First They Came

The Killing of Charlie Kirk:
A Tragedy and a Political Test

To be clear: the assassination of Charlie Kirk is not justifiable in any way.

It is first and foremost a human tragedy — a family torn apart, two small children left without their father.

It is also a political catastrophe, one that will almost certainly deepen the already dangerous divisions between political factions in the United States.

No one should lose their life, or suffer harm, for their beliefs, speech, or political advocacy.

Period. Full stop.

The Broader Political Context

At this point, we do not yet know who carried out the assassination of Charlie Kirk or why. While it might seem likely that a left-wing extremist was responsible, other possibilities cannot be ruled out. These include a right-wing extremist angered by Kirk's recent abandonment of efforts to push for the release of the Epstein files, or even an act committed by a mentally disturbed individual acting without clear political motivation. Until the facts are fully known, it is critical to avoid rushing to conclusions or assigning blame prematurely.

The political right, however, already knows where to put the blame.

The killing of Charlie Kirk has triggered an immediate and predictable response in right-wing circles. Influencers, politicians, and media figures on the right are already framing the event as evidence of a coordinated campaign of violence by the left against conservatives.

At first glance, this may seem plausible — particularly when viewed alongside the assassination attempt on Donald Trump last year. However, this interpretation is deeply misleading.

The Reality of Political Violence

Over the past decade, political violence in the United States has been overwhelmingly perpetrated by the far right. According to an analysis by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), 96% of extremist-related killings between 2013 and 2022 were committed by right-wing extremists.

In fact, in both 2022 and 2023, 100% of extremist killings were linked to right-wing actors.

Sources:

The Double Standard in Responses

Just as important as who commits violence is how political communities respond to it.

On the center and left, the killing of Charlie Kirk has been met with widespread and forceful condemnation. Even among those who strongly disagreed with his politics, the reaction has been clear: this act was wrong, full stop.

Yes, there are isolated instances of tasteless commentary, but these have been quickly criticized by mainstream voices on the left.

Contrast this with the reaction from many on the right to comparable events, such as:

  • The murder of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband,
  • The attempted assassination of State Senator John Hoffman and his wife,
  • The violent attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

While most elected Republicans condemned these acts, many right-wing influencers and media figures mocked, belittled, or downplayed the violence. In some cases, they even spread conspiracy theories, attempting to shift blame or imply the victims were at fault.

Reactions on Social Media

The immediate reaction to the assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, included a wave of extreme rhetoric on right-wing social media platforms. Many influential voices framed the event as a declaration of war, called for violent retaliation, and demanded government crackdowns on political opponents. The following collage captures a selection of posts that went viral in the hours after the incident (credits to Will Stancil https://bsky.app/profile/whstancil.bsky.social/post/3lyjrmamlzs2p).

Social media reactions after Charlie Kirk Killing.jpg

What Comes Next: A Reichstag Fire Moment?

The central political question now is how the right will leverage this tragedy.

Some observers worry that the killing of Charlie Kirk could become a modern-day equivalent of the Reichstag Fire — a pivotal moment used by extremists to justify crackdowns on civil liberties and consolidate power.

We cannot know yet if this will happen. But given the current political climate — the erosion of democratic norms, rising authoritarian rhetoric, and the weaponization of federal and state institutions — this is not a far-fetched fear.

Historical parallel: In 1930, Nazi party member Horst Wessel was assassinated. His death was transformed into a powerful propaganda tool, fueling Nazi recruitment and radicalization efforts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel

The Stakes for Civil Society

The assassination of Charlie Kirk has created a moment of intense instability. It is a test for the United States:

  • Will this tragedy be met with measured responses that strengthen democratic institutions, or
  • Will it be exploited to escalate fear, hatred, and repression?

The answer will depend not only on political leaders but also on ordinary citizens, who must resist simplistic narratives and reject the normalization of violence — no matter its source.