GTA Online Users Develop Charlie Kirk Assassination Tasks, Rockstar Reacts by Removing Them

Rockstar Games is presently dealing with a difficult predicament involving some participants of Grand Theft Auto Online (GTA Online), who are using the recently implemented mission creator to replicate the contentious assassination of right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk. This has ignited a substantial reaction from both the gaming community and Rockstar itself.
The incident with Kirk transpired in September 2022, when he was unfortunately shot during a public gathering in Utah. After the occurrence, numerous public figures encountered backlash for their remarks or jokes regarding the shooting, with some even losing their jobs because of it. In December 2022, Rockstar unveiled a mission creator feature in GTA Online, enabling players to develop and share their own missions. It wasn’t long before certain users started crafting missions that resembled the circumstances of Kirk’s assassination, leading Rockstar to intervene against these creations.
On January 12, 2026, a significant post from the Twitter account GTA 6Info highlighted a user-generated mission called “We Are Charlie Kirk,” in which players must assassinate a character resembling Kirk in a campus-like environment. Following this, it was reported that Rockstar Games included “Charlie Kirk” in their profanity filter, presumably to hinder further creations or searches connected to him. Although this claim remains unverified, attempts to look up “Charlie Kirk” on GTA Online’s custom jobs site yield an error message, similar to the outcome encountered when searching for other prohibited terms.
In spite of the ban on Kirk’s name, players have started utilizing alternative names such as “Charlie Pink” or blending Kirk’s first and last names to circumvent the restrictions and continue producing assassination-themed missions. This incident has triggered discussions surrounding freedom of expression within gaming, the responsibilities of game developers, and the ramifications of crafting content based on real-life tragedies.
As the gaming community reacts to these occurrences, the possibility of additional missions surfacing raises questions about how Rockstar will address this situation moving forward. The company appears to be caught in a cat-and-mouse game with creators as they strive to suppress these recreations while preserving the open-world flexibility that players anticipate from GTA Online. This ongoing dynamic underscores the challenges Rockstar encounters in managing controversial content in a live-service environment, where user-generated content can result in unpredictable outcomes.
The persistent interest in reimagining sensitive events within gaming reflects broader societal discussions regarding violence, entertainment, and the limits of satire in the digital age. How Rockstar opts to respond in the future will undoubtedly be closely monitored by both players and observers of gaming culture.