An anonymously run website that promised to catalogue people accused of “celebrating” the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk drew tens of thousands of submissions within days of launching and triggered warnings from civil liberties advocates, even as senior elected officials and right-wing influencers urged employers to punish those named. The site, which debuted as “Expose Charlie’s Murderers” before rebranding itself the “Charlie Kirk Data Foundation,” said in posts on X that it had logged more than 60,000 entries by Sunday evening and briefly published a searchable list before going offline. “Is an employee or student of yours supporting political violence online? Look them up on this website,” read an early landing page captured by reporters. A later statement on the site insisted, “This is not a doxxing website. We lawfully collect publicly-available data to analyze the prominence of support for political violence in the interest of public education.”
The effort followed a wave of firings and suspensions of workers over social media posts about Kirk’s Sept. 10 shooting at Utah Valley University, as prominent conservatives framed the campaign as a moral response to what they called “celebration” of political violence. Vice President JD Vance, guest-hosting Kirk’s podcast on Monday, told listeners: “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out,” adding, “And hell, call their employer.” The Washington Post reported that more than 30 institutions — from federal agencies to universities and private companies — had disciplined employees for comments deemed inappropriate or celebratory, amid mounting pressure from the right.
Within 48 hours of launch, the website’s operators reported the project “had grown to more than 63,000 people,” according to the Post, which noted the list was later removed and the site became inaccessible. A post on the project’s X account on Sept. 14 declared, “That was quick. 63,648 data entries,” and linked to the site. The Guardian, citing the same X feed, said the operation had started as “Expose Charlie’s Murderers” and rebranded to “Charlie Kirk Data Foundation,” and reported the site was offline by Tuesday after claiming it had received “more than 63,000 submissions.” Axios, which described the group as “crowdsourcing a database,” said the organizers boasted they would “reshape the rank-and-file of America’s institutions” and that the database would be searchable “by general location, employer, and industry type.”
While the numbers climbed, the project’s scope and methods drew immediate scrutiny. Wired reviewed the site as it went live and reported that entries included names, employers, locations and social accounts of people the operators believed had “glorified” Kirk’s death. The outlet said an “About” section added Thursday repeated the claim that it was “not a doxxing website,” describing itself as “a lawful data aggregator of publicly-available information.” Wired interviewed individuals who said they had been listed and subsequently faced torrents of harassment; one journalist, Rachel Gilmore, said, “This website has me genuinely afraid for my safety,” adding she had received emails and direct messages promising to “find out where I live.”
As the crowd-sourced submissions surged, activists with large online followings began amplifying alleged examples to their audiences, urging employers to act. Fox News reported that Students for Trump chair Ryan Fournier, whose X account has more than a million followers, said he had received 51,000 tips and claimed “at least 76 people have been fired” after he posted screenshots and employer contact information. “For years, the left tried to destroy people for simply having conservative values,” he told Fox News Digital. “They ruined careers, families, livelihoods. But now, we are fighting back.” He added: “The American people are awake… And we are not stopping.”
The push has been encouraged by influential figures in government and media. In addition to Vance’s remarks, the Post reported that tech billionaire Elon Musk amplified a spreadsheet that purported to list people who had posted “vile things” about Kirk’s assassination, writing, “They are the ones poisoning the minds of our children.” The paper also quoted conservative activist Robby Starbuck, a longtime friend of Kirk, as saying he had amplified calls for terminations because he wanted to send a message “that this behavior is intolerable in a sane society.”
Civil liberties advocates warned that the combination of a mass submission portal, public naming and employer pressure risks overreach and error. “When we talk about people at this scale, they’re doing very different things,” said Adam Goldstein of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, cautioning against treating all posts with the same broad brush. “To put them all in the same bucket and say all these people should be canceled, really?” Jacob Mchangama, executive director of the Future of Free Speech, told Axios that while the database may not be illegal, “it could have a chilling effect,” adding that making a searchable list appears intended to ensure “punitive consequences for people who have said things that the organizers don’t like.”
In several instances, Wired found, those targeted disputed that they had celebrated violence. One man said his inclusion stemmed from a comment made before Kirk’s death that had been “spun” to fit the site’s agenda; another person said threats proliferated after the listing, including messages urging self-harm. The site also solicited submissions with detailed employer information and screenshots, and at the time of Wired’s review said it intended to create a “permanent archive” with a search feature. The outlet reported that prominent online personalities, including Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok and former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, directed their audiences to individuals and institutions, and reproduced an instance in which Laura Loomer wrote, “I will be spending my night making everyone I find online who celebrates his death Famous,” later posting a call to a workplace and writing of a target, “I hope this dumb bitch is fired.”
