I don’t think I have ever felt, nor will ever feel, the emotion I did on Sept. 10th, 2025. One of my friends had texted a group chat for my church that Charlie Kirk was shot during one of his infamous “Prove Me Wrong” events, one of which I was able to attend myself last year. Initially, I thought he would probably be fine — knowing the mechanics of the event, I thought that a disgruntled audience member went up to Kirk with a handgun of some sort and fired before security got to the shooter and put Kirk into safety. I had hoped that he would persevere.
Upon seeing the video, I knew that hope was in vain.
The raw, brutal video of his killing — someone whom I had both seen online and in person multiple times, whose organization I had volunteered countless hours to, whose wish for America was to return to the Christian values that I in most part shared, is something I will never forget. On a human level, seeing his face have the life removed from it is one of the most disturbing things I will ever witness. For my generation — whom Kirk primarily spoke to in his short life — his death is particularly frightening.
His death is an inflection point for the future of American politics. Kirk built a political empire in Turning Point USA (TPUSA), founding it at just 18 years old. In the 13years since, TPUSA became the foremost political organization for young people, despite the conventional wisdom that the youth tend to swing left en masse. In 2024, Kirk’s organization (and Kirk himself) played a prominent role in Donald Trump’s re-election to the White House.
Tragically, his horrific assassination came at the height of his career, with his event at Utah Valley University being the first of many stops of the American Comeback Tour, organized in reflection ofTrump’s first months of the presidency — the presidency Kirk helped facilitate. Like Kirk’s other events, he dialogued with students on campus under a tent reading “Prove Me Wrong,” the name of a style of online content that emerged in the Trump era where conservative influencers debate left-leaning college students over controversial political topics. It is a scene that came to Tech’s campus just two years ago, as conservative activist Candace Owens debated with students during the Live Free Tour. The style of debate has become ubiquitous over many American campuses over the last decade.
I witnessed one of these events myself last year. Two weeks before the presidential election, Kirk came to the University of Georgia (UGA), before I transferred to Tech. At that time, I served on the executive board for the Turning Point chapter at the university and assisted with the event. UGA drew the largest turnout for Kirk that season, a feat for which TPUSA rewarded us with the “Chapter of the Year” title.
At AmericaFest, one of the two TPUSA national conferences, Kirk brought us on stage and recognized the UGA chapter himself. For these reasons, the killing was extremely unnerving and saddening to me.
What was equally repulsive as the tragedy was the unabashed celebration that erupted on social media not even an hour after his death. Glib remarks about gun control, controversial comments he made and the outright joy at the execution of arguably the most popular political pundit in the country frightened me existentially.
Typically, one would expect only the fringe to celebrate political violence — and normally, that is what I have seen when such tragedies occur. But upon seeing posts on X reading “me liking every post making fun of charlie kirk” and “well guess he lost the debate” attain over five hundred thousand and three hundred thousand likes respectively, clearly I was incorrect.
For my own sake, I cut off four people who immediately used the tragedy to score political points by posting on their Instagram story before Kirk’s body turned cold. None of them — or so I thought — were particularly radical. I had grown up beside some of them in middle and high school, many of whom I considered friends. I simply cannot maintain any connection with people who hold such an antipathy toward human life as to immediately and shamelessly post an ironic comment he made in hindsight of his death, or some random quote (as if political opinions make one deserving of execution) to “own” conservatives.
If that was not enough for this new brand of political nihilism, many immediately began spreading blatant disinformation to opacify the shooter’s motive. Some circulated a photoshopped image of the suspect wearing a pro-Trump t-shirt, others claimed he was a registered Republican. Yet this misinformation — unlike most other facets of American civic life — spanned both sides of the political aisle. Some also claimed that the suspect was a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Thousands of people online spread these baseless rumors, all attempting to exploit Kirk’s killing to embolden their own side and demonize the other.
However, this is not a Democrat versus. Republican issue. Many left-wingers such as California Governor Gavin Newsom and political commentator Cenk Ugyur denounced the assassination in the boldest terms. Younger liberal content creators like Dean Withers, whose debate style is reminiscent of Kirk’s, shed tears and sympathized with his family. Clearly, this tragedy transcends the hyper-partisanship that seemingly encompasses more and more of American life.
What must occur is a fundamental transformation of political dialogue in this country. “When people stop talking,” Kirk ominously stated, “that’s when you get violence.” The answer to this disaster must be more, not less, political discussion and debate. People must be able to discuss ideas, regardless of perceived controversiality, without the fear of being shot. That is the basis for a functioning democracy, and Kirk’s assasination puts that basic assumption into question — which cannot spell good for the future of this nation.