Although I generally hold a degree of respect for the prestige and history of *The Wall Street Journal*, there are moments when the publication makes conspicuous editorial choices that remind me of its ownership under Rupert Murdoch. In this recent instance, the paper came alarmingly close to amplifying rhetoric that veers into the territory of anti-trans blood libel, doing so in the immediate aftermath of the shooting involving Charlie Kirk.
During its rolling live-update blog coverage, the *Journal* published an assertion that read: “Ammunition engraved with transgender and antifascist ideology was found inside the rifle authorities believe was used in Kirk’s shooting, according to an internal law enforcement bulletin and a source familiar with the investigation.” This phrasing, almost sensational in tone, was promptly echoed and circulated across right-wing social media accounts, effectively magnifying its reach and potential harm. Yet, the claim itself soon proved to be a serious journalistic misstep. While investigators did indeed discover bullets etched with phrases and imagery, none of the markings made reference to transgender identities or ideology. The story gradually unraveled, first when a *New York Times* source indicated that the *WSJ*’s reporting contradicted law enforcement conclusions, followed by CNN’s clarification that investigators had only observed arrows on bullet casings. The situation was definitively clarified when Utah Governor Spencer Cox stated in a press conference that there was no evidence tying the messages to anything concerning transgender individuals.
The danger in perpetuating such misinformation lies not only in the immediate damage of false reporting but also in the backdrop against which it occurs. For years, members of the far-right, including sitting U.S. legislators, have pushed a narrative blaming transgender individuals for acts of gun violence, despite these claims being unfounded. Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example, misleadingly asserted that a Philadelphia mass shooter in 2023 was transgender — a claim that proved false once the suspect was identified. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley repeated the pattern in 2024, alleging that a Texas church shooting was carried out by “a transgender, pro-Palestine radical,” again with no basis in fact. Even Representative Paul Gosar, who notoriously blamed the Uvalde school shooter on so-called “a transsexual leftist illegal alien,” eventually deleted the false statement when proven wrong. These recurring attempts to scapegoat a vulnerable community demonstrate a disturbing effort to normalize the demonization of trans people for broader political purposes.
The fallout after Kirk’s death illustrated this once more. Figures as prominent as former President Donald Trump, Representative Anna Paulina Luna, and Elon Musk wasted no time in assigning blame to leftists broadly, despite any substantiating evidence. Journalists, however, have long understood that early reports emerging from chaotic incidents like mass shootings are notoriously unreliable, often riddled with inaccuracies that can later be corrected. With that knowledge in mind — and given the established record of right-wing figures weaponizing misinformation to slander trans people and leftists — the Journal’s willingness to publish unverified claims was not only irresponsible but also reckless in ways that could have tangible, real-world consequences.
This lapse is even more serious when considered against the larger, hostile political climate trans people face. For over a decade, organized attacks on transgender people have intensified, with Republican lawmakers treating the vilification of this community as a central political issue. Legislation targeting transgender individuals has proliferated: so-called “bathroom bills” effectively criminalize the mere public existence of transgender individuals; healthcare access has been savagely curtailed, with even the Supreme Court narrowing protections for gender-affirming care; and major hospital systems such as the University of Michigan’s have terminated services for minors, citing political intimidation and legal threats. These developments show that trans people endure persistent, systemic attempts to erase their rights and restrict their lives. In such an environment, a news outlet of *The Wall Street Journal*’s stature has a heightened responsibility to avoid exacerbating prejudice with poorly vetted reporting.
When criticized, the *Journal* initially defended its decision-making, explaining that in the unpredictable environment of breaking news, it updated its coverage as new information unfolded and attributed its reporting to internal sources. However, critics immediately noted the absence of a correction or even an editor’s note acknowledging the harmful implications of the original claim. Only later did the paper append a formal note clarifying that although an internal law enforcement bulletin referenced messages suggesting “transgender and anti-fascist ideology,” the Department of Justice swiftly urged caution, stating that the report may not accurately reflect the ammunition engravings. Ultimately, the engravings turned out to be crudely juvenile internet memes rather than ideological statements — including phrasings like “If you read this, you are gay lmao,” as well as niche pop culture references. What these revealed was not an association with a coherent ideology but rather the fragmented absurdity of online culture, making the Journal’s rush to associate trans identity with violence even more baseless.
Questions remain about how such a misjudgment occurred, but one plausible answer lies in journalistic competition. Around the same time, far-right commentator Steven Crowder publicized an alleged leak from an ATF officer, claiming bullets had trans-themed engravings. Despite his reputation for stoking controversy, violating broadcast standards, and spreading disinformation, Crowder’s post gained traction online. It seems entirely feasible that staff at *The Wall Street Journal*, rather than exercising restraint, hurried to match or outpace Crowder’s viral claim. This desire to match sensational reporting would not surprise readers of hyperbolic Murdoch-owned outlets such as *The New York Post* or Fox News, but it reflects a disappointing lapse for a paper considered Murdoch’s flagship of “serious journalism.”
By choosing to amplify a shaky and inflammatory claim in an already volatile cultural climate, *The Wall Street Journal* endangered an already stigmatized minority. The story, as it continues to evolve, underscores not only the responsibility of journalists to fact-check but also their obligation to resist parroting partisan narratives that serve political propaganda. The bullets did contain engravings, but their content reflected an incoherent mixture of internet ephemera rather than any anti-fascist or transgender ideology. Despite these clarifications, the *Journal* has neither issued a retraction nor offered a direct apology. Instead, its coverage has quietly shifted toward portraying the alleged shooter as a troubled young man dramatically affected by recent political shifts. Yet, the damage lingers. Once again, a leading institution of American journalism demonstrated how quickly perceived authority can collapse when reckless competition and political alignment override integrity.
In the end, the incident reaffirms an unfortunate truth: as long as *The Wall Street Journal* remains under the influence of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, its reputation for credibility will occasionally bow to the imperatives of political narrative. And when that narrative aims its fire at marginalized people already under intense cultural and legislative attack, the failure cannot simply be described as a mistake — it is, in every sense, a betrayal of journalistic responsibility.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/politics/777630/wsj-trans-misinformation-charlie-kirk
