Kai Cruz

October 18, 2025

On September 10th, 2025, right-wing podcaster and Turning Point CEO Charlie Kirk was fatally shot at Utah Valley University while hosting a debate event on campus. His alleged shooter, Tyler Robinson, is a 22-year-old Utah resident. Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray purports that Robinson’s motive was due to a disagreement with Kirk’s political perspectives. Most of the evidence that points toward Robinson is contained in a 10-page document of messages obtained by the state, in which Robinson supposedly referred to Charlie Kirk as “full of hate and spreading hate.” [1]. Friends of Robinson “paint a picture of someone radicalized in the dark corners of the internet”, and Utah governor Spencer Cox quickly claimed that “there clearly was a leftist ideology.” [2]. The death penalty was being pushed for before it was revealed that Robinson is, in fact, a cisgender white male from a conservative family. The alleged radicalization of Robinson is otherwise known as a “groyper” mentality, or rather, that of a far-right extremist. Also known as followers of live-streamer and political commentator Nick Fuentes, groypers are a white nationalist group that promote far-right political beliefs [3]. Kirk’s death rocked the nation because of his political relevance—even without being in a position of power within the government, he had a lot of influence over the youngest voters in the country. But who was Charlie Kirk, and why is his death so significant to conservatives and the Trump administration?

Born Charles James Kirk in 1993, Charlie was raised in a moderate Republican household, and discovered his own political beliefs in high school. After quickly deciding to drop out of community college, Kirk founded his company Turning Point at age 18, as “a student organization that advocated for free markets and limited government.” [4]. The organization’s main focus was for Kirk to host debates with students and members of Gen Z about political issues—Kirk representing the right, and his debate opponent arguing for the left. Turning Point now has chapters at over 850 colleges in the United States, including the University of Pittsburgh. Some of Kirk’s most controversial views focused on illegal immigration, free market capitalism, and foreign policy. He once said that Kamala Harris was directly responsible for the surplus of illegal immigrants in the country under the Biden administration. He also denounced people who enjoyed the fruits of the free market while they supported Senator Bernie Sanders in his run for president [5]. Kirk was a master of “whatabout-ism”, an argumentative tactic used to flip the question back to the person who originally asked. And ironically, months before his death, Kirk said that “[i]t’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” [6]. The impact of his words does not go unnoticed—47% of voters aged 18-29 voted for Trump and 51% for Harris; in 2020, Joe Biden outweighed Trump 61%-36%. Kirk’s supporters and Turning Point fans believed that his goal was to create a world that he thought was better than what we have now.

Yet, it is not only Turning Point supporters that believe in the value of Charlie Kirk’s mission. The New York Times recently published an article titled “Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way”, by opinion columnist Ezra Klein. Klein argued that even though he did not share Kirk’s views, he admired Kirk’s courage to continue to argue and travel across the country for the sake of open debate. His main argument was that a free society collapses when people fear violence for political participation, and Kirk’s death was one of many instances of this. There has been a rise in political violence within the last five years: plots against Gretchen Whitmer (2020), the Capitol attack (2021), the assault on Paul Pelosi (2022), the Trump assassination attempt (2024), the murders of Minnesota’s Melissa Hortman and her husband, and the Molotov attack on Gov. Josh Shapiro (2025) are all recent examples of what is considered political violence [7]. Charlie Kirk’s mission through Turning Point was protected by the First Amendment, which legally protects speech, press, assembly, and petition. However, there are certain types of speech—ones that Kirk’s arguments likely fall under—that are not protected by the First Amendment. Those include incitement of violence, true threats, obscenity (in certain cases), fighting words, defamation, commercial speech, and student speech. Kirk was known for defamatory statements about political figures who were more liberal or leaned left, and while his words cannot be directly tied to any incitements of political violence, the perspectives he shared were often filled with vitriol and disinformation.

It is often hard to identify where instances of domestic terrorism and political violence occur in the United States, as outlined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There are certain criteria that must be met for a crime to qualify as domestic terrorism: racial/ethnic, anti-government or authority, environmental, abortion-related, and other extremist threats [8]. If these threats cannot be verified, the FBI cannot report them nor prosecute the criminals in question. One of the ways to counter this would be an increase in funding, staffing, and resources for not only the FBI, but the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice as well. As it currently stands, there is no specific criminal charge for domestic terrorism or political violence—crimes under these terms are prosecuted and charged based on the act itself.

In Kirk’s case, shooter Tyler Robinson is mainly being prosecuted for aggravated murder. There is also the possibility for the government to prosecute under general terrorist criminal procedure, but this is less common than standard criminal charges. However, many of the struggles with domestic terrorism are due to the protections of the First Amendment, and what categories of speech and action are protected under it. The FBI and DOJ use typical guardrails to make sure they are not infringing upon any rights or pushing past what is necessary for an investigation [9]. The event in which Kirk was murdered at was hosted on a public college campus, so in that case there may not have been a need for additional security presence. However, this does raise questions about gun policy and additional security measures for political figures. As outlined in the Utah Code Section 53-5a-102.2 on public safety, individuals 21 and older are allowed permitless and concealed carry throughout public areas in the state, and are allowed to carry onto campuses of higher education with a concealed carry permit [10]. Tyler Robinson, 22, allegedly used a bolt-action rifle to assassinate Kirk during his speech. Utah’s legal framework for gun policy raises questions about how events with public figures are secured and how allowing armed civilians on campus could lead to more violent public events. Critics might interpret that permitless carry increases the risk of violence, given the shooting of Kirk, while supporters emphasize Second Amendment protections. The section of the Utah Code specifically shows the tension between individual gun rights and public safety at politically significant events. Regardless of how much legal or direct political power Kirk wielded, his perspectives made him a target. 

