Charlie Kirk’s Martyrdom:
Echoes of Nazi Propaganda in America’s Authoritarian Slide
A Shocking Assassination and its Aftermath
On September 10, 2025, right-wing activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. A single rifle round from a rooftop struck him in the neck, killing the 31-year-old cofounder of Turning Point USA in front of thousands. The suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, fled and later surrendered after more than a day on the run. In text messages cited by prosecutors, Robinson allegedly confessed, writing, “I had enough of his hatred,” when asked why he did it. Kirk, an outspoken ally of former President Donald Trump, was known for incendiary rhetoric toward Blacks, Muslims, immigrants, women, and transgender people, and for amplifying Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. His admirers saw him as a courageous champion of conservative values who energized young voters in the MAGA movement.
The initial response to Kirk’s killing included broad condemnations of political violence across the spectrum, but the moment quickly devolved into partisan fury. Within hours, President Trump blamed the “radical left” despite no evidence of an organized plot. Senior administration officials echoed him and even threatened action against left-wing organizations. The speed of the finger-pointing alarmed many observers. Critics warned that Trump might use the murder as a pretext to crack down on political opponents. In the days that followed, those fears looked warranted as retaliatory actions and ominous rhetoric rolled out from the right.
President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before departing on Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House, Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo / Alex Brandon)
The Right Makes a Martyr: “In Charlie’s Name”
To Trump’s base, Charlie Kirk immediately became a martyr: a fallen hero of the cause. Tributes flooded social media and conservative outlets, hailing him as a patriot silenced by a hateful left. A towering billboard in Tel Aviv even showed President Trump embracing Kirk, a striking image of how far the martyrdom narrative spread. More troubling was how Kirk’s death was weaponized. Vice President J.D. Vance went on Kirk’s own popular podcast and urged a mass campaign against anyone who did not sufficiently mourn him. “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out,” Vance said. “Hell, call their employer.” He added, “We do not believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility, and there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.” The call for “civility” doubled as a rallying cry to dox and punish people for their views.
Right-wing activists responded with a coordinated doxing drive to identify and harass anyone deemed insufficiently reverent. An anonymously run website first called “Expose Charlie’s Murderers” (later rebranded the “Charlie Kirk Data Foundation”) invited submissions and claimed more than 63,000 within days. It publicly listed dozens of names alongside screenshots of supposed “anti-Kirk extremism,” often nothing more than jokes or blunt opinions about his death. One entry showed a person quipping, “He got what he deserved.” Others posted variations of “karma’s a bitch.” Some targets had not celebrated the killing at all, they had merely criticized Kirk’s far-right ideology while explicitly denouncing violence. In this dragnet, failing to mourn or admire Kirk strongly enough could bring reprisals.
Senior Trump aides fanned the flames further. Stephen Miller, a top White House official, joined Vance on the podcast and vowed to “dismantle and destroy” what he called the “vast domestic terrorist network” he blamed for Kirk’s death. “With God as my witness,” Miller said, “we will use every resource to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.” This promise of a sweeping domestic crackdown in a slain figure’s name revealed how thoroughly the movement was mythologizing Kirk as a martyr around whom to rally.
White House Official Stephen Miller Delivers a Combative Eulogy for Charlie Kirk at a Stadium Memorial Service in Arizona (Sept. 21, 2025).
In less than two weeks, that martyr narrative culminated in Kirk’s public funeral, which doubled as a highly charged political rally. Held in a packed football stadium in Arizona, the service drew tens of thousands of supporters and featured speeches by leading figures of the Trump administration and MAGA movement . What would normally be a somber memorial became an overt show of political force. Vice President Vance escorted Kirk’s casket and told the crowd that “the evil murderer who took Charlie from us expected us to have a funeral today, and instead… we have had a revival in celebration of Charlie Kirk” . Many speakers cast the event as a “revival” of conservative and religious values rather than a funeral , with hours of Christian worship music and rhetoric blending faith and nationalism. Vance lauded Kirk as “a hero to the United States of America” and “a martyr for the Christian faith”, exhorting the faithful to “focus on the good” and carry on Kirk’s mission. President Trump likewise eulogized Kirk as a martyr for “American freedom,” and pointedly contrasted Kirk’s forgiveness of enemies with his own instincts. “[Kirk] did not hate his opponents; he wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagree with Charlie. I hate my opponent,” Trump admitted during his remarks . It was an astonishing statement coming from a sitting president at a memorial service, underscoring the vengeful, us-versus-them tone that pervaded the event.
