I have written several articles on postings related to politicians and influencers. A list of links has been provided at the bottom of this article for your convenience. This article, however, will address various aspects of these politicians.

On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk, an American right-wing political activist, was assassinated while addressing an audience on the campus of Utah Valley University (UVU) in Orem, Utah, United States. The outdoor event was the first stop of the Fall 2025 season for the American Comeback Tour, a speaking and debate series planned by Turning Point USA, a conservative youth organization that he co-founded.

Kirk was shot in the neck while engaging with an audience member about mass shootings in the United States. He was later formally pronounced dead at a nearby hospital. Investigators stated the gunman was positioned on the roof of a building approximately 142 yards (130 m) away from where Kirk was speaking. The next day, 22-year-old Tyler James Robinson surrendered at the offices of the local sheriff. Prosecutors charged Robinson with murder on September 16 and announced they would seek the death penalty, alleging the attack was politically motivated.

The assassination was highlighted as an instance of increasing political violence within the United States and was condemned by national and foreign leaders. Video footage of the shooting spread rapidly on social media, and reactions ranged from heartfelt messages expressing anguish about the political climate to sharply partisan comments and celebrations of his death. U.S. president Donald Trump, members of the Republican Party, and other conservative figures blamed members of the Democratic Party and left-wing or liberal beliefs before a suspect was in custody or a motive was identified.

The Trump administration called for a crackdown against what it called “political extremism” on the left. which was widely criticized by free speech advocates and legal experts as using the assassination as a pretext to silence political opposition. A campaign by right-wing organizations and U.S. government agencies resulted in mass firings, disciplinary actions, and harassment against people seen as celebrating Kirk’s death or making critical comments about him in the aftermath of the assassination. Kirk’s memorial service was held at State Farm Stadium on September 21.

Background

Charlie Kirk was an American right-wing political activist, author, and media personality, known for co-founding and serving as CEO of Turning Point USA. A close ally of U.S. president Donald Trump, Kirk utilized his skills in social media and campus organizing to become a highly influential figure in the MAGA movement. Described as “something of a kingmaker” by The New York Times and as a “youth whisperer” by The Guardian, Kirk was able to rally support to protect embattled Trump cabinet nominees and against Republican Party figures he deemed insufficiently supportive of Trump. The Washington Post described him as “one of the most prominent voices on the right” in recent years. Axios described Kirk as a “driving force” in Trump’s presidential campaigns.

Kirk’s assassination occurred during a period of deepening division and increasingly frequent violence in American politics. It followed a series of violent political incidents, including the June 2025 shootings of two Democratic Minnesota legislators and their spouses, the May 2025 killing of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, D.C., the April 2025 arson attack on Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro‘s residence, the December 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and assassination attempts on Trump in July and September 2024. At a campaign event in Kentucky with Nate Morris in June 2025, Kirk himself spoke about the potential for violence. He told the crowd: “We’re on the front lines where it’s not always safe.”

Kirk’s Utah Valley University appearance

Turning Point USA announced on August 27 that Kirk would be visiting several college campuses during September–October 2025 as a continuation of a speech and debate series titled the American Comeback Tour, which began in February. Kirk’s appearance at UVU was scheduled to be the first tour stop of the season. A petition was circulated calling on the university to cancel his appearance, but university officials permitted the speech, citing free speech and open discussion policies. Security was provided by six police officers and Kirk’s private security personnel. Although the event was ticketed, the ticketing was not enforced. Metal detectors were not used for entry to the event.

Assassination

Officials stated the suspected gunman arrived on campus in a gray Dodge Challenger at 8:29 a.m. MDT (UTC–6). Security camera footage examined by investigators showed that he was dressed differently than he was around the time of the shooting.

Investigators said that the suspect reappeared on video at around 11:50 a.m., when he moved through a grassy area into a parking lot near the campus. At 11:53 a.m., he stopped at the top of some stairs and “pulled out his phone” before proceeding into a pedestrian tunnel. Still images released by the FBI show him ascending a stairwell in a parking garage adjacent to the tunnel.

The speaking event began at noon with about 3,000 people in attendance. Authorities said the suspected gunman was seen at 12:02 p.m. walking on the north side of the Losee Center, where they said he would later shoot Kirk from the roof. According to an affidavit, the suspect entered the Losee Center from the southeast side and was seen ascending the stairs next to the building 13 minutes later. Kirk appeared at the event at about 12:09 p.m. and started throwing hats into the crowd. Then, at 12:11 p.m. he began speaking. Investigators said that by 12:22 p.m., the suspected shooter was on the roof, lying on his stomach, facing the location where Kirk was speaking about 430 feet (130 m) away.

Sitting under a tent displaying the tour title, Kirk engaged in a back-and-forth exchange with UVU student Hunter Kozak about mass shootings in the United States. Kozak asked “Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?”, to which Kirk responded, “Too many”. Kozak followed up with, “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?”, and Kirk’s last words before being shot were his reply, “Counting or not counting gang violence?” At 12:23:30 p.m., Kirk was hit in the neck with a single shot, which investigators believe came from the roof of the Losee Center. Emma Pitts, a Deseret News reporter who witnessed the event, told NPR, “I just saw so much blood come out of the left side of Charlie’s neck, and then he went limp.” Former U.S. representative Jason Chaffetz, who was in attendance, said, “As soon as the shot went out, everybody hit the deck and everybody started scattering and yelling and screaming.”

At 12:23:55 p.m. six men carried Kirk to an SUV, which took him to Timpanogos Regional Hospital in Orem, where he was pronounced dead. His death was announced by Donald Trump at 2:40 p.m. on Truth Social.

Video footage also surfaced of the suspected shooter running from the south corner of the Losee Center roof, where he purportedly shot Kirk, to the north corner, where the ground was higher. He could hang from the edge of the roof and drop to the ground, which occurred at about 12:24 p.m. Palm prints were later found at the edge of the roof, as well as smudges from which samples were collected to look for DNA evidence. A footprint was found on the ground, which showed he was wearing Converse sneakers. He then moved into a wooded area north of the campus, where a rifle with a scope on top and containing inscribed bullet casings was later found.

According to police audio, the first report of the shooting occurred at 12:26 p.m. At 12:31 p.m., an officer then reported “gunshots heard near the library”. At 12:35 p.m., the officer added “maybe the CS building”, before describing the shooter as “wearing jeans, black shirt, black mask, long rifle”. A minute later, the officer elaborated, “on top of the building on the far north side, just east of the library”. At 12:39 p.m. FBI agents and chiefs of police arrived at the location of the event.

At 1:37 p.m., the university closed the campus and urged everyone to leave. At 2:01 p.m., the university instructed those remaining on campus to “secure in place until police officers can escort you safely off campus”. Classes and activities at all campuses, including satellite locations, were suspended until September 15.

Manhunt

Duration: 1 minute and 40 seconds.1:40FBI-released CCTV footage of a suspect jumping from the rooftop of a building following the shooting. The jumping starts at 18 seconds into the video.

The Utah Department of Public Safety was investigating the crime with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Initial arrests

Two people were arrested soon after the shooting, but were later released. One was a libertarian conservative who was arrested on campus grounds after claiming to have shot Kirk. He later told police he “was glad he said he shot the individual so the real suspect could get away”. He reportedly had a history of mental health issues and was known to Utah authorities for his habit of disrupting public events. He was then taken to a hospital.

After his release on September 14, he was booked into jail for obstruction of justice; after police discovered images of child sexual abuse on his phone, he was also charged with sexual exploitation of minors.

Hours after the shooting, FBI director Kash Patel announced on social media that “the subject” in Kirk’s assassination had been apprehended; Utah governor Spencer Cox said that a “person of interest” had been detained. Within two hours of making his initial announcement, Patel said that the subject had been “released after an interrogation by law enforcement”.

Evidence and leads

Law enforcement recovered an older-make Mauser-type bolt-action hunting rifle, which was chambered in .30-06, from a wooded area near the shooting, engraved cartridges, and “a footwear impression, a palm print, and forearm imprints for analysis”. In a press conference on September 11, officials said that they had “good video footage” and were applying facial recognition technology to it. Later that day, the FBI indicated that facial recognition efforts had been unsuccessful, released photos of a person of interest, and offered up to $100,000 for information in the case. The FBI also investigated various social media accounts with posts that appeared to indicate foreknowledge of the assassination.

The investigators reported that cartridges found in the rifle were inscribed with various messages, which were rumored to be slogans relating to anti-fascist and “transgender ideology“, but were described as a mix of Internet memes and popular culture after an FBI briefing on September 12 revealed the messages. The spent cartridge case was inscribed with “Notices bulges OwO what’s this?”, a reference to furry online roleplay. Three unfired rounds were engraved with “Hey fascist! Catch! ↑→↓↓↓”, the arrows referring to a sequence of inputs (code) used to summon a 500 KG bomb in the 2024 video game Helldivers 2; “Oh bella ciao bella ciao bella ciao ciao ciao”, a reference to the Italian anti-fascist song “Bella ciao” (“Goodbye, Beautiful”); and “If you read this, you are gay LMAO“. The song “Bella ciao” remains widely known as an anti-fascist anthem; however, it had also resurfaced in popular media since the mid-2010s and early 2020s through the television series Money Heist and the video games Hearts of Iron IV and Far Cry 6. During the manhunt, law enforcement agencies reportedly received more than 7,000 leads related to the incident and conducted more than 200 interviews.

Congressional hearing

FBI director Kash Patel testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, September 16, 2025

On September 16, 2025, FBI director Kash Patel faced questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee about the investigation and criticism for his social media posts about it. He said that over 20 users on a Discord discussion group that included the alleged shooter would be investigated. Patel had previously faced criticism for his leadership and handling of the case from federal and local officials, with particular focus on his social media post on the day of the shooting that a suspect was in custody, a statement which he retracted 90 minutes later.

The hearing devolved into a shouting match after Patel criticized Democratic Senator Adam Schiff as “the biggest fraud in the U.S. Senate”, a “disgrace”, an “utter coward”, and a “political buffoon”. The hearing led to bipartisan criticism of Patel, and came after a considerable upheaval at the agency under Patel’s leadership that involved widespread reassignments, firings, and loyalty tests. The shooting also occurred hours after a lawsuit by former FBI agents accused Patel of a politically motivated purge of agency leadership.

Accused

Tyler James Robinson (born April 16, 2003) is accused of being the shooter. The day after the shooting, his parents convinced him to come to their residence in Washington, Utah, after they recognized his likeness from news images that authorities alleged were of the shooter. Robinson told them he was fearful of being shot by police, or a SWAT team being sent to his parents’ house. His parents contacted a member of their Mormon congregation who was a retired detective who had previously worked for the Washington County sheriff. The retired detective called the sheriff and made arrangements for Robinson to surrender. He and Robinson’s father then drove Robinson to the sheriff’s office the evening of September 11 and Robinson was taken into custody without incident. Governor Spencer Cox said the next day that Robinson was the only suspect. The manhunt had lasted 33 hours.

Robinson, son of a social worker and a business owner, was raised in Washington, Utah, alongside his two younger brothers. Robinson’s family are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Robinson’s grandmother said most of the family are Republicans, and added that she did not know “a single Democrat”. Childhood photos show the Robinson family on trips to shoot guns and see weapons displays. At the time of his arrest, Robinson was living in St. George, Utah, some 240 miles (390 km) southwest of Utah Valley University. He was in his third year of an electrical apprenticeship program at Dixie Technical College. He had previously enrolled at Utah State University but dropped out after one semester. He graduated Pine View High School in 2021, while earning college credit from Dixie State University from 2019 to 2021.

Investigation

Investigators interviewed Robinson’s roommate, who was not considered a suspect, and was described as being “aghast” and “shocked” by the shooting and denied having any knowledge of the crime. Governor Cox said that the roommate had been “very cooperative” with investigators, and had turned over private messages incriminating Robinson which discussed the “need to retrieve a rifle from a drop point, leaving the rifle in a bush, messages related to visually watching the area where a rifle was left, and a message referring to having left the rifle wrapped in a towel.” The messages also referenced a scope and engraved bullets.

After the shooting, someone in a private Discord group chat of which Robinson was a member said Robinson looked like the man in the suspect images released by the FBI. Robinson reportedly joked that he had a doppelgänger who was trying to frame him, that the group should give him a cut of the FBI reward money for turning him in, that he would avoid going to McDonald’s (a reference to Luigi Mangione, who was arrested at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania), and that he would get rid of his manifesto and rifle. Another recovered message, posted later the same day, read: “Hey guys, I have bad news for you all. It was me at UVU yesterday. I’m sorry for all of this. I’m surrendering through a sheriff friend in a few moments, thanks for all the good times and laughs, you’ve all been so amazing, thank you all for everything.” A friend in the Discord group wrote the next morning that the confession appeared to be true while also calling for prayers, both for Robinson’s repentance and for Kirk’s family. Discord later suspended Robinson’s account. On September 15, the FBI announced that Robinson’s DNA matched that found on a towel wrapping the suspected rifle and on a screwdriver found on the roof from where the shot was fired.

