On September 10th of 2025, prominent conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, was tragically assassinated. He had been addressing a public event at Utah Valley University when the hit-and-run attack happened. His death has created an important and sometimes confusing conversation on the issue of political violence and freedom of speech in the U.S. As a result, both supporters and critics are reacting with substantial blowback.
Kirk’s assassination unfolded when a gunman, identified as 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, stationed himself on a nearby rooftop and opened fire during Kirk’s address. As an evangelical Christian, Kirk is a firm supporter of Israel. His faith undergirds and pervades his political activism. He often slammed civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. In a recent 82-minute podcast episode titled, “The Myth of MLK,” he went so far as to describe the landmark civil rights laws passed during the 1960s as “destructive.”
Kirk’s memorial service drew an estimated 70,000 attendees at State Farm Stadium in Arizona. Speakers honored his legacy, making moving connections to biblical figures such as Jesus, Moses, and Martin Luther King Jr. The mood in the arena was electric with emotion as the beloved champion’s defenders celebrated his memory and underscored his lifelong devotion to advancing conservative principles.
A Legacy of Controversy
During his short life, Charlie Kirk gained a reputation for controversial opinions and a take no prisoners approach to everything he did. Yet at every turn, he took an aggressive approach to pursue what he saw as a danger to American freedom. His fiery disposition made for great soundbites, but often received backlash, especially when directed at civil rights and social justice activists.
Kirk referred to civil rights laws as “destructive” on his podcast. Yet his comments have and continue to raise important questions about what the Bruen Court’s views actually imply. This rhetoric has polarized opinions about his legacy, with some considering him a martyr for conservative ideals while others view him as a controversial figure whose views contributed to societal divisions.
Kirk’s memorial service reflected this complexity. Donald Trump, who spoke at the event, referred to Kirk as a “martyr,” stating, “On that terrible day, September 10th, 2025, our greatest evangelist for American liberty became immortal.” Trump’s words resonated with many attendees who saw Kirk’s death as a rallying point for their beliefs.
Political Reactions and Implications
The consequences of Kirk’s assassination have brought about important political consequences. Trump’s administration has pledged to take action against those who have criticized or mocked Kirk’s death. This has involved the firing of employees from other firms and news organizations that have written negative things about him.
These are contentious times politically. Some are arguing that Kirk’s killing has revealed the hidden dangers of political violence lurking in our public discourse. Supporters have taken to social media to share their anger and urged the community to come together in response to hate. Erika Kirk, Charlie’s mother, remarked, “The answer to hate is not hate,” emphasizing the need for compassion even in the wake of tragedy.
Additionally, Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s senior advisers, expressed similar ideas in the memorial. He declared, “You thought you could kill Charlie Kirk? You have made him immortal,” reinforcing the idea that Kirk’s legacy would endure far beyond his physical presence.
Reflections on Faith and Freedom
During the brief program at the memorial, speakers drew on themes of faith and freedom, which were all foundational to Charlie Kirk’s life and activism. Jack Posobiec drew parallels between Kirk and biblical figures in his tribute: “The Bible tells us that on his last day, Moses climbed to the top of the mountain and he looked across the River Jordan, and he saw the promised land.” Attendees responded enthusiastically to Kirk’s vision of a more prosperous, opportunity-filled America. They interpreted it as deeply connected with their conception of both religious and national destiny.
Kirk’s dedication to cultural conservatism and education as evangelism became a key part of Kirk’s personality. Further, he felt that religion was key to law and order in society and the world. Trump emphasized this idea by stating, “And we have to bring back religion to America because without borders, law and order and religion, you really don’t have a country any more.”