Stephen Miller delivered the most fiery tribute. Taking the stage in front of a massive banner of Kirk’s image, Miller addressed an undefined enemy in almost apocalyptic terms. He warned that Kirk’s legacy had been “immortalized” by his murder and thundered at those “trying to foment hatred against us.” “They cannot imagine what they have awakened. They cannot conceive of the army that they have arisen in all of us because we stand for what is good, what is virtuous, what is noble,” Miller declared to roaring applause . To Kirk’s perceived foes, he spat, “What do you have? You have nothing. You are nothing… You have no idea the dragon you have awakened.” Miller’s combative eulogy conflated the accused lone shooter with the broader left and cast Kirk’s death as a call-to-arms for the right. At one point he proclaimed, “We are the storm”, portraying Kirk’s followers as an unstoppable force of righteousness . The “us versus them” fervor, with the right cast as noble saviors of civilization and the left painted as irredeemable villains, was on full display. Notably, Kirk’s widow Erika struck a very different tone in her own remarks, emphasizing forgiveness and even stating, “That young man, I forgive him,” referring to her husband’s killer. But her message of grace was largely overshadowed by the parade of officials vowing retribution. By the time the stadium event was over, the martyrdom of Charlie Kirk had been cemented as a unifying myth for the MAGA movement; a rallying symbol to energize supporters and to damn their opponents as agents of evil.
The overt politicization of Kirk’s funeral alarmed many observers. What was ostensibly a memorial service became a platform for extending a “culture of consequence” campaign against dissenters. Even as Trump administration figures like Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard extolled free speech from the podium (she praised Kirk’s voice and vowed to “defend with my life your right to speak” ), the administration was actively cracking down on speech deemed unpatriotic in the wake of Kirk’s death. In fact, Trump’s officials openly touted the event as a turning point. “This is not a political war, this is not even a cultural war, this is a spiritual war,” declared Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the memorial, calling the moment “the turning point for the USA.” Such language (describing a fallen political activist in quasi-religious, militaristic terms) showed how thoroughly Kirk’s martyrdom was being used to sanctify a broader authoritarian agenda.
The parallels to history are hard to miss. Nearly a century ago, another far-right movement exalted its dead as martyrs, then used that myth to justify reprisals and suppression of opponents.
Historical parallels: Nazi Martyrdom and Propaganda
In 1930, Nazi Stormtrooper Horst Wessel was shot and killed in Berlin, reportedly by Communists amid street brawls. Wessel had been a relatively obscure extremist, but Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels saw the value of his death. Nazi propagandists elevated Wessel to martyr status, turning him into a heroic symbol of self-sacrifice. Goebbels mythologized the details and made Wessel the party’s most famous martyr, complete with an anthem, the “Horst Wessel Lied”, which became Nazi Germany’s official song.
The myth served a dark purpose. As the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum notes, the Nazis used Wessel’s legend to celebrate political violence and to encourage others to fight and die for the movement. His funeral became a spectacle: Nazi elites attended en masse, and the event was filmed and staged as a grand propaganda pageant. Books, films, and ceremonies extolled Wessel’s “sacrifice.” His death helped rationalize brutal attacks on Communists and other targets of the party. In effect, the regime seized on the killing of one of its own to stoke a frenzy against enemies and to sanctify further violence.
