On Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at an outdoor event at Utah Valley University as part of his American Comeback Tour. He was 31 years old. 

First and foremost, I want to emphasize that nobody deserves to die from gun violence. The assassination of Kirk was a truly abhorrent act that reflects the unfortunate state of the culture of violence in the United States today. However, I do want to put time into pointing out the unsubtle ironies surrounding the death of this well-known conservative figure and pundit, and the broad cultural reckonings that have followed. 

At a Turning Point USA Faith event in 2023, Charlie Kirk uttered now-infamous words. “I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

Unfortunately, we don’t know if his views would have changed had he survived, so we must take the words he used before his death as indications of his true views regarding a myriad of topics, and not just about the Second Amendment. While facing security threats, I wonder if Kirk ever imagined that the gun, in turn, would pivot onto him. Perhaps the lesson to be learned here is that political debates lack empathy. In an era of “facts over feelings,” maybe a more effective response would have inspired a more constructive and compassionate debate. Words matter, something that Kirk would have been acutely aware of as a public figure. 

It’s no secret that many right-wing figures, both in and outside of the MAGA sphere, are fierce proponents of gun rights. But what happens when one of the right’s own is a casualty of gun violence? The National Rifle Association (NRA), a proudly right-wing organization, released a lukewarm statement after Kirk’s death, unusual considering they usually take a very active stance in the wake of mass shootings. On the other hand, the response from the Trump administration has been quite strong, from ordering the lowering of flags to half-staff, to flying Kirk’s body to Phoenix, Ariz., on Air Force Two.

At the same time, Donald Trump has taken fervent action in the aftermath of Kirk’s death.

Just on Wednesday, ABC unexpectedly pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s late night show off air as a result of pressure from Trump and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because of comments Kimmel made regarding Kirk and his accused shooter, Tyler Robinson. Dozens of teachers and instructors have been removed from their positions regarding comments about Kirk. The Charlie Kirk Data Foundation, an online site that was recently taken down, published a list of thousands of social media users who had criticized Kirk or allegedly celebrated his death. Trump has made several comments blaming Democrats and left-wing groups for the rise in political violence, and has promised to take concrete action against these groups.

It begs the question, especially because he was known as a strong proponent of free speech, why has the death of Charlie Kirk unleashed a firestorm of censorship? 

There were dozens of instances where Kirk said something insensitive in regard to a myriad of political issues. To be clear, we can, and should, recognize that this assassination was despicable. On the other, do we all need to mourn him? Is there anything truly wrong with recognizing the immorality of another life taken by gun violence and yet remaining ambivalent because of the type of person that he was? The whole country certainly didn’t mourn when Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were assassinated in their home this summer, or when Demartravion “Trey” Reed, a Black student from Delta State University was found hanging just a few days ago. 

We must ask ourselves: why is one death receiving the majority of both media and presidential attention? I don’t believe the answer lies in how he was killed, rather the fact of the matter is that he has been martyred by the MAGA right. I question why his death seemed to spur such an intense reaction compared to others’. In an ironic twist, Kirk’s death has been politicized to such a degree that if it were the other way around, conservative pundits would be complaining, as they do, when they accuse the left of using the deaths of schoolchildren as a political tool to advocate for greater gun control. In this case, the right is using Kirk’s death to promote a culture of censorship, which I consider a stain on his legacy as a pro-free speech advocate. 

It’s incredibly ironic that Trump has used Kirk’s death to admonish political opponents, as well as a culture of free speech. This entire incident symbolizes a cultural shift felt across many different domains. One can only wonder where we go from here. 

Julia Podgorski is a member of the class of 2028 and can be reached at jpodgorski@wesleyan.edu.