The Her Campus National Editors write about products we love and think you’ll love too. Her Campus has affiliate partnerships, so we get a share of the revenue from your purchase. All products are in stock and all prices are accurate as of publication.
A recent trend has taken Starbucks baristas by storm, sparking waves of angry customers and outbreaks of discourse among employees and patrons.
Following the recent events of political commentator Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Sept. 10, many of his supporters have sought “unique” ways to pay tribute to him — one involving his favorite Starbucks drink, the Mint Majesty. These supporters are heading to their local Starbucks with Kirk’s signature order and are even going so far as to adopt Charlie Kirk’s name when prompted for a name for their beverage.
Starbucks has a long history of having certain rules on what can and cannot be written on drinks. Seen in a guest writer excerpt for The New York Times, former barista and current Starbucks Workers United member Cassie Pritchard writes on this subject amid the recent backlash taking over stores.
“Slang, pop-culture references, current events and even anodyne messages like ‘Happy Black History Month‘ or ‘Happy Pride‘ are frowned upon, lest they be misinterpreted or give offense to someone, somewhere,” Pritchard said. With these set precedents in mind, writing Kirk’s name on a drink could potentially result in counteraction against baristas’ jobs.
When put in these positions, baristas are not only faced with worries about job security but are also subjected to uncomfortable situations. These circumstances could leave them feeling trapped between corporate policy and customer satisfaction, and create the fear of being portrayed negatively on social media.
One of the first viral videos of this phenomenon was posted on Sept. 15, when a customer walked into a Starbucks in Yucaipa, California, and recorded themselves ordering a drink under the name Charlie Kirk. The Starbucks employee refuses, saying it is a “political name”.
A day after this incident, Starbucks issued a statement clarifying, “when a customer wants to use a different name — including the name Charlie Kirk — when ordering their drink in our café, we aim to respect their preference.” This resulted in the employees of the original Starbucks location from the viral video announcing they are unionizing with Starbucks Workers United, in an effort to show corporate that they were “thrown under the bus” after Starbucks lied about its cup-writing policies in the above statement.
The statement continued to encourage the behavior of Kirk supporters and did not resolve the issue. Another incident that gained national attention was a customer following through on the trend involving Kirk. However, instead of calling out Kirk when the drink was done, the barista brought the customer’s drink to their table. This in turn set the customer off, where she exclaimed, “This is what Charlie Kirk died for,” pointing to the drink, while arguing with another customer trying to mitigate the conflict.
Another video went viral on Sept. 20, involving a woman from Ohio, Autumn Perkins, who ordered another Kirk drink. Upon receiving her order, she found the words, “racist’s favorite drink” written on her cup. Perkins did one interview with Fox News, where she expressed hope that “people start leading with kindness.”
The employee who wrote the message was promptly fired. However, this situation raises the question of how much Kirk’s supporters can try to portray him in a favorable light when, in reality, many people saw him as someone filled with hate. This is why Perkins’ statement is contradictory to some when compared to the platform on which Kirk operated. Some would say Kirk was famous for having expressed racist viewpoints on his show, The Charlie Kirk Show.
In 2024, Kirk said, “Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.” In that same year, he claimed, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.” These are just two examples of the racism that Kirk would promote on his platform to his followers, which show the opposite of the “kindness” Perkins asks for.
Honoring Kirk by putting everyday Starbucks employees in uncomfortable and job-threatening situations should not be a new social media trend. To protect Starbucks workers and halt the online outrage, Kirk’s involvement as a political point in Starbucks needs to come to an end. Instead of prioritizing the recently deceased memory in ways that harm others, we must focus on spreading actual “kindness” through our everyday interactions, which includes ordering at Starbucks.