Today, America’s far right echoes these tactics. Kirk’s stadium memorial was likewise transformed into a mass “revival” rally (much as the Nazis turned Wessel’s funeral into a propagandistic spectacle) mythologizing a fallen figure in order to galvanize supporters and paint the opposition as moral outlaws. In a sense, Charlie Kirk has become the Horst Wessel of the MAGA movement, a figure whose violent end can be exploited to unify the base and smear adversaries as murderous traitors. The speed and ferocity with which the right-wing media and political apparatus coalesced around a martyrdom narrative is striking. Within days of the assassination, a sitting vice president encouraged Americans to inform on one another, and officials pledged government action “in Charlie’s name.” This is a propaganda playbook that uses a potent martyr myth to rally the faithful and label the opposition as an existential threat. Invoking Kirk’s name to legitimize draconian measures fits the authoritarian handbook.
History never repeats exactly, but the echoes are loud. The glorification of a slain political icon, the portrayal of an entire opposing faction as dangerous subversives, and calls for extraordinary retribution are hallmarks of a society sliding toward fascism. And the parallels do not end with propaganda; they show up in real consequences for Americans’ rights and freedoms.
Punishing Dissent: Doxing, Firings, and Investigations
In the days after Kirk’s death, hardline supporters unleashed a purge of perceived “unpatriotic” voices. Across the country, people who voiced even mild criticism of Kirk (or who simply declined to eulogize him) were doxed, harassed, or fired. A Reuters tally counted at least 15 firings or suspensions in the first few days, including journalists, teachers, professors, and even a Wall Street employee. Most of the offending comments were unsympathetic posts on personal accounts. One junior Nasdaq staffer lost her job over remarks related to Kirk’s death. A university lecturer in California was targeted by the right-wing “Libs of TikTok” account after writing that he could not “muster much sympathy,” given Kirk’s own stance on gun violence and its victims. His name, photo, and workplace were blasted to millions of online followers, and a harassment campaign demanded his firing.
It did not stop there. Teachers in multiple states were suspended or dismissed for comments deemed inappropriate about the assassination. In Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas, Republican officials even launched investigations of educators accused of making such remarks. Even the military was drawn in: the Pentagon urged service members and the public to report anyone who “celebrates or mocks” Kirk’s killing, and some troops were disciplined or removed from their posts for off-duty online comments. (One Coast Guard member, for instance, came under investigation simply for posting a meme that expressed indifference.) Free speech advocates see a dangerous pattern. “Government involvement in this inches it closer to looking like McCarthyism,” warned Adam Goldstein of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, referring to the Red Scare-era witch hunts for political disloyalty. The comparison fits. As in the 1950s, a combination of government officials and private ideologues are working hand-in-glove to out, blacklist, and punish citizens for alleged political heresy. In the 1950s, the pretext was rooting out Communists; in 2025, it is rooting out those who fail to mourn a right-wing figure. Careers and reputations are being ruined in record time over perceived ideological transgressions.
Media figures have felt the pressure as well. A Washington Post columnist was reportedly fired after posting comments about Kirk that were deemed offensive. The message to professors, pilots, soldiers, and office workers is clear: deviate from pro-Kirk sentiment and your livelihood is at risk. Chilling speech to enforce political conformity is a classic feature of authoritarian regimes. And the crusade for “civility” is conspicuously one-sided. Several of the same figures now demanding reverence for Kirk have themselves mocked or excused violence against their political foes in the past. For example, Congressman Clay Higgins (who now says anyone who celebrated Kirk’s murder should be banned from social platforms forever) once tweeted a photo joking about the hammer attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, only deleting it after public outcry. Even Charlie Kirk himself had laughed off violence against opponents; after the 2022 assault on Mr. Pelosi, Kirk quipped that someone should bail out the assailant to be a “midterm hero.” The hypocrisy makes clear that the outrage over “incivility” is about power, not principle. The goal is not to protect all public figures from violence or ridicule, the goal is to silence one side. The accountability campaign in Kirk’s name functions as a broad intimidation effort aimed at erasing dissent.
