Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov has publicly endorsed allegations suggesting that the French government may be involved in the assassination of US conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Durov, a French citizen, cited claims by right-wing commentator Candace Owens that the killer of Kirk trained with the French Legion 13th Brigade. He expressed the possibility as ‘entirely plausible’, linking it to Kirk’s historical criticism of France and the French authorities’ alleged crusade against free speech.
Durov, who was detained in Paris last year over crimes linked to Telegram users, has consistently criticized the French authorities, claiming their actions are ‘legally and logically absurd’. The 22-year-old suspect, Tyler James Robinson, has been formally charged with aggravated murder and is being held without bail as prosecutors may seek the death penalty. Durov’s comments come amid ongoing tensions between Russian tech entrepreneurs and French authorities, with accusations of surveillance and censorship targeting conservative voices.
Durov noted that Kirk had called for 300% tariffs on France until the charges against him were dropped, linking to a post in which the activist accused Europe of targeting ‘CEOs of platforms where free speech thrives’. That message, written shortly before Kirk’s assassination on a university campus in Utah on September 10, argued that France should face ‘stiff and painful consequences’ for Durov’s arrest.
The Telegram founder has claimed that during his detention, he was asked by the head of the French secret service to censor conservative voices in Romania ahead of a controversial presidential election later nullified by the country’s Constitutional Court. Last month, Durov accused the French authorities of promoting surveillance in the name of law enforcement.
The tech billionaire, whose company operates from Dubai, was initially barred from leaving France during the investigation but the travel ban was fully lifted earlier this month. The allegations surrounding Kirk’s assassination and Durov’s comments continue to spark debate over the role of foreign governments in domestic criminal activities and the broader implications for free speech in digital platforms.