Robinson’s views and possible motives

Utah County prosecutor Jeffrey Gray said that Robinson’s mother told investigators that her son had become more political over the last year and had started to “lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans rights-oriented”. Robinson was registered to vote but not affiliated with any party, and there is no record of him voting in Washington County (of which St. George is the county seat). Robinson had no criminal record prior to his arrest.

On September 14, Governor Cox said that Robinson had very different political views than those of his conservative family and adhered to “leftist ideology”, although he did not provide specifics. According to Cox, Robinson appeared to have become radicalized after dropping out of Utah State University and may have been influenced by aspects of Internet culture. Cox also said that one of Robinson’s relatives had told investigators that during a family dinner, Robinson had expressed dislike of Kirk and discussed his upcoming visit to Utah Valley University. While Trump and other elected Republicans have alleged Robinson was connected to left-wing groups and threatened a crackdown on them, sources familiar with the investigation stated that, as of September 21, no such evidence had been found.

On September 16, Gray stated that the “suspect had become increasingly concerned about gay and trans rights” and that he had grown apart from his family’s conservative views, citing Robinson’s relationship with his transgender roommate as a factor. Gray further outlined details of text messages that the prosecution believes Robinson sent to his roommate, which stated that he had been planning the shooting for just over a week. When the roommate asked why Robinson had done it, he answered, “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” According to ABC News, the charging documents did not “indicate the relevance of those stances or whether Kirk’s remarks about those issues were a motivating factor”, and reported “Gray said he would let a judge determine whether the statements allegedly made constituted a confession.”

Legal proceedings

After his arrest, Robinson was transferred to Utah County Jail in Spanish Fork, where a judge ordered him held without bail. He made his first court appearance by video feed on September 16 before the Utah County Justice Court in Provo.

Judge Tony Graf read Robinson the charges, which included one count of felony discharge of a firearm, two counts of obstruction of justice and witness tampering, and one count of violence committed in the presence of a child. Utah state prosecutors announced that they would seek the death penalty, citing aggravating factors; Robinson allegedly targeted Kirk for his political expression and had acted knowing children would witness the assassination. On September 24, Salt Lake City attorney Kathryn Nester was appointed to defend Robinson.

Aftermath

Government

Following Kirk’s assassination, Republican government officials at the state and federal level called on the public to turn in anyone who made statements about the assassination that were considered inappropriate or distasteful. The campaign later broadened to also include statements that were critical of Kirk. The New York Times has described the campaign as morphing into a conservative version of “cancel culture“. On September 15, the Trump administration threatened a widespread crackdown of liberal groups and donors, asserting that a network of liberal organizations promoted violence and would be dismantled. Trump stated he was looking into labeling some “terrorist organizations”, and Vice President JD Vance promised to go after non-profits such as the Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation that had provided financial support for liberal and progressive causes. The New York Times suggested that First Amendment rights would make it difficult for the Trump administration to do so. The announcement came amidst the Trump administration’s concurrent widespread crackdowns on political opponents and civil society.

The administration’s threats against investigating and dismantling liberal groups received widespread criticism from free speech advocates and legal experts, who denounced the moves as using Kirk’s assassination as a pretext to crack down on political opposition. NBC News described the Trump administration as appearing “to be using Kirk’s assassination as an excuse to crack down on left-wing people and groups”. In response to Trump’s threats, 100 liberal philanthropies wrote an open letter defending their work and criticizing the administration’s intentions to dismantle them, writing:

Organizations should not be attacked for carrying out their missions or expressing their values in support of the communities they serve. We reject attempts to exploit political violence to mischaracterize our good work or restrict our fundamental freedoms, like freedom of speech and the freedom to give. Attempts to silence speech, criminalize opposing viewpoints, and misrepresent and limit charitable giving undermine our democracy and harm all Americans.

Attorney General Pam Bondi received bipartisan pushback after stating the administration would target and prosecute some criticism against Kirk as “hate speech“, including veiled criticism by Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor. Bondi’s comment was also criticized by some conservative political commentators, including Tucker Carlson and Erick Erickson. Following the comments by Bondi, Jonathan Karl of ABC News asked the president for his opinion on comments made by some of his allies who considered hate speech to be free speech. In response, Trump said that his administration would “probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly, it’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart.” According to Fox News, Bondi lost confidence in FBI director Kash Patel due to his handling of the investigation and manhunt. A former federal prosecutor and legal analyst at MSNBC said Patel’s actions could potentially hurt the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Since Kirk’s assassination, the U.S. Department of Justice reportedly removed a 2024 study, titled “What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism”, which showed that white supremacist and far-right violence “continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism” in the United States, in contrast to statements made by the Trump administration. It was replaced by a notice saying: “The Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs is currently reviewing its websites and materials in accordance with recent Executive Orders and related guidance. During this review, some pages and publications will be unavailable. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.”

The U.S. State Department said it would review the legal status of immigrants found to be “praising, rationalizing, or making light” of Kirk’s assassination. White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller said Kirk’s assassination was the result of an “ideology” that is “at war with family and nature … that leads, always, inevitably and willfully, to violence.” He later vowed to “dismantle and take on” the violent radical left organizations in the United States by using “the power of law enforcement, under President Trump’s leadership”. On September 17, one week after the shooting, Trump declared that he would designate antifa as a terrorist group. On September 25, Trump signed a national security memorandum to direct the Justice Department, the FBI, and Joint Terrorism Task Force to focus on anti-fascist political violence “before they result in violent political acts”, citing “indicators” such as anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, and “hostility towards those who hold traditional American views”.

Funeral, memorials, and posthumous honors

On September 11, Kirk’s casket, accompanied by United States vice president JD Vance, second lady Usha Vance, and Kirk’s widow Erika Kirk, was transported on Air Force Two from Salt Lake City, Utah, to Phoenix, Arizona. Trump ordered all federal government flags to be flown at half-staff until September 14 at 6 p.m. in Kirk’s honor. Critics noted that Trump had not done the same when Democratic Minnesota representative Melissa Hortman was killed in June. The New York Times criticized Trump’s comments, and described him as abandoning the traditional presidential role as a unifier to instead blame his opponents and vow revenge. Trump later released a video tribute to Kirk and announced he would be posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Also on September 11, a letter was published online from 16 Congressional Republicans to House speaker Johnson calling for a statue to be erected in Kirk’s memory in the U.S. Capitol. On September 15, New College of Florida announced plans to erect a statue of Kirk on its campus in Sarasota. Various government officials such as Karoline Leavitt, Mike Johnson, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gathered at a prayer vigil at the Kennedy Center on September 14 to honor and give remarks on Kirk’s life and work.” A memorial service took place on September 21 at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, and was attended by Erika Kirk, Trump, Vance, and Elon Musk, among others. During the service, Trump said in part that Kirk “did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them.”

During an interview on Fox & Friends on September 19, 2025, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the Catholic Church likened Kirk to a modern-day Saint Paul.

Firings over comments

Following the assassination of Kirk, there were widespread terminations or suspensions of workers and students for comments or social media posts either celebrating Kirk’s death, or alleged to be critical of Kirk or of Republican efforts to capitalize on his death. Those fired included teachers, firefighters, and members of the military and U.S. Secret Service; many received death threats. Politicians, public figures, and public and private-sector workers also faced firings, investigations, and suspensions over their comments about the killing.

Far-right activists like Laura Loomer called for violence and revenge, and doxxed people they accused of celebrating or justifying Kirk’s death. An organization initially named Expose Charlie’s Murderers (later rebranded to the Charlie Kirk Data Foundation) reportedly collected more than 63,000 submissions of public comments about Kirk; the website has been offline since September 16. Three days after the shooting, the site had accumulated 30,000 submissions; cybersecurity experts characterized the site as a means to coordinate harassment, and as an echo of Turning Point USA’s Professor Watchlist. Reuters reported that some right-wing influencers who encouraged reporting social media posts had previously mocked political violence; Reuters cited comments from right-wing activists, including Kirk, about past events including the attack on Paul Pelosi. Several people were mistakenly identified as having made hateful comments about Kirk or his death, including a Wisconsin elementary school teacher and an IT technician for Walmart whose family had to flee their home after he was doxxed.

On September 12, comedian Jimmy Kimmel, on his ABC late-night talk show Jimmy Kimmel Live!, blamed Trump for not uniting the country after Kirk’s murder and instead attacking Democrats. On the September 15 episode, Kimmel said the “MAGA gang” was “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them” and was trying to “score political points” from the crime rather than sincerely grieving. FCC chief Brendan Carr said Kimmel appeared to “directly mislead the American public” and threatened possible actions against ABC, including the revocation of the broadcast licenses of its owned-and-operated stations. On September 17, Nexstar Media Group announced that they would pre-empt Kimmel on their 32 ABC affiliated stations “for the foreseeable future”. Nexstar had been seeking FCC approval for a $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna Inc. at the time. ABC then announced that it would suspend the program indefinitely. Variety described the suspension coming after “several prominent conservatives have called for any critic of [Kirk’s] work to be silenced, no matter how nuanced the argument may be”. Kimmel’s show ultimately returned days later after a public backlash.

On September 15, while hosting Kirk’s podcast, Vice President Vance called on Americans to report those celebrating Kirk’s assassination to their employers and promised to use the federal government to investigate and punish liberal organizations and donors. The Associated Press described the campaign as having “broadened to include even those whose statements were critical of Kirk without celebrating his assassination”. Adam Goldstein of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression described the shift as a form of right-wing cancel culture, noting that people were being targeted for simply quoting Kirk or failing to mourn his passing adequately. Goldstein said that “government involvement in this does inch this closer to looking like McCarthyism“. CNN reported that Disney employees and staff members received death threats and had their email addresses and phone numbers publicized. Senator Ted Cruz attacked the FCC’s act by calling it “unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying, ‘We’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you out there if we don’t like what you’re saying'”, and noting that this behavior could be used against conservatives in the future.

Reactions and analysis

Shortly after Kirk’s death, his widow Erika spoke to viewers in a livestream from his old podcast studio at Turning Point USA’s headquarters. She began the broadcast by thanking first responders, Kirk’s staff, and the White House, and she pledged: “My husband’s voice will remain.” She also called for retribution on “evil-doers”, stating: “You have no idea the fire that you have ignited within this wife, the cries of this widow will echo around the world like a battle cry.” She vowed to continue carrying her husband’s ideals and movement and told viewers that she would make sure his name would never be forgotten. In a later interview with The New York Times, Erika explained how she pushed to see Kirk’s body against advisement by law enforcement. She reportedly told authorities, “With all due respect, I want to see what they did to my husband”, before kissing him goodbye and stating that he looked like he died happy with a “Mona Lisa like half smile”.

Domestic response

President Donald Trump addressing the nation from the Oval Office about the shooting, September 10, 2025

The shooting saw bipartisan condemnation from politicians. Messages of sympathy came from United States president Donald Trump, vice president JD Vance, first lady Melania Trump, House speaker Mike Johnson, Senate majority leader John Thune, and former president George W. Bush, among other Republicans. Vance took over as host of The Charlie Kirk Show podcast for the September 15 episode, saying that he would not have become Vice President without Kirk and vowing to carry his legacy forward.

Democratic politicians condemned the shooting, including former presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, California governor Gavin Newsom, and Minnesota representative Ilhan Omar. Politicians linked the shooting to broader political debates. Several congressional Republicans blamed Democrats and accused the left of inciting violence with rhetoric. Democrats and several analysts countered that Trump’s divisive rhetoric was also a factor in coarsening public debate, and that political violence had impacted both parties. Democrats also cited the killing to further discussion of gun safety legislation.

In his nationwide address, Trump solely blamed the radical left for Kirk’s and other recent deaths, and did not mention recent Democratic victims of violence. NBC News called Trump’s response “far more polarizing than many of the other messages offered by politicians and representatives of both parties”. Several publications, including among others The Economist, The New York Times, PBS (republishing The Conversation), and Time, noted that contrary to Trump’s accusations, most perpetrators of political violence have been right-leaning, a research finding that has been repeatedly confirmed. A week after the assassination, the Department of Justice deleted from its website “What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism”, a 2024 study from its National Institute of Justice that found that the majority of ideologically motivated homicides in the United States since 1990 (excluding the September 11 attacks) had been committed by right-wing extremists.