Some Republican politicians have floated extreme punishments for those deemed disrespectful to Kirk’s memory. Ideas ranged from deporting non-citizens who disparage Kirk, to suing critics into bankruptcy, to banning offenders from social media for life. Representative Higgins essentially called for ostracizing such “offenders” from society. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau announced that he had “directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action” after he saw social media posts that made light of Kirk’s death. The phrase was vague, but the specter of a high-ranking government official hinting at action against private speech is chilling enough. And these threats were not empty rhetoric: according to Reuters reporting, the White House has been preparing an executive order on political violence and speech in the wake of Kirk’s death.
In short, the fallout has taken a dark turn. A tragic shooting is being answered not only with the pursuit of justice for the shooter, but with a sweeping crackdown on ideological opponents of the ruling right. It’s a familiar story, and it never ends well for democracy. Parallel moves in the federal government are meanwhile pushing the country along the same path.
Courts and Congress: Codifying an Authoritarian Regime
It is not only online mobs or state-level officials steering the United States toward a more repressive future. Federal institutions have been bending in the same direction. In the past several months, the Supreme Court and Congress have each taken steps that strengthen President Trump’s power at the expense of traditional checks and civil liberties.
The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has repeatedly greenlit Trump’s most extreme initiatives (often through shadow) docket emergency rulings issued with little explanation. In the first half of 2025, the administration won an astonishing 18 straight emergency requests at the high court. These unsigned orders, though temporary, allowed sweeping changes. For example, one ruling gave the administration wide latitude to purge thousands of federal civil servants by stripping them of normal job protections, while another permitted the banishment of transgender personnel from the military. Other orders let Trump cancel legal status for more than a million immigrants (from countries such as Venezuela, Haiti, and Cuba) and even send asylum seekers to dangerous third countries in defiance of international law. In case after case, the conservative justices acted as enablers of an explosive, law-busting agenda, to borrow a phrase from The Guardian. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in dissent that her colleagues were rewarding executive lawlessness and undermining the core principle that America is a government of laws, not of men. And respected conservative jurist J. Michael Luttig put it more bluntly: he said Chief Justice John Roberts was presiding over “the end of the rule of law in America,” with the Court accommodating presidential abuses of power without so much as a word of explanation.
A key milestone arrived in July 2024, when the Court’s conservative majority shielded Donald Trump from criminal prosecution for actions related to the January 6th insurrection, so long as those actions could be classified as part of his official duties as president. The ruling held that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution for any “official acts” while in office, and it dubiously characterized Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election as official. The decision erased legal consequences for one of the most serious abuses of power in modern U.S. history, and it broadcast a clear signal: the president now sits above the law, provided a partisan Court is willing to say so. When Trump later encountered Chief Justice Roberts at a public event, he reportedly thanked him effusively and added, “Won’t forget,” as if acknowledging a debt. In short, the Court has not merely failed to check the president , it has helped pave the road for rule by personal will, dressed up in legal form.
Congress has moved in step. In the House, hardline pro-Trump members have pressed for official inquiries and new legal tools to go after left-wing groups. Representative Chip Roy of Texas, for instance, has pushed to create a special committee to investigate organizations and individuals on the left that, in his telling, “undermine the rule of law.” His list of targets includes philanthropist George Soros, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and other progressive groups regularly demonized by the right. The aim, as reported by The New York Times, is to paint broad swaths of left-of-center activity as a fomenting ground for domestic terrorism, and then to unleash the powers of the state on those deemed culpable. In the Senate, Trump aligned members such as J.D. Vance cheer this agenda of treating mainstream civil society as enemy territory. In their narrative, only the left ever instigates political violence, and it is time for the government to “take the gloves off.” Absolving your own side while criminalizing the other is the essence of authoritarian politics.
Even before Kirk’s assassination, proposals were circulating that could be used to punish dissent more systematically. In late 2024, one such bill sought to let the government revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit it deems supportive of terrorism. A vague designation ripe for abuse. Critics warned that the law would enable a president to destroy civil society groups one by one by simply labeling them “terrorist”. That bill was narrowly blocked, but the impulse behind it did not vanish. Now, in the charged atmosphere after Kirk’s death, the odds of new anti-terror laws or investigations aimed at left-leaning associations have only grown. The machinery of government is being steered toward an unprecedented mission: policing and purging a broad political opposition under the guise of fighting domestic extremism.