The campaign has already had consequences beyond the website itself. The Post detailed disciplinary actions across agencies and employers, including an administrative leave for a Secret Service agent whose Facebook post about Kirk prompted calls for termination, and investigations announced by state education officials. CBS News and the Associated Press similarly reported cascades of sanctions and investigations of teachers and public employees over remarks about Kirk’s death, while Axios chronicled high-profile cases in media and academia. Those developments unfolded alongside separate, decentralized reporting drives: Fox News highlighted Fournier’s claim that his posts had led to multiple firings; conservatives praised companies that acted quickly; and state officials in Republican-led states publicly urged citizens to report workers.
The website’s appeal to crowd power — and its rebrand — echoed earlier online blacklists and watchlists that have periodically flared in American politics. The Post quoted the site’s updated banner language and its claim to “lawfully collect publicly-available data.” Axios captured a separate statement in which the operators wrote: “We will reshape the rank-and-file of America’s institutions. Academia. Law enforcement. The military. Finance. Law. Government. Bureaucracy. Medicine and healthcare too.” The Guardian placed the project within a broader vice-presidential call to “work to dismantle the institutions that promote violence and terrorism,” remarks Vance delivered while hosting Kirk’s show.
News and lifestyle outlets in the UK amplified the scale of the submissions, with Tyla reporting on Monday that “more than 50,000 people could find their personal information being shared” via a new website designed to “expose” those who “celebrated” Kirk’s murder. Axios and the Post, citing the project’s own posts, placed the figure above 60,000 as of Sunday night, with the Post noting the site’s brief publication of a searchable list before it was removed. The Guardian said the site remained down on Tuesday.
The site and its imitators have also galvanized critics who point to the risk of misidentification, context collapse and vigilantism. Wired reported that some entries cited posts that did not advocate violence; others used old or inaccurate employment details. The Post quoted Goldstein questioning the wisdom — even if legality — of mass employer punishments pressed by political campaigns. Axios quoted Mchangama warning of a chilling effect on debate. And while some conservative officials emphasized that private employers can act on speech, others urged clear lines between protected expression and threats. Even as Vance and allies applauded firings, the Post cited Musk’s prior pledge to fund legal bills for people punished over posts on X, a stance critics said sits uneasily with sharing a spreadsheet of alleged offenders.
The immediate future of the “Charlie Kirk Data Foundation” is unclear. Its core claims — that it is archiving public data rather than doxxing, and that it seeks to educate rather than punish — are contradicted, critics argue, by the site’s stated intention to build an employer-searchable index and by the rhythm of call-and-report campaigns that have accompanied it. As of Tuesday evening, the site remained offline; its X account, however, continued to tout submission totals and to post language casting the project as a tool to “clear out Leftwing Radicals.” The Post reported that the site’s operators declined to identify themselves. Axios said they described themselves as “political operatives that have represented major parties and candidates.”
For those already named, the stakes are personal. “Someone could get killed or, if the harassment they’re receiving is anything like what I’ve gotten, even engage in self-harm,” Gilmore told Wired after she said she received death and rape threats. In a separate case reviewed by the outlet, a target said information on the site was out of date but still drew threats claiming to know where he lived. Such accounts underscore the hazard civil liberties groups see in mass-submission blacklists that rely on viral clips, screenshots and outrage without formal standards or appeals. “If you start purging employees every time the public demands it, how many employees will you have left after five or 10 years?” Goldstein asked in the Post’s report.
Even so, many on the right have portrayed the campaign as overdue accountability. Fournier told Fox News Digital that his posts had drawn “300 million views” and that “we are not stopping.” The Post quoted Starbuck casting the firings drive as a necessary message; Vance told Kirk’s audience there could be “no civility in the celebration of political assassination.” Against that backdrop, the site’s assertion that it merely aggregates public data is likely to remain contested as long as employers, schools and agencies continue to weigh social media complaints in personnel decisions. Whether the list reappears — and whether it stays within the “educational” framing its backers prefer — could determine whether thousands more people find themselves searchable in a database built to punish them for how they reacted when a public figure was gunned down.