Due to Charlie Kirk being such a controversial figure, there were those that mourned his death, and on the other side, those that celebrated it. The Trump administration and conservatives in Congress were quick to demand retribution for the shooter, and the president almost immediately put out a video statement on the official White House website after Kirk’s death was confirmed. Trump spoke about his “[g]rief and anger at the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk,” as well as acknowledging that Kirk’s “mission was to bring young people into the political process, which he did better than anybody ever…and to spread the simple words of common sense.” Trump went on to call Kirk’s shooter a “monster who attacked [Charlie and] attacked our whole country,” and denounced the “radical left” for the violence they have supposedly perpetuated “for years” that “must stop right now.” [11]. Whether or not President Trump has any serious intent to stop the so-called radical left from continuing their rampage of national violence remains to be seen, as his main goal seems to be cracking down on those who oppose his administration and speak out against him. On September 25th, the president signed an executive order entitled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.” This order focuses on stopping radicalization and to some extent, speech particularly related to changing policy outcomes. This is a direct contradiction to the beliefs of Charlie Kirk, who frequently spoke out against the policy being enacted by Democrats in Congress. While President Trump may believe that this order will decrease the amount of controversial and hateful speech that leads to political violence, what he is actually doing is violating the First Amendment by choosing what forms of expression are considered “protected,” solely based on which of those expressions align with his administration’s values, and policies. Critics of this order worry that this “dehumanizing” act is inching the president closer to other totalitarian leaders of history [12].

Charlie Kirk was a persuasive political figure that strongly influenced the rise of conservative Gen Z. Regardless of one’s political affiliation, his death will be remembered as one of the most brutal and public examples of a politically incited assassination that has occurred in the last year. Incidents like what happened to Kirk cannot continue to occur. There is no place in the United States for such violence, and regardless of politics, most Americans would agree with that statement. As President Trump said in his video remarks after Kirk’s death: “It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront 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.” It is undeniable that many of Charlie Kirk’s statements were full of hate and lies, but people do not deserve to be shot dead for the sole reason of hate and lies. If the current administration does truly see a problem with the continued violence against any and all political figures, then President Trump and Congress should do their best to support those who are able to track down and prosecute these violent criminals.

Photo credits: The Economist. 2025. “Charlie Kirk, Pied Piper of the American Right.” The Economist. July 18, 2025. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/07/18/charlie-kirk-pied-piper-of-the-american-right.

Works Cited

[1] Turnbull, Tiffanie. 2025. “What we know about fatal shooting of conservative US activist Charlie Kirk.” BBC, September 12, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy04p4x21e5o.
[2] PBS Associated Press. 2025. “What to know about the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.” PBS, September 15, 2025. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/what-to-know-about-the-aftermath-of-charlie-kirks-assassination.
[3] Institute for Strategic Dialogue. 2022. “Groypers.” ISD. https://www.isdglobal.org/explainers/groypers/. 
[4] Tucker, Eric, Alanna Durkin, and Jesse Bedayn. 2025. “How Charlie Kirk helped shape a conservative force for a new generation.” PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-charlie-kirk-helped-shape-a-conservative-force-for-a-new-generation. 
[5] Wertheimer, Tiffany, and Gabriela Pomeroy. 2025. “What to know about Charlie Kirk, Trump ally and conservative activist.” BBC, September 20, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxqnkwerj7o. 
[6] Tucker et al., “How Charlie Kirk”.
[7] Klein, Ezra. 2025. “Opinion | Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way.” The New York Times, September 11, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html. 
[8] U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2023. “Domestic Terrorism: Further Actions Needed to Strengthen FBI and DHS Collaboration to Counter Threats.” U.S. Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-104720. 
[9] Harvard Law Review. 2023. “Responding to Domestic Terrorism: A Crisis of Legitimacy.” Harvard Law Review 136, no. 7 (May): 1-22. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-136/responding-to-domestic-terrorism-a-crisis-of-legitimacy/. 
[10] Utah State Legislature. 2025. “Utah Code.” Utah State Legislature. https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title53/Chapter5A/53-5a-S102.2.html. 
[11] The White House. 2025. “President Trump Delivers Remarks on Charlie Kirk.” The White House. Video. https://www.whitehouse.gov/videos/president-trump-delivers-remarks-on-charlie-kirk/. 
[12] Olson, Walter. 2025. “President Trump Plans To Investigate and “Disrupt” Opposition Speech.” Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/blog/white-house-maps-plans-investigate-disrupt-dissenting-speech.