In response to Trump, Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, himself the target of an arson attack some months earlier, said: “The president shouldn’t cherry-pick what counts and what doesn’t count. When he does that, it gives a pass to some. We can’t have that. This is a moment where leaders need to speak and act with moral clarity, where we need to condemn this type of violence in our communities, in our politics.” The next day, Trump stated: “We have radical left lunatics out there and we just have to beat the hell out of them”, but later said he hoped his supporters would be nonviolent. During a Fox & Friends interview on September 12, when asked about the presence of radicals on both political sides, Trump responded: “I’ll tell you something that’s going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime … The radicals on the left are the problem.” Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller said that left-wing political organizations constitute “a vast domestic terror movement” and that “we are going to use every resource we have … throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks”. Opinion editors, as well as both far-right commentators and Trump critics, have compared Kirk’s killing to the Reichstag fire—the 1933 arson of the German parliament building, that Hitler used as a pretext to suspend civil liberties and prosecute political opposition—some calling the killing Trump’s “Reichstag fire moment”. Experts on political violence described the rush to assign blame as potentially leading to more conflict. Counter-terrorism experts also described Trump’s previous pardon of the January 6 attackers as having created a permission structure for them to commit political violence.

Johnson held a 30-second moment of silence in the U.S. House of Representatives for Kirk, observed by all House members. Following disagreements on the floor, the event descended into partisan rancor and accusations by both sides. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that The Pentagon is “tracking … very closely” any civilian and military employee who is a Kirk detractor or who celebrated his death, to impose punishment. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau urged social media users to turn in foreign residents of the U.S. who mocked or celebrated Kirk’s death.

Elon Musk said in a video clip that “people of the left” were celebrating Kirk’s death, commenting: “Whether you choose violence or not, violence is coming to you. You either fight back or you die.” At the end of September Musk attacked the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) calling it a “hate group” and accusing it of being anti-Christian in nature. The attacks came after the assassination of Charlie Kirk brought new attention to the ADL’s historical work on right wing antisemitism which included TPUSA and Kirk. Following the backlash from Musk and other prominent conservatives, the FBI cut ties with the ADL and Director Kash Patel made a statement condemning the ADL.

International responses

Kirk’s death garnered messages of condolence from world leaders and foreign politicians. Argentine president Javier Milei, Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese, British prime minister Keir Starmer and foreign secretary Yvette Cooper, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney, Czech prime minister Petr Fiala, the French foreign ministry, Georgian president Mikheil Kavelashvili and prime minister Irakli Kobakhidze, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum, New Zealand deputy prime minister David Seymour, Polish president Karol Nawrocki, Scottish first minister John Swinney, Swedish deputy prime minister Ebba Busch, and the Vatican City secretary of state Pietro Parolin offered their condolences and condemned the shooting. Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele criticized the media’s coverage of the event. Paraguayan president Santiago Peña paid tribute to Kirk during a speech commemorating the 138th anniversary of the ruling Colorado Party. Pope Leo XIV expressed concern about political violence and prayed for Kirk and his family. Russian president Vladimir Putin offered his condolences and called the assassination a “disgusting crime”.

European illiberal and far-right leaders drew upon Kirk’s murder to galvanize their supporters and denounce the left. Orbán, of the ruling Hungarian Fidesz party, linked Kirk’s assassination to the attacks on the Czech former prime minister Andrej Babis and Slovak prime minister Robert Fico and urged to “stop the hate-mongering left”. Kavelashvili and Kobakhidze of the ruling Georgian Dream party similarly linked the assassination to left-wing politics, with Kobakhidze claiming the assassination showed “where these so-called liberals and pseudo-liberals are dragging the modern world”. Geert Wilders of the Dutch Party for Freedom said: “I repeat his true words that are valid for Europe as well: Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of Europe.”

Jordan Bardella of the French National Rally blamed the “dehumanising rhetoric of the left and its intolerance [which] fuels political violence” and Alice Weidel of Alternative for Germany said that Kirk had been killed by “a fanatic who hates our way of life”. Matteo Salvini, Italian deputy prime minister and leader of Lega, said that he had “cried” over Kirk’s death and wished to emulate him by talking directly to youngsters. In Spain, Vox and Patriots.eu president Santiago Abascal paid tribute to Kirk during his party’s annual convention by wearing a shirt similar to the one Kirk had been wearing when he was shot. In the United Kingdom, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage paid tribute to Kirk in the House of Commons, saying he mourned the loss of a friend, and Tommy Robinson used the murder to mobilize support for the anti-immigration Unite the Kingdom rally in London on September 13.

On September 11, the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR Group) and Europe of Sovereign Nations Group (ESN Group), the right-wing and far-right political groups in the European Parliament, put forward a motion to hold a minute of silence to honor Kirk. The motion was rejected by Parliament president Roberta Metsola, although Swedish ECR Group MEP Charlie Weimers was permitted to make a statement on Kirk’s shooting before the voting session began. Weimers’ attempt to yield part of his time for a moment of silence was interrupted by Parliament vice president Katarina Barley. French MEP Nathalie Loiseau of Renew Europe said that she had received death threats after opposing the minute of silence, and commented that even though Kirk was a victim, he “would have been considered a delinquent in France” for his “racist, antisemitic, and homophobic” opinions. Valérie Hayer, leader of the Renew Europe group, similarly said that the European Parliament should not honor Kirk because of his “supremacist, racist, anti-abortion, and pro-Russian” views. A moment of silence was held for Kirk at the Seimas (the Lithuanian parliament) on September 18 following a resolution from Lithuanian Farmers, Greens and Christian Families Union MP Rimas Jonas Jankūnas.

Following the announcement of Kirk’s murder, Russian state media said on social platforms that the United States was gearing up for a potential civil war. Chinese state media depicted the incident as indicative of a disordered and deteriorating society, afflicted by political turmoil and gun violence.

Media

News of Kirk’s shooting and subsequent death dominated the day’s news agenda, with major news networks entering into “breaking news mode” around 2:50 p.m. ET, upon receiving word that Kirk had been shot in the neck area, with rolling coverage continuing throughout the day. Significant public interest in the event saw Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN all “drawing larger audiences than usual”. On September 10, 2025, the three networks collectively averaged 6.9 million viewers, a 65% jump from the 4.2 million who watched a week earlier. September 11 saw the three networks draw a combined audience of 6.2 million, up 72% from the prior week’s 3.6 million. On September 12, Fox News hosted a primetime special titled Charlie Kirk: An American Original. While condemning the shooting, left-wing publications including The National, The Nation, and The New Republic accused the mass media of “whitewashing” Kirk’s career.

Fox News host Jesse Watters said, “They are at war with us … We’re going to avenge Charlie’s death in the way he would want it avenged … Charlie would want us to put as much pressure on these people as possible.”

Progressive streamer Hasan Piker, who had been due to debate Kirk later in September, called the killing a “terrifying incident” and said, “The reverberation of people seeking out vengeance in the aftermath of this violent, abhorrent incident is going to be genuinely worrisome.”

Popular culture

On September 11, Comedy Central announced that it would be cancelling all scheduled reruns of the South Park episode “Got a Nut“, in which the character of Eric Cartman portrays a parodic version of Kirk. This followed an online campaign to have the show cancelled over its satirical portrayal of Kirk shortly before his death. Kirk himself had called his parody in South Park “hilarious”. Several National Football League and Major League Baseball teams paid tribute to Kirk in their games following his death, although teams in both leagues faced criticism from fans for either honoring Kirk or not honoring Kirk.

On September 12 and 13, country singer Morgan Wallen dedicated his song “I’m a Little Crazy” to Kirk’s widow while closing out the I’m the Problem Tour in Edmonton. On September 14, Chris Martin mentioned Kirk’s family during the segment of Coldplay‘s Music of the Spheres World Tour where he asks the audience to send love out into the world, adding: “You can send it to people you disagree with, but you send them love anyway.” On the same day, the English rap duo Bob Vylan mocked Kirk’s death at a concert in Amsterdam, with frontman Bobby Vylan saying, “The pronouns was/were. Because if you talk shit, you will get banged. Rest in piss, Charlie Kirk, you piece of shit.” A subsequent Vylan concert in Tilberg was cancelled by the venue.

Social media

News of Kirk’s death prompted fervent reactions on social media. The New York Times described social media as featuring heartfelt messages from the left and right, anguish about political violence, and sharply partisan and political takes. Mentions of, and comparisons with, the Reichstag fire and the murder of Horst Wessel soared. A remark Kirk had made in 2023—”It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights”—was reposted numerous times on social media after the shooting. Several far-right figures encouraged retaliatory violence against Democrats and saw the death as a recruiting event. Before the shooter’s identity and motivations were known, several influential right-wing voices called for vengeance and war. In the days after the shooting, social media platforms including Meta, YouTube, Reddit, and Bluesky issued statements denouncing posts that glorified Kirk’s killing, which in extreme cases included incitement to commit violence against other right-wing commentators, or figures like J. K. Rowling.

According to the Associated Press, uncensored videos showing Kirk being hit by the bullet spread across social media with “lightning speed”. Politico described this as a result of major platforms as having “dismantled many of their safeguards against toxic content — in many cases to avoid Republican criticism”. The Tech Transparency Project, a nonprofit watchdog organization, reported that Instagram‘s teen accounts, which are designed with additional safety features for teens, could readily find videos of the shooting. Organizations that monitor media for children, including Common Sense Media and parental controls app Bark, reported spikes in traffic following the shooting as parents sought out advice on how to talk to their kids about it and prevent them from seeing the video. The day after the shooting, most of the graphic videos had been removed from social media, although they still showed up in searches and algorithmic feeds, particularly on Twitter and TikTok.

Public reaction

Opinion polling

Public concern about political violence was high after Kirk’s killing. In a September 12 YouGov poll, 87% agreed that political violence is a problem. 18% of liberals and 7% of conservatives interviewed said that political violence “can sometimes be justified”. Of those aged 18–29, 22% agreed, while only 3% over 65 did. YouGov said that public attitudes have varied over time depending on the identity of the victims, with concern rising more after an attack on a member of one’s own party. Other outlets noted earlier polls with differing results: in a May 2025 poll, roughly 20% of both parties considered violence “acceptable” for political ends, while in two polls from 2023 and 2024, roughly 10% of Democrats and 30% of Republicans said that violence may be “necessary”.

According to G. Elliott Morris, polling exaggerates approval of political violence; research by Bright Line Watch has found that less than 5% condone violent felonies to achieve political goals, with little difference between parties.^[280] Furthermore, individuals tend to significantly overestimate approval of violence within the other party, and are less likely to support it themselves when informed of the actual statistics.

The day after the shooting, a YouGov poll asked if it was acceptable to be happy at the death of a public figure; 56% said it was never acceptable, 22% said it was usually unacceptable, 6% said it was usually acceptable, and 3% said it was always acceptable. Republicans were more likely than Democrats and independents to say that it was always rather than usually unacceptable. In a September 14 poll, 51% said that the person who assassinated Kirk was driven by political beliefs, including 63% of Republican, 44% of Democrats, and 46% independents. 40% of respondents were not sure of the political affiliations of the killer; 24% said they believed he was a Republican (41% of Democrats and 13% of Republicans); 21% a Democrat (40% of Republicans and 8% of Democrats); and 15% affiliated with neither.

A September 19 Associated Press–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found a surge in negative sentiment amongst Republican voters in the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination. Just 49% of Republican voters said they felt the country was headed in the right direction, compared to the previous June 2025 survey, in which 70% of respondents who identify as Republican said the country is heading in the right direction. The same poll found 8% of Democrats said the country is moving in the right direction, down from 12% in June, and 14% of independents, down from 23% in the June poll.

Vigils and donations

Following Kirk’s death, a mural and memorial site were set up on the Utah Valley University campus, close to the site of the shooting. Candlelight vigils—mostly, but not exclusively, organized by Turning Point—took place in various cities across the United States. Similar vigils were also held in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Malta, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. Several online fundraisers were set up in Kirk’s name to honor his legacy and provide financial support for his family. By September 14, the different fundraisers had received donations of over $6 million.

Speculation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories

A lack of initial information sparked mass speculation about the killing. Misinformation about the suspect was also widely shared on social media by both the political left and right, including a doctored photo of him wearing a pro-Trump shirt, and false claims he was a registered Republican, had donated to Trump’s campaign, or was a registered member of the Democratic Socialists of America. China, Iran, and Russia spread disinformation using social media bots to inflame divisions and promote their foreign policy objectives. Artificial intelligence tools such as Grok, Perplexity AI, and AI Overviews also disseminated misinformation.

Hours after the shooting, conservative media and commentators began speculating that the shooter was transgender because Kirk was in the middle of answering a question about transgender people when he was shot. Further, The New York Times noted that this was “a grim coincidence that has fed into online conspiracies and speculation”, and Hunter Kozak, who asked Kirk the question, later said: “I couldn’t have asked a worse question.” Kirk himself had been a strong proponent of the idea that there was a prevalence of transgender mass shooters despite this not being the case, as shown by multiple statistical analyses.

