Republicans are now urging Kirk's family to sue, sparking speculation the horror legend could face a multimillion-pound lawsuit.
The Post That Sparked a Firestorm
The row began on Thursday when King wrote on X: 'He advocated stoning gays to death. Just sayin'.' The post referred to comments Kirk made on his podcast in 2024, when he responded to children's entertainer Ms Rachel quoting Leviticus on loving one's neighbour.
Kirk had pointed out that the same Biblical passage also mentions stoning as punishment for homosexuality. He presented this as an example of cherry-picking scripture, not as an endorsement.
Stephen King, who has 6.8 million followers, posted an outrageous lie about Charlie Kirk. That post had 30 million views.
— Stacey (@StaceyMonette27) September 12, 2025
He’s now deleted the post, admits he lied & says “I have apologized.”
Not good enough. This is the garbage that gets people killed. pic.twitter.com/AqOkQlVxfN
Please share if you agree that the estate of Charlie Kirk should sue Stephen King for defamation over this heinously false accusation
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) September 12, 2025
He’s crossed a line
It will prove costly pic.twitter.com/mtahSSLm54
King's interpretation, however, was swiftly denounced as misleading. By Friday morning, the 77-year-old had deleted the post and issued an apology. 'I apologise for saying Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays,' he wrote. 'What he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages.'
You are a horrible, evil, twisted liar.
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 12, 2025
No, he did not.
Your party—which you shamelessly shilled for—sent $100 billion to the Ayatollah… who does routinely murder homosexuals.
Why are you so dishonest & filled with hate? https://t.co/slxhbWBbQ0
When Senator Ted Cruz branded him a 'horrible, evil, twisted liar', King replied: 'The horrible, evil, twisted liar apologises. This is what I get for reading something on Twitter [without] fact-checking. Won't happen again.'
Outrage and Calls for Legal Action
The apology did little to stem anger among conservatives. Senator Mike Lee of Utah declared that Kirk's estate should consider suing King for defamation. 'He's crossed a line. It will prove costly,' Lee warned on X.
Conservative influencer Paul A. Szypula also accused King of 'defaming the memory of Charlie Kirk', adding: 'Shame on King. He should apologise.'
Stephen King is defaming the memory of Charlie Kirk.
— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) September 12, 2025
King wrongly claims Kirk advocated for violence towards gay people.
The clip King is referring to actually shows Kirk illustrating how some people cherry-pick passages from the Bible.
Shame on King. He should apologize. pic.twitter.com/jF9AMVSY7y
King's comments became a rallying point for Republicans already mourning Kirk, who was shot and killed on stage at Utah Valley University on 10 September.
Texas senator Ted Cruz accused King of dishonesty, comparing his remarks with US foreign policy under Democrats. 'Your party... sent $100 billion to the Ayatollah, who does routinely murder homosexuals,' Cruz wrote.
🔥🚨BREAKING: Millions of Americans are requesting for Charlie Kirk’s estate to sue Hollywood author Stephen King over his defamatory statement. pic.twitter.com/MWmU9xV88v
— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) September 12, 2025
The dispute added fuel to a politically charged atmosphere in the wake of Kirk's death.
Turning Point USA, the conservative organisation he co-founded, has pledged to continue his work, while his widow Erika Kirk has already vowed that 'the movement will not die'.
Could Stephen King Lose Millions?
Defamation cases involving public figures are notoriously difficult in the United States, with the Supreme Court requiring proof of 'actual malice' — that a falsehood was published knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth.
King's swift deletion and apology could make such a claim harder to prove.
Yet the financial stakes are high. King's fortune, estimated in the hundreds of millions, makes him an attractive legal target.
A lawsuit, even if unsuccessful, could drag on for years, costing significant sums in legal fees and damaging his reputation.
For conservatives, pursuing the case would also carry symbolic weight, casting King's misstep as part of a wider battle over media bias and cultural power.
For King, the incident illustrates how quickly an impulsive online remark can become a national controversy.