A Republic at a Crossroads: Lessons From History
The United States is approaching the 250th anniversary of its independence; a milestone meant to celebrate the endurance of the democratic experiment. Instead, warning signs of democratic backsliding are growing hard to ignore. The martyring of Charlie Kirk by the American right, followed by a campaign of retribution and repression in his name, carries the unmistakable odor of fascism. It appears in the cultivation of a cult of victimhood and vengeance around a slain political figure, a tactic ultranationalists have long used to fuel anger and loyalty. It appears in the eagerness to suspend basic freedoms (such as speech and dissent) in the name of ideological purity and “unity.” It appears in the acquiescence of institutions that ought to act as checks and balances, yet instead grease the skids toward autocracy.
History offers a harsh education. The Nazi exploitation of Horst Wessel’s death heralded a more repressive and violent phase of rule in Germany. It created a rallying cry to crush designated enemies without mercy, all in the name of honoring a fallen comrade. The United States in 2025 is not Weimar Germany, but the echoes are loud enough to merit serious concern. Democracies rarely die overnight. They erode step by step: a censored teacher here, a jailed dissident there, a court that chooses power over principle, a populace that falls in line out of fear or fevered nationalism. By the time the semiquincentennial arrives next year, will America still be a nation of laws and liberty, or will it mark that anniversary under the shadow of a creeping authoritarian regime?
What happens next depends on whether these warning lights are heeded. The current trajectory, where political violence begets political persecution, is profoundly dangerous. It risks normalizing the notion that one faction can use the heavy hand of the state to crush its rivals. That notion violates the pluralism and rule of law that define a healthy republic. As we reflect on Charlie Kirk’s tragic death, we must also reflect on what is being done in its wake. Turning a victim into a weapon against democratic norms dishonors any martyr. No political murder, no matter who the victim is, justifies destroying the freedoms and unity that define the nation.
This is a charged moment, and it calls for a conversational but clear-eyed appraisal. We should talk openly about the parallels to darker times, not to spread panic, but to maintain vigilance. The story now unfolding in America, with its mix of martyrs, witch hunts, and unchecked power, ought to serve as a national wake-up call. The year 2026 will mark 250 years since the birth of American liberty. It falls to citizens and institutions to ensure that this anniversary is an occasion for renewed freedom and democratic commitment, not a requiem for a fallen republic. The hour may be late, but it is not beyond hope. The lessons of history, the courage of principled people, and a united stand for constitutional values can still halt the descent. Charlie Kirk’s name is being invoked as a mandate for tyranny. Let it instead be a reminder of why tyranny must never be allowed to prevail in the land of the free.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources: This blogpost draws on recent reporting and historical references from Reuters, PBS, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, TIME, ABC News, NBC, and other established outlets, as well as the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s historical encyclopedia for the discussion of Nazi propaganda and the Horst Wessel myth.
_________________________________________________________________________________Charlie Kirk’s Memorial Was Also a Political Rally | TIME https://time.com/7319365/charlie-kirk-memorial-stephen-miller-trump-speech/
Charlie Kirk memorial latest: Donald Trump speaks at packed stadium | US News | Sky News https://news.sky.com/story/charlie-kirk-memorial-latest-donald-trump-arrives-at-packed-stadium-13435741
Key takeaways from Charlie Kirk's memorial service - ABC News https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/key-takeaways-charlie-kirks-memorial-service/story?id=125802466
Charlie Kirk memorial updates: 'I forgive him,' Erika Kirk says of alleged shooter - ABC News https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/charlie-kirk-memorial-updates-tens-thousands-mourners-expected?id=125781004&entryId=125795830&cb=1j5mckoom
SA Member Horst Wessel Dies | Holocaust Encyclopedia https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/timeline-event/holocaust/before-1933/sa-member-horst-wessel-dies
Charlie Kirk's death ignites free speech fire storm among Trump supporters | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/charlie-kirks-death-ignites-free-speech-fire-storm-among-trump-supporters-2025-09-21/