Following the publication of alleged text messages between Robinson and his partner in the September 16 indictment, observers on both sides of the political spectrum expressed serious doubts about their authenticity. Conspiracy theory experts, such as Joseph Uscinski, called those contentions into question, and criminal law expert Steven B. Duke stated: “There is nothing in those messages making it even plausible that they were written by law enforcement.”

“Transgender ideology” hoax

Early reporting, notably in The Wall Street Journal, falsely said that the inscriptions on the bullets were found to have messaging related to “transgender ideology”, citing what they claimed was an internal bulletin of the ATF. These reports were met with calls for caution from trans journalists—who said that “transgender ideology” was a term commonly used in right-wing circles to frame transgender identity as a political choice—and The New York Times reported that a senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the case said that the alleged bulletin had not been verified, and that it did not match other summaries of evidence; however, prominent conservative figures still seized on The Wall Street Journal’s report to call for further action against the trans community, including banning pride flags and incarcerating all transgender people en mass.

When the details of the actual messages, which did not contain any such references, were made public, the Human Rights Campaign published an open letter demanding a retraction and a public apology for publishing of the misinformation, saying: “This reporting was reckless and irresponsible, and it led to a wave of threats against the trans community from right-wing influencers—and a resulting wave of terror for a community that is already living in fear.” The Wall Street Journal later amended the story with a note from the editor but did not issue a retraction.

More transgender conspiracy theories were spread after it was reported that the suspected shooter had a transgender partner, with some speculating that Robinson may have been motivated to kill Kirk because of Kirk’s views and rhetoric on transgender people. Jacey Thornton, an executive director of the LGBTQ advocacy group Rainbow Utah, noted, “It sounds like [they’re] really stretching to find a way to tie this in to the trans community”, adding that this is “very harmful to this ongoing dialogue that’s happening, especially on social media”. This theorizing was further amplified by the timing of the Charlie Kirk assassination, which occurred less than one month after a transgender individual shot and killed two children and wounded 21 others at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis on August 27, 2025.

Purported Groyper motive

It was speculated by social media users that one of the inscriptions found on the bullets could be a reference to the far-right Groyper culture, based in part on the adversarial stance that the Groypers had towards Kirk, such as during their 2019 heckling campaign. Axios described these speculations as “baseless”. Groyper leader Nick Fuentes also rejected the speculation, stating that his followers were being “framed”.

Conspiracy theories involving governments and antisemitism

Numerous conspiracy theories about the attack were posted online. Political consultant Roger Stone said the attack appeared to have been “a professional hit either by a nation state, rogue elements of our own government or a terrorist organization”. One theory, promulgated by Russian state media RT, centered on people standing near Kirk, who were purported to have made “unusual gestures” before he was killed. Several senior Russian officials, including former president Dmitry Medvedev and Kremlin special envoy Kirill Dmitriev, speculated on social media about a connection between Kirk’s murder and United States support for Ukraine because Kirk had been a critic of Western financial and political support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.

Involvement of Israel

In the days immediately following the killing, conspiracy theories emerged about the involvement of Israel, of which many of those theories have antisemitic origins. Some commentators attempted to link the event to the Israeli Mossad and to Kirk’s comments about the Epstein files, and Maram Susli resurfaced an August 2025 post by an Infowars host who stated that Kirk believed “Israel will kill [him] if he turns against them”. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the theories, calling them “insane”. Tucker Carlson was accused by some pro-Israel groups in the United States of making antisemitic comments at the service for Kirk by suggesting he supported the conspiracy theory that Jews or Israel were responsible for the assassination. Carlson said that Kirk’s assassination reminded him of the death of Jesus Christ, whom he said was killed by powerful people for telling the truth.

On October 7, political commentator Candace Owens published screenshots of a private group chat that she alleged involved Charlie Kirk and eight other individuals, including Rob McCoy, co-founder of Turning Point USA Faith, and political commentator Josh Hammer. According to Owens, the exchange took place two days prior to Kirk’s death. In the purported messages, Kirk wrote, “Just lost another huge Jewish donor. $2 million a year because we won’t cancel Tucker. I’m thinking of inviting Candace.” He continued, “Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this,” and, “Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause.” Owens stated that the conversation demonstrated Kirk was under pressure regarding his stance on Israel, claiming, “Charlie Kirk was done with Israel bullying him, and everyone knew it.” The spokesperson for Turning Point, Andrew Kolvet, later confirmed the authenticity of the chat messages.

Charlie Kirk’s Assassination and the Shaking of America

Like everyone else, my thoughts on Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Wednesday are so painful and jumbled that it’s hard to sort them out. This moment feels like an earthquake and Kirk’s death the epicenter of the seismic forces of politics, hate, violence and media that threaten to undo America.

My aim in this post isn’t to add one more voice to all the others but to respond to the request of a friend, a member of Generation Z (the group most influenced by Kirk) who asked me to help him process his hero’s murder. For that reason, I’ll simply make a few observations as a local pastor who loves America and the young men and women trying to find their way through these times.

Kirk was assassinated because of his conservative political views; or, more specifically, because he was so effective at presenting those views. His campus tours (he called them “Prove Me Wrong”) were open debates that attracted tens of thousands of students and were a cornerstone in President Trump’s successful 2024 campaign. When his enemies couldn’t counter his voice they silenced it.

You cannot separate Kirk’s political views from his religious convictions. He advocated biblical principles because he understood that politics is downstream from faith. His talks with college students were more than political rallies. They were also religious lectures as he challenged students to look beyond the moral collapse around them to the enduring truths of the Christian faith. Indeed, it was his integration of politics and religion that made him so despised and feared among the political left. It’s one thing to urge young men and women to turn away from abortion and transgenderism (two of the hot button causes he spoke to); it’s another thing to give them coherent reasons to do so that are grounded in religious faith. But at the end of the day, it wasn’t what Kirk opposed that put him in the crosshairs. It was what he advocated. His message supporting the traditional values of marriage, children, religion and success wasn’t welcomed by many in today’s alternative lifestyles.

Kirk’s shooting galvanized America’s Christian community. Certain moments in American history have proved to be tipping points. John Kennedy’s assassination was one of those moments. Martin Luther King’s assassination was another. The attacks of 9/11 that we remembered only yesterday was another. Clearly, those events stand alone in terms of scale and scope of their impact. But they share a quality with Kirk’s assassination that cannot be underestimated. They’re all threshold events, experiences of such impact that they force Americans to step from a past world into a new world, one where we never imagined we would be. Many if not most of America’s Christians feel that way now.

We have good reason. Just last month, 23-year-old Robert Westman took three guns and shot through the stained glass windows of the Catholic Church of the Annunciation in Minneapolis, killing two children and wounding twenty-one others. The shooting at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin in 2024 took two lives. The 2023 attack at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, killed six students. No one is saying that these crimes are part of some overall conspiracy. But what many Christians are coming to understand—and Kirk’s murder is the threshold for that understanding—is that a hatred for the Christian faith is present in America, and growing.

Kirk’s shooting is causing American Christians to grow more firm in their convictions and stronger in their determination to be visible in public. Nick Frientes is a state representative in Virginia, and his Facebook post yesterday has gone viral in Christian circles:

The celebration of Charlie’s murder from many on the left reveals a deep divide in America, not just in politics but in character. The posts across all social media platforms and some legacy media outlets following news of his death were beyond shocking, even in the tension of modern politics. Laughing, singing, dancing, vulgar expressions of hate, messages of ridicule, accusations against Kirk that he caused his own death, defenses of the murderer, cruel jibes at his wife and children. And many of the people saying these things were professionals in positions of influence. The few samples I viewed made it obvious that whatever political differences I may have with those people pales in comparison with our differences in common decency.

The connection between hatred, violence and demonic influence is closer than we want to admit. I realize that bringing up demonic influence in public life is problematic for some people, but I don’t think there’s another explanation for today’s politics of rage. Social media and the corrosion of a national consensus plays some role but underneath there’s a dark force that’s taken hold in our national consciousness, filling many with hate and driving them to consider what otherwise would be unthinkable acts. It’s a short step from there to murder.

For example, you can see the demonic on a personal level in Robert Westman, the young man who fired through the stained glass windows of a church in order to kill children. The sketch he drew of himself before the murders had him looking into a mirror but the reflection was that of a horned demon. Westman recorded the conversation between the two. “Help me,” he said. The demon says, “I don’t want to.” Then he adds, “Kill yourself.”

You can see demonic influence at work on a corporate level in Kirk’s assassination. In his book People of the Lie, Scott Peck defines evil as scapegoating. What he means is how people use power to destroy others, protecting their own false self-image and denying their own failures and sins. The corporate example of scape-goating that Peck points to is the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam in 1967 when US Army troops killed 500 innocent civilians. Losing all sense of morality and order, the soldiers were caught up in an unreasoning rage that led to the killings.

Charlie Kirk was killed out of the same sense of rage, of unreasoning hatred, of evil. Those who acted against him were willing to inflict whatever violence necessary to preserve their own false self-image. But it wasn’t just the agent or agents behind the firing of the rifle that took his life. It was also the crowd cheering the murderer on, for he was the one who delivered the scapegoat they thought would make them whole. Whether My Lai 58 years ago or Social Media in the aftermath of the murder, the same evil is at work.

The great irony is that Charlie didn’t hate them as they hated him. In fact, his purpose in life was to open the only door for them to escape their self-imposed prison. He showed them the light, not of himself but of Jesus. But they would have none of it. They chose to kill him instead.

The mission of the church and its vital place in America has never been more clear. The gospel message entrusted to America’s churches has never been more necessary than now. But it must be the biblical gospel. Not the false gospel of prosperity, consumerism or Christian nationalism. Not the easy gospel of moralistic cliches. Not the winsome gospel that’s honed off its rough edges in order to be more appealing to the secular culture. Not a gospel of accommodation that’s anxious not to offend. But the full, counter-cultural gospel of salvation—even for those who hate, who do violence, who kill.

The gospel that Charlie Kirk was faithful to unto death.

Charlie Kirk’s Murder Was a Cultural Assassination

In the wake of his assassination, Charlie Kirk is being widely cast mainly as a political figure—one who, through his organization Turning Point USA, inspired young voters on college campuses both to register and to support Donald Trump. As ABC News put it, Donald Trump “improved his performance with younger voters, a demographic Democrats have long dominated. That was thanks in large part to outreach on social media platforms and in communities targeted with the help of prominent personalities like Charlie Kirk.” Per the NY Times, Kirk was a “kingmaker,” as if he were a new age version of a political boss and his death framed in a political context, as in “What MAGA Lost When It Lost Charlie Kirk”.  

No doubt Kirk had an impact on young voters. But he was, fundamentally, a socially conservative cultural figure. His public statements focused on such topics as transgenderism, race relations, and the importance of religion, immigration, and traditional family life. To be sure, some of his comments were sharp-edged. But he spoke more broadly and charitably when he stated that a “silent majority are the Americans who love God, their family, and our amazing country. They don’t want their morals, their job, or their lifestyle threatened by the government or any candidates.” In that context, his murder can be viewed as a physical extension of the culture wars. It was America’s first cultural assassination.

Although the current fraught political climate is being compared to the 1960s, that era’s notorious assassinations were of political figures—elected officials (John and Robert Kennedy) or those leading movements (civil rights) focused on legislative gains. Though we know little of his assassin’s actual motives, an argument can well be made that the Martin Luther King assassination was motivated by King’s cultural importance, as well as his political influence—but his role in the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts was certainly political. It is little remembered but President Kennedy’s assassin was a Communist who objected to his Cuba policy, while Robert Kennedy’s killer was a Palestinian who may have objected to Kennedy’s support for Israel. But there is no doubt that their motives, in other words, were political.

The Charlie Kirk murder, in contrast, harkens back to the roots of the culture war, as exemplified by American Communist VJ Jerome’s famous if notorious essay, “Grasp the Weapon of Culture”. The editor of the magazine The Communist, he wrote of the need to use Hollywood, Tin Pan Alley and even Coca-Cola advertising in order to “convince the people of the world that we propose to share with them our material wealth,” and that “no branch of culture, learning or information” should be overlooked. For that pamphlet, Jerome was convicted, under the Smith Act, for conspiring to overthrow the US government and spent 1955–57 in a federal penitentiary.

But there is little doubt his vision was realized through popular culture broadly, whether through films (Daniel Day Lewis’ “There Will Be Blood”), popular music (Bruce Springsteen’s dark “Born in the USA”), or literature (Percival Everett’s “James”) and scholarship (The 1619 Project). There are far too many similar examples that can be cited—and one can properly inquire as to whether one should view all entertainment through a political lens. But Kirk did and he objected; he spoke out against “cultural Marxism.”

