Charlie Kirk’s death was not met with the usual customary condolences. Far from it. The conservative leader and MAGA influencer’s death announcement was followed by shockingly varied and intensely volatile reactions. Even as a memorial service for the slain leader is scheduled for September 21, his death continues to be strongly condemned, loudly celebrated, intentionally ignored, fiercely debated but above all, circled back to the current state of affairs in the US.
The critics argue that fissures have begun to grow even deeper as a result of right-wing activism, politics of division, and resurgence of violence especially ever since Donald Trump shaped the political discourse of the nation. The fears were confirmed by the court filings of 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, wherein he admitted to planning the killing for a week. Taken into custody a day after Kirk was fatally shot, reportedly Robinson wrote a text about Kirk, giving a peep into the motive for killing, “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
Polarisation, instead of perspectives
Meanwhile, thought-provoking circumstances currently pervading American politics continue to be shared by those not aligned with Republican ideology. “If Charlie Kirk were a six-year-old in school, we would have moved on by now. They would have said thoughts and prayers and called it a day.”
But can Charlie Kirk solely be blamed for what happened to Charlie Kirk? The slain leader’s provocative speeches and conservative views on abortion, Gaza, and Israel did not help either. Kirk’s shooting is a watershed moment in US politics—inarguably the result of social media, growing intolerance, widespread availability of lethal weapons and polarisation prompted by political leaders.
There is no dearth of shockingly frequent incidents of political violence ever since Donald Trump first began his official campaign for presidential election in 2016. His critics argue that Trump’s politics of division has amplified in numbers and intensified over time.
Also read: Charlie Kirk shot dead in Utah
In 2017, a gunman opened fire at a baseball game targeting politicians; in 2018, crude pipe bombs were sent to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s residences. With every incident, analysts have flagged the concerns. In 2022, there was an attempted kidnapping of Nancy Pelosi; this after the country was yet to recover from the chaos of the infamous storming of the Capitol in 2021.
In the very recent past, the two assassination attempts on Donald Trump during his campaign last year once again highlighted the politics of vengeance. That is not it. In April this year, while Pennsylvania’s Governor Josh Shapiro’s home was burnt in an arson attack, in June, Democrat Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman was gunned down by a man dressed as a police officer.
The list of similar incidents is long enough to be worrying. The data, unfortunately, backs the observations.
According to data from the START (Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland) in the first six months of 2025, more than 520 plots and acts of terrorism and targeted violence occurred. This is reported to be a nearly 40 per cent increase when compared to the first six months of 2024. Further, of the terrorist incidents in the first half of 2025, 35 per cent were directed at government targets.
The Trump effect?
Back in 2016, following the presidential election, the Southern Poverty Law Centre developed an assessment report on the impact of the presidential campaign on the US schools. The report titled ‘The Trump Effect’, highlighted how every four years teachers used the presidential election to impart education on the important lessons of electoral process, democracy, government’s responsibilities, citizens’ duties, etc.
However, the study found that after Trump’s first election, 28 per cent of substitute teachers reported witnessing derogatory remarks towards minority communities, immigrants, Muslims and other ethnicities. It also highlighted students were emboldened to make racist remarks and discriminate.
Threshold for tolerance hits a new low
Meanwhile, the dust is nowhere close to settling. Almost a week into the killing, conservative activists have taken upon themselves to spotlight dozens of social media posts and messages cryptically or openly celebrating the killing of Charlie Kirk.
US senator and prominent far-right influencer Laura Loomer, website ‘Expose Charlie’s Murderers’, Republican officials have all drawn attention to people who are even questioning Kirk’s political legacy.
Also read: Trump pledges full probe into Charlie Kirk murder
This week, US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio went a step ahead and threatened foreigners in the US with visa revocations. “We should not be giving visas to people who are going to come to the United States and do things like celebrate the murder, the execution, or the assassination of a political figure. And if they’re already here, we should be revoking their visa,” he said in an interview before posting his take on social media.
With every incident, the mudslinging overshadows the real issue, making the media deeply fragmented, instead of being restrained and objective. As for the social media algorithm, it favours polarised views. That perhaps, renders former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan’s remarks even more relevant today. “None of us is born to hate; intolerance is taught and can be untaught.”
Follow us
