The staunchest conservative activists and politicians are rallying behind a clear response to Charlie Kirk’s killing: Do everything possible to expose and defeat what they see as the “radical left” — which they blame not only for motivating Kirk’s assassin, but for a litany of America’s ills.
So far, much of the activism has been focused against people who have celebrated Kirk’s killing, demanding and securing their firings. Multiple members of Congress have joined activists in calling to fire professors, teachers, government officials and more over their comments about Kirk’s killing.
But the activism done in the name of Kirk could soon extend even further into the organizations and companies that conservatives blame for fostering left-wing ideology — fueling the most politically aggressive tactics meant to cement GOP power.
White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller talked plainly about the strategy on the “Charlie Kirk Show” on Monday, as Vice President Vance guest-hosted — saying it was a strategy backed by Kirk in his last message to Miller the day before he was shot.
Miller said Kirk told him: “We need to have an organized strategy to go after the left-wing organizations that are promoting violence in this country.” The top Trump aide added, “I will write those words onto my heart and I will carry them out.”
He said that while “blind rage” is not productive, “focused anger, righteous anger, directed for a just cause” is important for change, pledging to “uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks.”
What, exactly, are those networks?
Miller talked about “organized doxing campaigns” and “organized riots,” and “organized cells that carry out and facilitate violence,” pledging to use the full force of the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security and more to “destroy” those networks.
“It will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name,” Miller said.
Later in the show, Vance got more specific, alluding to removing the tax-free status of progressive grantmaking institutions — specifically naming the Open Society Foundations, a grantmaking network founded by billionaire George Soros, and the Ford Foundation.
Vance said the organizations funded The Nation magazine, referencing an article that had misquoted Kirk.
The article he referenced quoted Kirk as saying “Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot.” In the actual quote, Kirk was referring to specific prominent Black women: former first lady Michelle Obama, pundit Joy Reid, then-Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “He criticized a specific Supreme Court justice as an individual. He never said anything about black women as a group,” Vance said. A spokesperson for The Nation said it stands by its writer’s critique of Kirk, but it added a correction to the article following Vance’s critique.”
“Did you know that the George Soros Open Society Foundation and the Ford Foundation — the groups who funded that disgusting article justifying Charlie’s death — did you know they benefited from generous tax treatment?” Vance said. To have a country united “with people who acknowledge that political violence is unacceptable,” Vance argued, leaders have to “work to dismantle the institutions that promote violence and terrorism in our own country now our government.”
Bhaskar Sunkara, president of The Nation, said Vance was “lying” and that the magazine had not gotten a “dime” from the Open Society Foundations or Soros. The Ford Foundation funded a grant to The Nation in 2019, but it is not a current grantee; and a spokesperson for the foundation said political violence is “un-American” and a “significant crisis in our society that all Americans need to join together to address.” A spokesperson for The Nation added that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism and we are proud of our journalistic legacy in pursuit of a more equal and just world.”
But regardless of the details, the strategy is clear: Declare that organizations funding progressive causes are promoting violence, and work to dismantle them.
A spokesperson for the Open Society Foundations said the network had “unequivocally condemned” Kirk’s killing, adding: “We oppose all forms of violence and condemn the outrageous accusations to the contrary. Our work is entirely peaceful and lawful. It is disgraceful to use this tragedy for political ends to dangerously divide Americans and attack the First Amendment.”
Actions being taken against the “radical left” could go beyond the Trump administration, into Congress and the states.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) led about two dozen House Republicans, mainly House Freedom Caucus members, in calling for a select committee to investigate “the money, influence, and power behind the radical left’s assault on America and the rule of law” in wake of Kirk’s death.
That letter noted the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which keeps a “hate map” of extremist groups, earlier this year had singled out Turning Point USA, the organization Kirk co-founded.
The SPLC said in response: “We must have meaningful national conversation about violence and polarization in America. Blaming organizations that monitor extremism distracts from the urgent work of addressing the conditions that allow hate and violence to grow.”