That such a figure would be assassinated is something new. For a precedent, one might look to the murder of John Lennon by a gunman upset about Lennon’s statement that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. But that shooting was not seen in a wider cultural context. If we were to transpose the Kirk killing to the ’60s, there would have had to be attempts to shoot Pete Seeger, the leftwing minstrel who toured college campuses, or antiwar singers such as Joan Baez or Bob Dylan (before he pushed back against Seeger to create art not propaganda, as dramatized in “The Complete Unknown”). 

But there have been no such shootings. The Kirk murder is something new under the cultural sun. That it was the act of a person on the Left is in keeping with VJ Jerome’s then metaphoric charge to grasp the weapon of culture—born in the realization that Charlie Kirk, speaker and media personality, had himself done exactly that and with great effectiveness but as a man of the Right. We can only hope and pray that the Kirk murder will not mark other cultural figures, on any side of the culture war, as targets.

What Charlie Kirk’s assassination reveals about political violence in America

Charlie Kirk helped shape conservative politics over the last decade. His assassination raises a question for all Americans: Can anything turn back the rising tide of political violence in America?

Guests

Emily Anderson Stern, a Salt Lake Tribune Statewatch reporter. She was at Charlie Kirk’s speaking event at Utah Valley University, and has been reporting on the assassination.

Kyle Spencer, journalist and former New York Times contributor. Author of “Raising Them Right: The untold story of America’s ultraconservative youth movement – and its plot for power.”

Andrew Egger, White House correspondent at The Bulwark.

Also Featured

Nick Adams, president of the College Republicans chapter at Truman State University.

Transcript

Part I

ANTHONY BROOKS: Law enforcement officials are still trying to figure out what led a young man to murder Charlie Kirk. Less than a week ago, the husband, father, political activist, and founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA was shot dead at Utah Valley University last Wednesday.

Kirk’s assassination is part of a rising tide of political violence in America. That includes a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol in 2021, two assassination attempts against Donald Trump, an arson attack against Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, and the murders last June of Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark. And the list goes on. Forcing Americans to ask themselves, can we resist and push back against the rising tide of political violence?

Let’s start this hour in Utah with Emily Anderson Stern. She’s a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune. She was at Utah Valley University when Charlie Kirk was killed and has been reporting on the story in the days since she joins us from On Point Station KUER in Salt Lake City and Emily, thanks for being with us.

EMILY ANDERSON STERN: Thanks Anthony.

BROOKS: So bring us up with the latest, the suspected Gutman. Tyler Robinson, 22 years old. What do we know about him?

STERN: He’s from the southern part of the state city called Washington and Washington County, which is generally one of the most conservative parts of the state. They typically vote at the highest rates for President Donald Trump when he’s run for president.

But what Governor Spencer Cox, who’s been keeping an eye on the investigation throughout, because the State’s Department of Safety is handling it. He said that although Tyler Robinson’s parents are registered Republicans and conservative, that Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old, has political viewpoints that are quite different from his parents.

We haven’t gotten a lot of information from law enforcement what those are, and we don’t have any sort of definitive information as to what his motive was. Governor Spencer Cox did say yesterday that he was in a romantic relationship with a transgender woman which has, among the LGBTQ community here, stoked a lot of fear about retaliation and their safety.

But again, I do want to emphasize we don’t know much about the motive. And Utah Governor Spencer Cox also emphasized that in media interviews yesterday, that he wanted to make sure that people knew that Tyler’s Robinson’s romantic partner is cooperating with investigators and that really, he said that investigators don’t entirely know the motive yet, or at least have not disclosed that.

BROOKS: Well, let’s hear from Utah. Governor Spencer Cox, he spoke at a press conference announcing that law enforcement had the suspect in Kirk’s killing in custody. And he made an impassioned plea for citizens to recommit themselves to not engage in political violence.

So here’s Governor Cox.

GOV. COX: And that’s the problem with political violence. Is it metastasizes. Because we can always point the finger at the other side. And at some point, we have to find an off ramp or it’s going to get much worse.

BROOKS: Emily, a lot of people were struck by Governor Cox’s approach and what he said in the wake of this terrible assassination of Charlie Kirk. Can you tell those of us who aren’t completely familiar with Governor Cox, something about him. He seemed to be making an appeal to both sides of the political spectrum here to refrain from violence, talking about we need to find an off ramp. Is this consistent with the message that Governor Cox has offered over the time that you followed him?

STERN: This is something he’s tried to make part of his identity. When he first ran for election for governor, he and the Democratic candidate for governor made an ad together saying that, essentially, we don’t need to attack each other, we just need to get our policy perspectives out to the public and then you decide.

When he was chair of the National Governor’s Association last year, he ran a campaign called Disagree Better, trying to bring down the temperature in political conversations. But I will say there are a number of folks who are on the other side of the political spectrum here who have, on multiple occasions, said that he has these messages.

But sometimes, the things he says, the policies he supports, from their perspective, also stoke political division to some extent.

BROOKS: I see. Let’s get back to the suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson. He was arrested Thursday night. I understand he’s going to be formally charged tomorrow. Do I have that right?

STERN:  That’s what we’re expecting. He will make his first appearance in court tomorrow and he will be remote, but that will be in Provo, which is just near Orem where Utah Valley University is.

BROOKS: And I want to take to heart what you said at the top of the show that there’s a lot we don’t know. There’s so much more we don’t know than we do know in terms of his motivation.

But Governor Cox described messages that he said had been found engraved on unfired cartridges left at the scene.

What do we know about those messages and what might they indicate about Tyler Robinson’s political positions?

STERN: A lot of them are tied to internet culture, memes, video games, and things generally more familiar to folks, individuals who spend a lot of time on certain online platforms, chat rooms.

And some people may read them and take some certain political meanings from them. But again, with those inscriptions, they also have, there’s also not a lot of clarity still as to why he inscribed those particular messages. And what they tell us.

There are questions about whether he’s someone who is identifies as being on the left or if he’s someone who identifies as being on the right. Among people on the right, conservatives, there are some divisions about different messages and things that have been said among political influencers about each other. And so there are a lot of questions still as to what his political views are and what his motives are.

BROOKS: Right. And we expect that those will emerge as time moves forward. Any information from neighbors, from classmates, from people who knew Mr. Robinson about what might have motivated him or offer more insight into who he was.

Who he is, excuse me.

STERN: He did grow up in a family that are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. A lot of his neighbors said that they didn’t see him going to church often or didn’t have the impression that he was a believer in the faith. And as I mentioned earlier, Governor Spencer Cox has told us that he was in a relationship with a transgender woman.

So a lot of people said he wasn’t incredibly social, they didn’t know him particularly well, but they saw him around town. And there’s still a lot to learn about who Tyler Robinson is. And why he did this.

BROOKS: Emily, let’s go back to the day of the shooting last Wednesday.

I understand you were there at Utah Valley University. Can you bring us back to that moment and how it unfolded for you?

STERN: Yeah. So I was there, I’m a government and politics reporter here in the state, and I was there essentially, seeing what Charlie Kirk was telling the crowd, how people were reacting, wanting to write about the movement of some young people in the state to the right and relationships between state elected officials and Charlie Kirk. I was standing in the crowd at the time of the shooting, mostly among college students. But also there were folks from other parts of the state who don’t go to Utah Valley University who were there just because they liked Charlie Kirk and wanted to see him.

But among the college students, there was a range of political perspectives. There were some who were not familiar with Charlie Kirk and were just there because they were curious. There were fans of Charlie Kirk who told me they listened to all of his podcasts. And then there were also college students who disagreed with Charlie Kirk and wanted to provide some sort of counter messaging and protest what he was saying.

As I typically do when I’m at events with political figures, I was watching the crowd’s reactions to his comments. And it was during the second series of questions that this happened. A series of questions about mass shootings, transgender mass shooters, specifically. And then one shot rang out and before I even realized what had happened, I looked back at the table and Charlie Kirk was gone.

He’d been carried away. People had dropped to the ground. They were screaming, and it was a pretty chaotic scene.

One shot rang out. And before I even realized what had happened, I looked back at the table and Charlie Kirk was gone. He’d been carried away. People had dropped to the ground. They were screaming.Emily Anderson Stern

BROOKS: Yeah. I can imagine. What was the immediate reaction of the crowd? How quickly did they realize just what had happened? Were you able to pick that up?

STERN: I think, honestly, it was immediate.

For me, because I hadn’t seen it, I wasn’t sure, and this was true for a few people that I talked to, I wasn’t sure if it was a prank or if it was real. There were questions about mass shootings and Charlie Kirk has said quite a bit about defending gun rights, the second Amendment. And those comments haven’t always been popular.

He’s also said a number of anti-transgender things that have stoked prejudice toward transgender people. And so I wasn’t sure if this was some sort of demonstration, if someone had shot a blank. But then I started speaking to eyewitnesses who had seen him be hit and said they’d seen a lot of blood and realized, this is real. He was hit.

BROOKS: Emily, before we let you go very quickly what are the big questions that remain unanswered that you are looking to follow in the days and weeks ahead?

STERN: I think as we’ve touched on a lot, who is Tyler Robinson? Why did he do this? But also, what are the impacts of this?

How is this changing how people look at politics, how they feel about politics? And I think, we’re starting to see some of that, but also how is this going to change elected officials’ policy perspectives, Utah’s U.S. Senator Mike Lee has already started, he’s been incensed over this, and he has started talking about bills that he plans to introduce.

Part II

BROOKS: Nick Adams is a 21-year-old student at Truman State University in Missouri, and the chapter president of his school’s College Republicans Club. Nick told us he was at the gym last Wednesday when he got a text that Charlie Kirk had been shot.

NICK ADAMS: I just felt my stomach just sink to the floor. I immediately went straight onto social media to see what was happening.

The first place I went to was X, where immediately the first thing popped up was one of the videos that was being shown around. Right when I saw that video, I knew it was really bad, and I wasn’t able to finish my workout for the day. I had to end up just going back to my dorm. Because I could not focus whatsoever on what happened.

BROOKS: Nick says he spent the next few hours reaching out to friends and other college Republicans trying to find out exactly what happened. Then he learned Kirk was dead.

ADAMS: My stomach just sank to even deeper than what I thought it could have. … Immediately just felt this sadness anxiety of what might end up happening in the future. And then immediately thought too, he’s 31 years old. He’s married for, I think, about four or five years and two children. Once that came out that he had passed, one of the first social media posts I saw was the video of him with his daughter running to him into his arms. That really broke me down.

BROOKS: Nick says he admired Kirk because of his role in the conservative campus youth movement. Although he’d never met Kirk, Nick says Charlie Kirk’s presence on social media, his approach to engaging students on campuses and his values spoke to him and his generation of conservative leaning young people.

ADAMS: I’d say Charlie Kirk is definitely one of the big reasons we saw a huge push with Gen Z for the ’24 election. Just completely underestimated Gen Z vote, and it just completely turned out and voted for the Republican Party. For our group individually, I would say he gave us a sense of we can actually do something with our club.

We can actually be a forum for whether people want to come and disagree with us or just come and hear our points of view.

Charlie Kirk is definitely one of the big reasons we saw a huge push with Gen Z for the ’24 election.Nick Adams

BROOKS: To millions of young conservatives like Nick Adams, Kirk was a bold leader who brought his ideas and convictions into the public square. Kirk was also a divisive figure on college campuses, where progressives rejected his brand of politics, and some have responded to his murder in troubling ways. Nick, the young Republican from Missouri says he’s been unsettled by some of the reaction he’s seen online, including on apps like Yik Yak.

ADAMS: I have seen some comments on there that have been very spine chilling, very negative, saying that they’re happy that Charlie Kirk was shot and then killed, that they were happy with the consequences that have came out from the shooting.

So while in public, there hasn’t been as much negative push towards this. However, on the social media aspect, especially when it’s anonymous, there has been a lot of negative push on this event.

BROOKS: After the arrest of Tyler Robinson, the man suspected of shooting Kirk, Utah governor Spencer Cox condemned social media for helping fuel the current mood of extreme political divisiveness and made an impassioned plea to reject political violence.

He was joined by politicians from both sides of the aisle. Nick Adams is also concerned about what he’s seeing on campus.

ADAMS: I think when it comes to politicians or political figures of high significance, there’s always been a chance of violence. However, when it comes to more small people, small groups, like ours here on campus where we’ve had tablings, where people have come up, taken stuff, ripped stuff in front of us, and then thrown stuff at us.

I believe there’s certainly more incentive to not be overly violent, but there’s no incentive to prevent people from being just on the borderline of where you can get them in trouble for causing some form of harm. I would say there’s definitely a rise in that.

BROOKS: All right. That was Nick Adams, chapter President of College Republicans at Truman State University in Missouri. We’re going to spend the next few minutes talking a lot about Charlie Kirk and who exactly he was, and to help us do that, we’re joined by Kyle Spencer. She’s a journalist and former New York Times contributor, author of “Raising Them Right: The untold story of America’s ultraconservative youth movement – and its plot for power.”

