Opinion | When death becomes a political weapon

Charlie Kirk shouldn’t be dead. His death certainly shouldn’t have been filmed, and the footage shouldn’t have been circulated online before his body was cold. Further, the fallout following his assassination is to be condemned. From the weaponization of his murder to renewed threats over free speech following his death, we are at a critical point as a country, and how we proceed matters. 

Just as with most significant political events, Kirk’s assassination is an incredibly polarizing ordeal, something that can in part be attributed to his life’s work. A far-right conservative who founded Turning Point USA, Kirk dedicated his life to the organization, which focuses on restoring traditional American values like patriotism, respect for life, liberty, family and fiscal responsibility — all topics that contribute to current tensions between political ideologies. Therefore, it is inevitable that the nature of his death — especially when combined with his life’s work — would not be anything other than controversial. 

This controversy started almost immediately — prior to the identity of Kirk’s killer being released, Trump took to the press, blaming “the radical left” for the assassination just hours after the event on the evening of Sept. 10. Not only was this later proven to be false — the killer was 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, an unregistered voter from Utah — the rhetoric serves to vilify the left and is a blatant attempt to garner support for the Republican Party. Trump was not the only member of his administration to blame Democrats for the horrific murder — his claims were echoed by top officials such as Vice President JD Vance and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

In blindly assuming the left was to blame, the Trump Administration weaponized Kirk’s death to justify their constant attack on Democrats — an act that only further divides our nation. This continues to apply outside the context of Kirk’s murder. When our president and members of his cabinet label the Democratic Party as “radical left lunatics,” they perpetrate an “us-versus-them” narrative within our nation. This has the potential to further increase political polarization and embolden political violence — both of which will only raise tensions between members of political ideologies. 

The aftermath of Kirk’s death has also brought threats to free speech — dialogue surrounding his death and various opinions on the assassination have been punished, most notably with the temporary suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show. Following Kimmel’s opening monologue that included quips about the killer’s political identity, ABC announced the immediate suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” which was in effect for five days. While Kimmel’s is likely the most high-profile case of censorship following Kirk’s death, it isn’t isolated — dozens of employees across companies and industries were either fired or placed on leave after making social media posts about the assassination. Many now argue that their comments fall well within the bounds of protected speech, sparking lawsuits nationwide and reigniting debate about where those boundaries truly lie. This pattern of suppression sends a clear message for all who dare to contradict the opinion of the current administration — speak carefully, or not at all. 

The fallout of Kirk’s death not only exposes an administration more invested in control than unity — it also exposes a choice we have regarding how to move forward. We can continue to let this weaponization of the left and censorship stifle our democracy, or we can become a society that will not be complacent with this abuse of power and one that is able to be uncomfortable with opinions different than our own.