The Death of Charlie Kirk: Politics and Perception of American Political Violence

Charlie Kirk speaking with attendees at the 2025 Student Action Summit at the Tampa Convention Center in Tampa, Florida. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

On September 10, 2025, right-wing activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot at Utah Valley University during one of his signature collegiate debates. Immediately, shock and horror echoed across the campus, which was lined with thousands of people eager to see Kirk during his “American Comeback Tour.” The accused shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, is facing seven state charges, including felony aggravated murder and felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury. Prosecutors, who are seeking the death penalty, remarked that the decision was “made independently” and “not taken lightly.” Regarding his motive, an official familiar with the investigation stated that Robinson allegedly opened fire upon Kirk because “he found Kirk’s ideology personally offensive.”

As the investigation progresses, controversies persist regarding how Kirk positioned himself in the contemporary political scene. As the co-founder of the conservative nonprofit Turning Point in 2012, Kirk developed a well-known media persona that frequently went viral. With large followings across TikTok, Instagram, X, YouTube, and a thriving podcast titled “The Charlie Kirk Show,” Kirk digitized his movement to reach young Americans, especially students. Yet despite his extensive social media presence, people are most familiar with Kirk for his tours of college campuses, where he often invited students to debate him. Kirk had used these debates to promote his position and energize his base, stating that he aspired to “save Western civilization.” 

However, since Kirk’s death, he has taken on a new identity—one that people are fiercely debating. While some idolize Kirk as a martyr and view his movement as enduring, others are more wary about romanticizing a figure they believe was rhetorically hostile.

For his closest ally, the Republican Party—and especially its MAGA wing—Kirk has been revered as someone who “inspired millions” and “had the heart of the youth,” according to President Trump. Additionally, Trump has also categorized Kirk as a martyr who “fought for liberty, democracy, justice, and the American people.” Vice President J.D. Vance has similarly called Kirk a “hero of the United States” while blaming “left-wing extremism” for his death.

At Kirk’s funeral service on September 21, 2025, which drew 60,000 attendees, remembrances ranged from religiously mournful to politically incendiary. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stressed how Kirk’s death “unleashed a spiritual survival,” and Kirk’s wife Erika solemnly discussed how Charlie wanted to help young people and “show them a better path.” This contrasted with Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who bellowed at what he called “our enemies” while fervently exclaiming, “You have no idea how determined we will be to save this civilization, to save the West, to save this republic… you have nothing to give. You have nothing to offer.”

On the other hand, some leaders and organizations remembered Kirk with more criticism, highlighting sympathy but also their belief that Kirk’s controversies should not be expunged. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said in a statement that while Kirk’s death was “brutal” and condemnable, his “rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans.” Similarly, Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) said during a CNN interview that, “[Kirk’s] legacy is another. I honor everybody's life…and that is a legacy that I will never vote to honor.” Multiple civil rights groups have also criticized Kirk posthumously for his “racist, anti-immigrant, transphobic, and misogynistic” rhetoric. Reverend Howard John-Wesley of Alexandria, Virginia, succinctly summarized this general mood by saying, “How you die does not redeem how you lived.” 

While people vigorously debate the lenses through which Kirk should be remembered, his assassination positions itself within the context of America’s increasing political violence.  From multiple attempts on President Trump’s life to the shooting of two Minnesota lawmakers and the arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s house, acts of political violence have made headlines more frequently than at any time in the past 50 years. And the public recognizes that.

According to the Pew Research Center, 66% of registered voters think that political violence against American politicians and their families is “a major problem.” Similarly, a recent Quinnipiac poll found that 71% of voters consider politically motivated violence today to be “a very serious problem,” while 54% believe it will worsen in the U.S. over the next few years. As for hopes on reducing political violence, a Marquette University Law School survey found that only 31% of Americans are confident that a “path to reduction” exists for political violence. Additionally, it found that a majority of people across party lines — 63% of Republicans, 72% of independents, and 73% of Democrats — see “escalating conflict as likely” in politics. Clearly, Americans are worried about the apparent rise in political violence, and for the most part, experts share that view.

 “We’re at a level that we haven’t seen since the 1970s,” said Cynthia Miller-Idriss, director of the Polarization and Extremism Research Innovation Lab at American University, on PBS News Weekend. “We've seen rising assassination attempts and assassinations as a tactic within that political extremism.” Additionally, PBS describes recent political violence as “spreading from extremist fringes into the mainstream,” meaning violent acts seem more common — a notion aligning with the public opinion polls mentioned above.

However, other data suggest that, in reality, political violence occurs on a heavily limited scale with virtually no popular support. According to an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), political violence only accounts for a little more than 1% of all violent hate crimes in the U.S. That study also concluded that “mainstream Americans of both parties have little appetite for violence—political or not.” Similarly, a New York Times article also found that “a vanishingly small number of Americans support political violence in any meaningful sense.” So, while political violence has indeed become more frequent, it is still far from an everyday occurrence, and most Americans are firmly against it.

So, although troubling and still on the rise, the pervasiveness of political violence appears overstated, despite legitimate public concern. One explanation for this misalignment between the reality of political violence and the public’s perception is social media, which continually amplifies breaking news, such as the public killing of Kirk.

When discussing the role of social media, some experts claim that it bears significant responsibility for acts of political violence. For example, researchers at New York University and Public Circle Research, a private firm, found that social media, such as YouTube, Facebook, and TikTok, “facilitates political intimidation and violence” enough to deserve “attention and mitigation.” Similarly minded experts also contend that social media’s algorithms and features “exacerbate political division” and leave people “socially isolated,” which could increase the chances of someone committing political violence.

In contrast, some experts agree that social media is linked to recent political violence, yet they strongly promote that it is one of several contributing factors, not the principal cause. Robert Pape, for example, a political scientist and director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats at the University of Chicago, told ABC News that social media is “like pouring gasoline on a fire – it’s not the fire itself.” Other factors, Pape and others argue, such as inflammatory rhetoric by leaders, the accessibility of guns, and partisan news outlets, position social media as an amplifier of a “message that’s already happening.” 

Some argue that the U.S., in the wake of another act of political violence, has already passed a turning point, while others contend that now is the time to act to prevent one. Although it is still too early to see how Charlie Kirk’s death ultimately fits into an already tumultuous political climate, lessons from his assassination may help guide the country forward. Kirk’s killing reminds people that confronting political violence is never straightforward or free from controversy—especially when the figure involved was as divisive as Kirk. Additionally, his posthumous attention highlights the link between political violence and social media, showing how the surrounding debate can clarify the disconnect between its reality and public perception. So, even as fierce debates continue over Kirk and the nature of his death, it remains important to reflect on the event and the lessons it offers, especially since these insights can be easily eclipsed by the next headline or post.