Kyle Spencer, good to have you. Thanks for being with us.

KYLE SPENCER: Thank you so much. I’m happy to be here.

BROOKS: Let me just start with a really basic question. As someone who has studied Charlie Kirk and the rise of this ultra conservative youth movement, what was your reaction, first of all, to what happened, what unfolded on last Wednesday?

SPENCER: I have followed Turning Point USA’s development and growth online and on campuses. And I have followed Charlie Kirk’s growth as well. And it was very upsetting to see, and it was so tragic. And when I flashed back to the amount of pro-gun rhetoric that came out of Turning Point USA, visually online, with the posters and blitzing that Turning Point USA does so well.

It just made me so sad. Because the gun promotion was a really integral part of Turning Point USA and to see its leader die at the hands of a gun was just, it was horrible.

Gun promotion was a really integral part of Turning Point USA and to see its leader die at the hands of a gun … was horrible.Kyle Spencer

BROOKS: Horrible and shocking. And it’s interesting that you brought that up. I was struck last week in doing some reading that Charlie Kirk had talked about the cost of gun violence in America, and actually said that the price of, I’m not going to get these words exactly right, but he said words to the effect that the price of many deaths a year is a price worth paying to support the Second Amendment and the other rights that the Second Amendment supports. As you said, it’s a tragic irony that he dies at the hands of gun violence in America.

SPENCER: Yeah, one of the things that I remember when I was reporting on my book was attending a university in Florida.

And going over and talking to a bunch of tablers on that campus who were promoting Turning Point USA. And I always found if you were in collegial talking points, those folks were generally very amicable, as long as you didn’t verge into anything controversial. And there was a huge sign that they had propped up against their table, which said something to the effect of we are pro-choice.

And there was three very large military grade weapons on the poster. And then the poster said, choose one. And a young woman walked over to the table and she was very thoughtful but very upset. And she said this is really intimidating. Do you really have to have this here for us to walk by every time that we go to class?

And the young men at the table were very unsympathetic to her and were adamant that this was their right to speak out and to support guns on campus as they wished, and that she was, it was unfortunate that it upset her, but that was the way it was. And I never forgot that.

BROOKS: Interesting. Let’s get a sense, and I wanna bring Charlie Kirk’s voice into this conversation and give listeners a sense of how he operated on campus.

Charlie Kirk was known for debating college students and other youth on campuses across the country. And in one example, which was posted online, he debated a student about whether democracy was an American value.

STUDENT: Do you view democracy as an American value, as something that’s very important to the fabric of this country?

CHARLIE KIRK: No. Where is democracy in the U.S. Constitution?

STUDENT: Oh, okay. So are you —

KIRK: No, hold on. Where is the word democracy?

STUDENT: I don’t think the word democracy is in the constitution.

KIRK: It’s not. So where is the word democracy in any of the founding fathers.

STUDENT: A lot of the founding fathers had extremely elitist viewpoints around who should —

KIRK: No, hold on.

I just want, you said the word democracy, so I wanna get back to our roots.

STUDENT: Yes.

KIRK: Where is democracy mentioned?

STUDENT: I don’t —

KIRK: In the Federalist Papers, the Constitution or the Declaration.

STUDENT: I think it’s good that this country has moved away from things that were explicitly believed by the founding fathers.

KIRK: Got it. So it is mentioned in the Federalist Papers.

And it’s mentioned negatively as a problem. So you asked me, is democracy a fundamental American value? I say no.

STUDENT: Okay.

KIRK: Because I go back to our roots.

STUDENT: Do you —

KIRK: And Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.

STUDENT: Oh, I know that Hamilton was anti-democracy. People thought that people should be owned as property.

KIRK: No. Hold on, let finish. 

I wanna be clear. I am pro representative government.

STUDENT: Okay.

KIRK: But I’m not pro-democracy. That’s a big difference. And that distinction’s important. But you ask very specifically about democracy, which is not an American value. It never has been and never should be. Because what is democracy? Democracy is majority rule no matter what, that there’s no provisions of checks and balances.

No inalienable, no separation of powers, pure, if the majority gets it, the majority wants it as quickly as possible.

STUDENT: I don’t advocate pure democracy. I do understand that we live in a representative, we live in a republic, and I understand.  

BROOKS: All right, there’s Charlie Kirk debating a woman on a campus some time ago.

Kyle Spencer, what do you hear in that back and forth? Because I think it is important to talk about the fact that Charlie Kirk did bring his views into the public marketplace where he could be debated and pushed back against. On the other hand, he was a very accomplished debater, often taking on students who might not be up to that level of debate.

I don’t know, what do you think?

SPENCER: First of all, Charlie frequently began to talk about his belief that we were not and did not need to be a democracy by often referring to the constitutional republic that the founding father spoke about. That was their way to describe democracy and his insistence that they didn’t believe in democracy is extremely, it’s just disingenuous.

But what Charlie Kirk, who was 10 years older, I’m sure, or more than that woman had done before this debate, was to prepare. For years, and he was a huge reader of original documents that he then interpreted and figured out how to interpret in the ways that he felt were appropriate for his vision.

And he used those debates in which he was much better prepared than the students that he debated. To then videotape them, edited them quickly, his team edited them quickly and slapped them up on social media in order to depict liberal students as not very bright, confused, enraged, whatnot. So this young woman may have thought that what she was doing was engaging in an honest, open debate with Charlie Kirk.

But what she was really doing was being a tool for the Turning Point USA social media machine to push out a message that liberals are idiots.

BROOKS: I see. Interesting. Listen, we were talking, Kyle, about what Charlie Kirk said about gun deaths and gun rights. So we’ve got the quote in front of me right now.

So just for the record, I want to get this right. So in 2023, he said:

I think it’s worth, to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights.

Unquote. So I just wanted to put that out there. Since I had made reference to that quote, I wanted to be absolutely accurate about that, Kyle.

Tell us how Kirk started Turning Point USA. Because it turned into quite an operation.

SPENCER: Yeah, so Turning Point USA was started in 2012. Charlie Kirk was just out of high school and he was mostly a fiscal conservative. The idea is that he talked a lot about, and the reason he’d gotten driven into the conservative movement were issues around budget deficits, bloated government.

What he believed was bloated government. Fears about China’s dominance in the world market. Over taxation. That was his original. Those were his, mostly his original concerns and the concerns of the young people who followed him. As he grew the movement and as he upgraded a connection with President Trump.

He grew to endorse more culture war issues and became more concerned about issues around gender, race, those types of issues, and issues around campuses, which he believed to be overly woke. It’s important to note that Charlie Kirk was always religious. He did belong to an evangelical church very early on and had started to develop relationships with far-right Christian leaders, but he became, early on, he was, you could talk to him, and he was able to understand how you might have a different view. He was a little more moderate.

And Hasan Piker recently said that in his discussion about what he knew about Charlie Kirk earlier on, and I saw that too. As Charlie got more and more famous and more entrenched into the MAGA machine, he became less and less tolerant of other views and much more rigid about what he thought was something he could support.

BROOKS: Interesting. Now, did that pivot to culture wars affect his appeal with youth? Did it accelerate that appeal with conservative youth on college campuses? Because it became quite a thing.

SPENCER: Yeah, absolutely. I think that Charlie Kirk was always a really genius at feeling, testing the waters and seeing where the mood was, particularly among young people and college campuses, when his sort of arrival on them and growth on them were in a bit of a battle over this idea of whether focuses on equity and diversity were positive for a campus or not. And Charlie Kirk and his team really stood in a camp of believing that those types of pushes were really bad for white students. And that racism was very real and very prevalent on college campuses and in America. And that racism was largely against white people. So he tapped into that.

BROOKS: And how did this connection with the White House, with the MAGA movement, form so tightly, can you go into that a little bit?

SPENCER: Yeah, absolutely. Charlie Kirk got to know John Jr. during Trump’s first campaign and actually was —

BROOKS: John Jr. You mean Don Jr. Yeah.

SPENCER: Don Jr. Yes.

BROOKS: Yeah, go ahead.

SPENCER: Yeah, and actually was Don Jr’s bag boy, during the election going around and garnering favor and also fundraising for Donald Trump. Don Jr. was the one who introduced President Trump to Charlie Kirk, and it was a very immediate connection. Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump have a lot of things in common. They’re really brilliant messengers. They have a real good sense of where the mood is in the country, and they’re both extremely charismatic and have a certain kind of pull on people.

And I think that Donald Trump really saw that in Charlie and his thoughts and vocalization about Charlie Kirk were very real.

Part III

BROOKS: President Trump released a video following Kirk’s assassination. Kirk worked to elect Trump to the presidency and met regularly with him. In the video, Trump spoke against political violence, but lay the blame at the feet of what he called the radical left.

DONALD TRUMP: It’s a long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree. Day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible for years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today.

And it must stop right now.

BROOKS: President Trump’s talking there following the assassination of political activist Charlie Kirk. I’m joined by Kyle Spencer, journalist, former New York Times contributor. She’s author of “Raising Them Right: The untold story of America’s ultraconservative youth movement – and its plot for power.”

And Kyle, say a little more about his connection with Donald Trump because Trump actually gave Charlie Kirk a lot of credit for his last victory regaining the White House, right?

SPENCER: Yeah. So Charlie Kirk was really unique in the sense that he was an incredibly charismatic personality who was also able to raise lots and lots of money.

And to rally people around his organization, Turning Point USA. So Turning Point USA was then able to spawn off into various different entities, including a political entity, turning Point Action, which was largely responsible for building out, starting to imagine building out a vote, get out the vote effort for this most recent election. And Turning Point. USA’s various outlets have a huge staffing. The staffing is very; there’s a lot of folks that work for them. And so Charlie Kirk was able to envision things and then had the ability to see them to fruition.

So I think really what we see with Charlie Kirk was his ability to sell the MAGA movement to the masses, and in some cases, to sell harsher more somewhat controversial, disturbing to some elements of the MAGA movement to young people in ways that made them seem more palatable.

And for some people, that was Charlie’s brilliance. And then for other people, it was what made Charlie so dangerous.

Interesting. Let’s bring in another voice into the conversation. Andrew Egger, White House correspondent at the Bulwark. His post, the Sickness Unto Death was included in The Bulwark newsletter, published Thursday morning following Kirk’s assassination and titled Is This Who We Are?

And Andrew, it’s good to have you. Thanks for joining us.

ANDREW EGGER: Hey, thank you for having me on.

BROOKS: So that piece is … very powerful. Thank you for that. And you write, political violence has always been a dark part of America. And you ask, can we move past it again? So start there.

It’s a big question. Can we move past it or what will stop us from moving past it? What’s your thought on that?

EGGER: Yeah, it’s a big question. It’s also an open question, right? I think that we’re at a very dangerous moment right here in America right now where we’re in the wake of this assassination on a very prominent young Republican activist.

Everyone is looking around trying to find ways to lower the temperature, doing better or worse jobs of doing that. Of course, not everybody even is interested in trying to lower the temperature. And you have to also filter all of this through sort of the fact that more and more of us are processing these sorts of stories through the sort of algorithmic world of social media that is designed from the ground up to amplify the most explosive, the most emotionally charged messages.

More of us are processing these sorts of stories through … social media that is designed from the ground up to amplify … the most emotionally charged messages.Andrew Egger

And that is, we have seen time and time again, provides a real barrier in the wake of jarring national tragic stories like this, any sort of like transcending of political barriers to come together to heal. And we’ve seen a lot of that here. So I think it’s a dangerous moment.

It’s a difficult moment. It’s a very fraught moment. A lot of people are feeling a lot of promotions all over the place, particularly, of course, on the political right where Charlie Kirk was seen as such a hero. And yeah, it’s just, it’s very fraught for all those reasons.

BROOKS: Andrew, in that piece you make the point that by the time the summer of 2025 had really heated up, we’d already, it had already been a season of alarming political violence. You talk about the killing of two young employees at Israel’s D.C. Embassy, the June shooting of two Minnesota lawmakers and their families, the August shooting at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.

But you write that Kirk’s killing was an act of a different order. How can you explain that?

EGGER: Yeah, the obvious basic thing, not to diminish the tragedy of any of these stories. All of those people who were affected before … just as much had a right to go on with lives untouched by violence as much as Charlie Kirk did.

But we all had to learn their names in the midst of the stories of the horrible attacks on them. Charlie Kirk has been such a fixture of Republican politics in America for a decade and particularly, again, online. He has been such a central part of the conversation, and I think that is something that maybe some older commentators and just people paying attention to politics didn’t really have a full grasp on, just how omnipresent he was for online Republicans and campus Republicans. He was like the guy in a lot of ways. And so that combined with the fact that he was not actually in politics, right? He was not a politician. He was not an elected official.

The fact that, which I think magnified just the shock value that he would be targeted like this, I think is a big part of why this particular attack has gone off like such a bomb just in terms of the discourse and the emotions that everyone is feeling about it.

BROOKS: Kyle, bring you back into this conversation. Respond to what you’re hearing Andrew say. Do you agree with that idea that Kirk’s killing was an act of really a different order, notwithstanding the fact that there has been an awful lot of violence lately?

SPENCER: Yes, absolutely. And I think this idea is really well said.

That I just don’t think the establishment understood the extent to which Charlie Kirk resonated for young people and the level and how integral he was to the modern youth conservative movement. So I think that his death is gonna have some very severe repercussions and perhaps even corral more followers to the hard right.

His death is going to have some very severe repercussions and perhaps even corral more followers to the hard right.Kyle Spencer

BROOKS: That’s interesting. Your point was well taken. What kind of a hole does he leave behind? And I’m intrigued by this idea that his death might excite essentially the kind of issues that he was seeking to bring to the forefront. But he will leave a hole among the conservatives on college campuses.

Are there other people ready to take his place? What kind of a hole does he leave behind? I’ll ask that to both of you. You go first, Kyle.

SPENCER: I think that like many of these incredibly charismatic figures, there is nobody to step in right now. It is true that Charlie Kirk’s wife, Erica Frantzve, has been growing her public persona quite a bit.

She is a right-wing Christian influencer, and I’m going to watch her to see how much influence she starts to have and whether she grows her following and her involvement. But in terms of types of characters who had the impact, particularly on young men on college campuses. I see a lot of figures who have some influence, but I don’t see anybody who has the kind of impact that Charlie had.

BROOKS: Andrew, what do you think?

EGGER: Yeah, I agree with that. And I think in one sense, this is always the way of things, right? You have a titan of his field who dies, even if it’s in far less tragic circumstances, I’m thinking of, say Rush Limbaugh who was not killed.

He just died. And there were a lot of similar questions of, wow, that leaves such a hole in kind of the right wing political conversation space, and how could anybody ever fill that? And to a certain extent, there has never been, since then, like an equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.

But when you looked at somebody like Charlie Kirk, they were like the next generation like response to that. Charlie Kirk famously grew up idolizing Rush Limbaugh, right? And he, in terms of the conversation, had filled out in a different and new way, a lot of that same space for a lot of the same audience, but also for new audiences.

And I think that’s likely to be what we see here. Obviously, he was sui generics in a lot of ways for all the reasons that we have talked about. There will be other people, maybe people we don’t know yet at all, who will step up to fill that void, but obviously it’s going to look different.

It’s not going to be the same sort of combination of just dramatic conversational influence, but also political influence that worked, combined in the person of Charlie Kirk with his very large national megaphone and his very influential political group in Turning Point USA.

BROOKS: Andrew, in your piece, Is This Who We Are? And raising this difficult question about what we can do, any of us can do about this rising tide of violence that we’re witnessing at this moment.

You write that you don’t know for sure what to do, and then you say, all I know is what I can do. Can you explain that a little bit?

EGGER: Yeah. I think one of the unfortunate realities of moments like this, and again, particularly at a time of really high polarization, and particularly at a time when one person just was assassinated, who is obviously of one political side, there is an understandable, but I think really harmful tendency to say, as soon as the other side lays down their arms in this all out political war, that’s when I will tend to my own house. And whereas in reality, at a time of such deep polarization, and not that all the polarization is not understandable, it’s a time of deep division.

But all that you can do as one person is tend to the way that you yourself choose to respond to these moments. And obviously that takes, I would say, more charity for people who are on the political right, right now, who just lost one of their own, again, to this shocking act of violence.

There is, you can certainly see why so many people on that side are championing at the bit to retaliate in one way or another. But the hard reality of the case is that until there is like a mutual understanding that all you can do is lay down your own arms.

You can’t make the other person lay down their arms. It’s going to be hard to disentangle any of this stuff.

BROOKS: And of course, political violence, not a new thing sadly when it comes to the history of America. So let’s go back to April 4th, 1968. Following the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.

Robert F. Kennedy announced the tragic news to a crowd in Indianapolis. He then spoke off the cuff for several minutes and talked about the need for compassion and understanding, advocating for love and justice rather than division and hatred. Here’s a bit of what he said.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY: In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it’s perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in.

For those of you who are Black, considering the evidence, evidently is, and there were white people who were responsible. You can be filled with bitterness. And with hatred and a desire for revenge, we can move in that direction as a country and greater polarization. Black people amongst Blacks and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another.

BROOKS: And Kennedy continued talking about how to stop the cycle of violence.

KENNEDY: What we need in the United States is not division. What we need in the United States is not hatred. What we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom and compassion toward one another.

BROOKS: That was Robert F. Kennedy speaking in April of 1968 after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. And Andrew, just to come back to you, we heard President Trump talking about this was the fault of the political left. So is there a Kennedy like person out there who’s delivering that message now?

EGGER: Yeah, this is such a difficult thing, right?

Because again, I don’t want to discount that this is a very hard thing to do when you feel like you have just lost one of your own, at the hands of one of the other, right? That is not by any stretch, an easy thing to do. We have seen some Republican leaders, Utah Governor Spencer Cox, certainly foremost among them.

You talked a little bit about him earlier on the program, who are trying to do that. Really making what I thought was a heartfelt and really just important set of statements to that effect particularly on Friday, we have not unfortunately seen the same messaging out of the White House.

And you mentioned Donald Trump, but I think the most kind of shocking stuff in this department has come from Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, who has been really just advancing some kind of shocking statements about all of this. That essentially amount to, this killer did not act alone.

This killer is essentially, the primary guilt for this assassination should not fall on him, but should fall cumulatively on the institutions of the political left who have an ideology that he said, in a post on Friday, there’s a quote, has an insatiable thirst for destruction.

That always leads inevitably and willfully to violence. And he pledged in a appearance also on Friday on Fox News that the policy of the Trump administration is going to be to look for sort of any pretext to come down with criminal retaliation against, again, these sort of institutions of the left that they are laying the blame for this assassination. And for the response and for what they characterize as a callous left-wing response to the assassination. And so there that’s all kind of a moving target. And it’s, again, like I keep saying, it’s a very dangerous moment for a lot of these reasons.

BROOKS: And a long way from the words of Bobby Kennedy there.

Kyle Spencer, final thought from you in the 10 seconds that remain, about where we go from here, what are you thinking about?

SPENCER: I think it’s really alarming that in the White House there is this effort to stoke fear and intimidation in the face of this. And you gotta wonder what the end game is here.

And I think a lot of us journalists and others are very worried.

A Broad Wave of Firings Followed Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

More than 145 people in a wide range of occupations have been fired or disciplined after they made statements about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Tara Marcelle says she doesn’t remember exactly what she said near the nurses’ station the day that the conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot. She remembers making some dark jokes with her colleagues and, at some point, laughing. But she knows one thing for sure: It cost her her job.

Two days after the shooting, Ms. Marcelle was handed a letter of dismissal and told to pack up her things at the hospital in Phoenix where she had worked as a nurse for four years.

“Your behavior was described as disgraceful, morally unacceptable and abhorrent as you publicly expressed joy and laughter regarding the assassination of a public figure,” her termination letter read.

Ms. Marcelle, a 43-year-old Air Force veteran, said she never said Mr. Kirk deserved to be killed, but she is now among scores of people across the country who have been fired, suspended, reassigned or pushed to resign in the past two weeks for things they said about Mr. Kirk or his assassination.

Though there is no way of determining exactly how many people have faced workplace consequences, The New York Times identified more than 145 such cases through news reports, public statements and interviews with several of those targeted. Those who have faced discipline are professors and health care workers, lawyers and journalists, restaurant workers and airline employees.

They include a North Carolina police officer suspended for calling Mr. Kirk racist while also saying the shooting was horrific, a burger restaurant manager in Illinois who commented that “another one bites the dust,” and a California restaurant employee who said Mr. Kirk could “burn in hell.”

Dozens of other employees are still under investigation by their employers for statements they made.

Firings over controversial statements are not new, but they appear to have become more frequent in recent years as online armies seek to identify and assail the employers of people who say things they deem inappropriate. In the wake of Mr. Kirk’s death, Vice President JD Vance urged people to call the bosses of those who celebrated the assassination. “Call them out, and hell, call their employer,” he said.

Private-sector employers often have social media policies, and regardless, most can fire their workers for almost any reason, as long as they do not violate statutes that protect workers, such as those that prohibit discrimination based on race, gender and other protected characteristics. But the recent firings raise questions beyond the law, about how free workers should be to share their views and whether employers should have to answer for their workers’ opinions.

They are also notable because of Mr. Kirk’s emphasis on open debate. He was killed on Sept. 10 in Utah while holding one of many events in which he invited students to challenge him and his beliefs.

Ms. Marcelle said it was no secret among her colleagues at work that she was on the political left. She described herself as a “typical, liberal-looking mom” with tattoos who had done a tour of Iraq in the military before becoming a nurse. She said she was open about her opinions on the world, but had always considered herself well-regarded by her bosses in the emergency department; she was promoted in May to the position of clinical nurse educator, teaching other nurses. She would have gladly apologized to anyone she offended, she said.

In addition to firing her, she said, her employer, HonorHealth, is asking her to repay $5,250 in previous tuition reimbursement.

“I feel like the only people that lose out are the people who I could help be better nurses, regardless of their politics, and the patients, no matter their political beliefs,” Ms. Marcelle said.

The company said in a statement that it would not comment on personnel matters, but that it expects “all team members to uphold the highest standards of conduct while at work.”

The firings have happened in an array of states, in areas with various political leanings.

Hannah Molitor, 27, said she felt she had landed her “dream job” when she began working for a childhood literacy program at a nonprofit in Milwaukee about a year ago. But she was fired after posting on Facebook the day that Mr. Kirk was killed.

“What happened to Charlie Kirk is horrible and no person should ever lose their life to gun violence,” the post began. “However just realize that one side of the aisle is actively fighting to bring an end to unnecessary deaths by gun violence and it was not the side Charlie was on. Yes I am making his death political, no I do not care. If all you do is spew hate, you’re bound to get some in return.”

In hindsight, Ms. Molitor said, she can understand how some might interpret her post as saying Mr. Kirk got what he deserved. Her intent, she said, was to highlight his beliefs and make a point about gun violence.

Within a few hours of her post, she was told by the president of the nonprofit, Next Door, which is not related to the neighborhood networking platform, not to return to work. By the next day, she was fired.

In a statement, Next Door’s president, Heather Mehring Grams, referred to the “personal views” expressed by the employee. “Those views did not reflect the values or mission of our organization,” she said.

Ms. Molitor said she was devastated to lose her job, but stood by what she said, wishing only that she had not shared it publicly. In Kentucky, another person who lost her job, Amber Thibodeaux, said that it could hardly have come at a worse time. She had moved her family from Tennessee to Frankfort, the state’s capital, just five months ago to begin working at a hospital, managing ventilators and other life-support systems as a respiratory therapist.

Then, last week, she was told that someone had sent a screenshot of one of her Facebook posts to an ethics line run by her employer. Ms. Thibodeaux posts frequently about politics online, and her posts after Mr. Kirk’s killing were barbed, saying that she “won’t lose a wink of sleep” over his death and that memorials to Mr. Kirk were “like asking ppl to mourn Hitler.”

She said her page is only for friends and does not publicly identify her employer; her profile shows about 70 friends. The post that her employer referred to when firing her, she said, was one in which she shared news of Mr. Kirk’s death and wrote, “There’s no way lol….this can’t be true,” with a laughing emoji.

Now without a job, Ms. Thibodeaux is worried about not having enough money for rent, losing her health insurance and putting food on the table for her husband and son.

“We moved our entire life over here for this job because it was so promising,” she said. “This is more than a job loss.”

Several people interviewed said they were considering legal action, though their cases could be challenging. Even government employees, who have a right to speak on matters of public concern, can be fired if the speech disrupts the workplace.

Risa L. Lieberwitz, a professor of labor and employment law at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, said that what she found novel about the recent firings was how much companies appear to fear reprisal from the Trump administration and other politicians.

“Right now, it’s at quite an extreme level of fear that people have in speaking out,” she said.

In some cases, employers have acted while under pressure from lawmakers and other government officials.

Phillip Michael Hook, an art professor at the University of South Dakota, filed a lawsuit against university officials after they moved to fire him over a post on Facebook in which he said he had “no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading Nazi.” He deleted the post about three hours later and made another one, apologizing. But the incident had already caused an outcry, including social media posts from the state’s Republican House speaker and governor criticizing him.

A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily stopped the university from firing the professor, while the court hears the case.

The effort to examine employees’ political statements has led some workplaces to pull camera footage and interrogate employees.

A former Republican candidate for the State Legislature in Minnesota created a frenzy when she wrote on social media that she had heard from a friend that employees at CoV Wayzata, a restaurant near Minneapolis, “were celebrating” Mr. Kirk’s death. The restaurant responded the next morning on social media, writing that managers were planning to interview “all employees” who were working the day before and review video footage.

“If we find any credible evidence of anyone representing CoV participating in any way in the activities described, those involved will be dismissed,” the managers vowed. They did not respond to messages seeking an update this week, and the former candidate said she did not know what came of the inquiry.

In at least one case, the accusations were false.

Cynthia Rehberg, an associate principal at West Side Elementary School in Elkhorn, Wis., said her school was besieged with calls last week after a conservative media personality claimed that she had said Mr. Kirk “deserves everything he got.” But the post was not from Ms. Rehberg, who had no idea who Mr. Kirk was until he was killed.

Some of the callers said they wanted to rip her heart out or drag her body behind a truck. One person told Ms. Rehberg to “Run!” and sent another message with her address. She stayed with relatives for the weekend and said she learned how to get groceries delivered for the first time.

Jason Tadlock, the superintendent of the Elkhorn Area School District, said the district has received about 1,000 angry calls. He asked for help from a state senator and issued a fact sheet to parents explaining the case of mistaken identity.

The conservative influencer later issued a correction. Ms. Rehberg returned to school on Sept. 15, with extra police officers working security. She said the First Amendment was part of what made her proud to be American, but the ordeal left her upset that someone had used their speech to unfairly target her.

“I offer nothing but heartfelt condolences to Charlie Kirk and his family, and what a tragedy,” she said. “I just don’t appreciate, I suppose, the way in which people are communicating in the world today.”

After Kirk’s Death, Turning Point Vows to Go On. That May Be Easier Said Than Done.

Despite a surge in new campus chapters, there is a void left by Charlie Kirk’s murder that has implications for the entire MAGA movement.

Less than two weeks after the murder of the conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, his widow, Erika Kirk, the organization’s new chief executive, convened a senior staff meeting at the group’s Phoenix headquarters to discuss its future. “A murderer tried to silence my husband,” she told them by video conference from her home in Scottsdale, Ariz., according to two of the attendees. “I won’t let that happen.”

Mrs. Kirk directed the Turning Point staff to keep her husband’s personal X account active with regular posts. She reiterated her desire that the two-hour daily radio broadcast “The Charlie Kirk Show” remain on the air, although with rotating hosts and with her husband’s studio chair deliberately left empty. Mr. Kirk’s debate tour on college campuses would also continue, she said, with conservative stars like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly standing in for her husband.

The message, in essence, was that the show would go on at Turning Point.

That may be easier said than done. For now, the group has reported a surge in new Turning Point high school and college campus chapters by conservative students affected by the loss of Mr. Kirk, while President Trump and Vice President JD Vance both announced they would speak at the group’s annual AmericaFest this year. Still, more than a dozen associates and conservative allies of Mr. Kirk said in interviews that they were concerned about what his death would mean not only to Turning Point but also to the MAGA movement itself.

Mr. Kirk, they said, was more than a leader and organizer of a sprawling, well-funded conservative youth organization. He also helped build, define and unite Mr. Trump’s movement, all while selling a right-wing Christian vision to a new generation. Despite Mr. Kirk’s attacks on the Civil Rights Act, feminism, Islam and transgender people — and the fact that he helped pull formerly extremist views into the mainstream — his tone in his speeches and debates was less angry than that of other leading figures on the right.

Friends describe Mrs. Kirk as fiercely determined to build on her husband’s work, but she is not a political figure. Mr. Kirk spoke at hundreds of campaign rallies during his life; she has spoken at only one. While she will give a talk at one campus on the college tour that Mr. Kirk began at Utah Valley University, she has decided she will not spar with students as her husband did. Nor is Turning Point likely to deputize one of Mr. Kirk’s lieutenants for the task, at least until security concerns are assuaged, according to a person familiar with the decision-making.

In the meantime, one of the group’s associate producers, Ryan Marty, has begun the task of putting together a streaming loop of all Mr. Kirk’s campus debates that he intends to offer up for public consumption on the internet. “Altogether, it’s about 150 hours,” Mr. Marty said in an interview.

Turning Point employees, many of them in their 20s, are continuing to take their place at their laptops in the group’s Phoenix headquarters and silently churn out content for Mr. Kirk’s radio show and social media platforms. Their expressions have been stoic if vaguely shellshocked. To them Mr. Kirk was both a charismatic leader and a wisecracking, 6-foot-5 eccentric who carried around bottles of olive oil and homemade hot sauce wherever he went and who sometimes paraded around the office in shorts and knee-high socks which, he claimed, “improve circulation for tall men.”

Dropping by to guest-host Mr. Kirk’s show one morning, Mr. Carlson grabbed a couple of the young employees by their shoulders and exhorted them: “Be emotional! It’s OK to let it out!”

In reality, more questions than answers now occupy the space that Mr. Kirk once inhabited. They range from how to interpret his views on free speech and Israel to conspiracy theories about his death, including speculation that Tyler Robinson, the suspect charged with the fatal shooting of Mr. Kirk, was supported by a left-wing network and that the body rushed to the hospital was not that of Mr. Kirk.

(Far from quashing macabre theories, the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, has appeared respectful. “We are meticulously investigating theories and questions,” he said in a recent statement, and then listed over a half-dozen of them, including “hand gestures observed as potential ‘signals’ near Charlie at the time of his assassination.”)

In the meantime, Mr. Kirk’s legacy has become a subject of disagreement. “It was Charlie who helped bring online censorship, free speech and cancel culture to the fore of our political debate,” Mr. Trump said in his tribute at Mr. Kirk’s memorial service on Sept. 21.

And yet Turning Point staff members openly celebrated ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel from his late-night show for baselessly suggesting that the shooting suspect had been a fellow conservative. The group’s position did not change even after some conservative leaders, including Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, denounced Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, for publicly threatening ABC with disciplinary action if it did not act against Mr. Kimmel.

Mr. Kirk has also been second-guessed about his evolving view on America’s commitment to Israel. He told donors in Palm Beach, Fla., last December that at Turning Point, “we are unapologetically for Israel.” But in recent months his unflagging support had given way to frustration as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continued Israel’s nearly two-year war in Gaza, according to two close associates.

Mr. Kirk’s willingness to showcase Turning Point events with Mr. Carlson, a forceful critic of Israel, infuriated one of the group’s top donors, Robert J. Shillman, a conservative tech billionaire who two associates described as a father figure to Mr. Kirk. Two days before Mr. Kirk’s death, Mr. Shillman angrily questioned Mr. Kirk for giving a platform to Mr. Carlson and informed him he was withdrawing a $2 million pledge to Turning Point.

Mr. Shillman did not respond to a request for comment. On a podcast tribute to Mr. Kirk nine days after the shooting, Mr. Shillman made no mention of any discord between them but said of Turning Point USA, “Without a leader, it has no particular direction.”

In the conservative ecosystem, Mr. Kirk occupied a host of spaces: youth organizer, broadcaster, faith leader, get-out-the-vote mobilizer and loyal adviser to both Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance. But his influence on the right took on other, more subtle forms that associates say may be hard for someone else to replicate.

“Charlie represented this very positive, productive path for young men,” said Tyler Cardon, the chief executive of Blaze Media, the Texas-based conservative media company whose marquee talent is the broadcaster Glenn Beck. In an interview, Mr. Cardon went on to contrast Mr. Kirk’s family-oriented Christian ethic with those of two other prominent right-wing influencers.

One of them, Andrew Tate, a former kick boxer and self-described misogynist, wrote on social media last year that “women shouldn’t vote because they don’t care about issues outside of how THEY feel.” The other, Nicholas J. Fuentes, a white nationalist, described his appeal to young men on his streaming show in August by saying, “Anything you want to say — incel, racist, Trump supporter — I represent all those facets of the disaffected white male.”

Just as Mr. Kirk projected wholesomeness, he also worked to expand the appeal of Mr. Trump’s movement. In his speech at Mr. Kirk’s funeral, the president described the 31-year-old activist as a “master builder of people,” adding that Mr. Kirk had led efforts to bring the president’s message to “young Black conservatives.”

Several close associates interviewed for this article cited what they saw as Mr. Kirk’s unity-building efforts as an underappreciated virtue at a time when warring factions on the right threaten to undermine the Republican Party’s current dominance.

Mr. Kirk’s inner circle had watched his evolution at close range over the past decade, from a teenager with ill-fitting suits and less than exemplary hygiene to a smooth power player in Republican politics. Nearly all these associates said they believed Mr. Kirk would himself be president one day.

Those staff members have now rallied around their new leader, taking comfort in Mrs. Kirk’s devoutness as well as her previous experience as a public speaker and entrepreneur of a Christian-themed clothing line. “I know she can step into Charlie’s position here,” said Marina Minas, the group’s chief marketing officer, “because she was a boss babe before she even met Charlie.”

Conclusion

I wrote an article a few years ago where I discussed which of the assassinations, JFK or RFK, was a bigger loss to this country. I claimed that the assassination of RFK was a bigger one. Mainly because LBJ was able to step in and complete all of the things that Kennedy wanted to do. The only thing was the Vietnam War. Kennedy tried to get us out of it, while Johnson was tied up with arms manufacturing, so he was pro-war. The loss of Charlie Kirk was at the same level. I firmly believe he would have become president of the United States, most likely after J.D. Vance served his two terms, or possibly a term or so afterwards. He was quite young, perhaps after Marco Rubio or one of the other stellar Republicans waiting in the wings.

Sources

-en.wikipedia.org, “Assassination of Charlie Kirk.” By Wikipedia Editors;

–https://mturner.substack.com/p/charlie-kirks-assassination-and-the, “Charlie Kirk’s Assassination and the Shaking of America.” By Mike Turner;

-aie.org, “Charlie Kirk’s Murder Was a Cultural Assassination.” By Howard Husock;

-wbur.org, “What Charlie Kirk’s assassination reveals about political violence in America.” By Anthony Brooks and Willis Ryder Arnold;

-nytimes.com, “A Broad Wave of Firings Followed Charlie Kirk’s Assassination.” By Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs and Bernard Mokam;

-nytimes.com, “After Kirk’s Death, Turning Point Vows to Go On. That May Be Easier Said Than Done.” By Robert Draper;

Politician and Influencers Related Postings
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/10/13/why-is-aoc-so-popular/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/09/02/did-secretary-of-state-mike-pompeo-violate-the-hatch-act/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/08/22/politicians-live-by-different-rules/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/07/06/why-is-the-left-in-love-with-impeachment-is-william-barr-next/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/07/04/mayors-and-governors-stop-blaming-president-trump-get-off-your-asses-and-do-your-job/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/07/03/twelve-mainstream-politicians-12-of-12-ronald-dion-de-santis/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/07/04/twelve-mainstream-politicians-11-of-12-addison-mitchell-mcconnell/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/07/03/twelve-mainstream-politicians-10-of-12-thomas-bryant-cotton/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/07/02/twelve-mainstream-politicians-9-of-12-randal-howard-paul/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/07/01/twelve-mainstream-politicians-8-of-12-john-neely-kennedy/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/07/01/twelve-mainstream-politicians-7-of-12-mike-pence/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/07/01/twelve-mainstream-politicians-6-of-12-joe-biden/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/07/01/ten-mainstream-politicians-5-of-12-chuck-schumer/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/06/30/ten-mainstream-politicians-4-of-10-bill-de-blasio/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/06/30/ten-mainstream-politicians-3-of-10-andrew-cuomo/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/06/30/ten-mainstream-politicians-3-of-10-andrew-cuomo/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/06/25/ten-mainstream-politicians-1-0f-10-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/06/24/did-sarah-palin-get-a-bad-rap/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/06/23/why-are-state-and-local-leaders-allowing-looting-and-rioting-to-occur/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/06/22/was-mccarthy-right-about-communism-and-the-left/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/06/20/if-we-were-at-war-governor-cuomo-and-several-other-governors-would-be-charged-with-war-crimes/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/06/19/john-bolton-a-charlatan/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/11/09/why-are-politicians-able-to-push-for-dissidence-without-repercussions/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/11/08/how-does-kamala-harris-stack-up-against-joseph-stalin/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2020/11/15/aoc-and-the-accountability-project/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2021/01/12/the-truth-about-attorney-general-barr/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2021/02/09/is-susan-rice-the-puppet-master/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2021/03/02/is-kamala-harris-a-good-role-model-for-the-modern-woman/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2021/04/09/governors-behavior-during-the-pandemic/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2021/09/07/governor-cuomo-resigned/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2024/09/06/what-is-wrong-with-the-harris-walz-platform/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2024/10/18/was-mike-pence-a-trojan-horse-a-long-overdue-examination-of-the-facts-behind-january-the-6th/
https://common-sense-in-america.com/2025/10/14/what-effect-did-the-assassination-of-charlie-kirk-have-on-america/