While GOP leadership may not create that select committee with full subpoena authority, it is certainly possible that already established panels launch congressional investigations into the “radical left.”
Some Republican state attorneys general have also been stepping up aggressive actions against the left in wake of Kirk’s death.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) created an online portal for members of the public to share comments from educators or school administrators who “celebrate or rationalize the assassination of Charlie Kirk,” saying they “must be held accountable.” While the attorney general’s office is posting vetted examples of submitted complaints on the portal, the office said it is not intended to trigger legal action.
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson (R) also supported the termination of one employee at Clemson University — which had initially declined to take action by citing free speech and employment laws in South Carolina — by saying in a letter Monday that he would not prosecute the university for terminating the employees. Two more Clemson faculty members have been removed from their teaching duties pending investigation.
Republican operatives and staffers I’ve talked to have also repeatedly mentioned possible investigation into Discord, the instant message and gaming platform on which Kirk’s accused shooter was active, and Reddit, which hosts anonymous discussion forums.
The feeling of righteous indignation is fueling political tactics that go beyond explicitly combating alleged extremism. It’s also fueling calls to be as aggressive as possible in mid-decade redistricting battles aimed at padding and shoring up GOP majority in the House.
Politico’s Adam Wren reported over the weekend about that pitch being explicit in Indiana at Sen. Jim Banks’s (R-Ind.) Hoosier Leadership for America Summit.
“They killed Charlie Kirk — the least that we can do is go through a legal process and redistrict Indiana into a nine-to-zero map,” Banks told Politico’s Playbook. That message was echoed by former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, Townhall columnist Kurt Schlichter, and Trump World GOP consultants Alex Bruesewitz and Alex deGrasse.
Criticisms that such actions are antispeech and against free discourse in the name of a free speech martyr are being dismissed.
“We will sometimes move more slowly than I want us to, but I promise you that we will explore every option to bring real unity to our country and stop those who kill their fellow Americans because they don’t like what they say,” Vance said while hosting Kirk’s show.
Welcome to The Movement, a weekly newsletter looking at the influences and debates on the right in Washington. I’m your author Emily Brooks, House leadership reporter at The Hill.
Tell me what you think politicians and political leaders should do in response to Charlie Kirk’s death: ebrooks@thehill.com
Follow me on X: @emilybrooksnews
Not already on the list? Subscribe here
I wrote a special edition of The Movement last week in wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, about how it will be — yes — a turning point for the right. At the end, I asked readers to send me a note about how Kirk impacted them.
Reader Jason Lazea recalled meeting Kirk in March 2020 in Illinois just before the world locked down for the COVID-19 pandemic — shaking hands with everyone as “his bottle of hand sanitizer got plenty of use that night.”
“We bonded over how often we were the sole conservative voice in our high school classes. … I told him how much I appreciated his effort to get young people to think for themselves and how important it was to never give up the fight. When he thanked me, I could feel that he was sincere in his gratitude.”
Another reader who wrote in anonymously described themselves as a center-left independent.
“I began listening to Charlie Kirk’s speaking engagements a year or so ago. Many of his views were diametrically opposed to mine but his passion and good intentions drew me in. … I personally changed some of my views due to Charlie’s logical discussions. … His approach opened my mind to finding common ground with someone that I disagreed with on the wedge issues such as abortion and religion.”
Reader Ellen Leyrer said Kirk gave her hope for America and the youth. “He also kept me motivated and engaged. Participating civically can be a bit isolated. Having him so active was supportive.”
There were critics of Kirk, too, who said that Kirk’s messages did not improve their lives — but were generally dismayed by the brutal killing.
Thank you all for reading The Movement and for sharing your heartfelt thoughts. I read every email you send me at ebrooks@thehill.com, and I want to make this the best newsletter I can for those wanting to understand the dynamics on the right.
- Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) is filing a resolution to strip Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) of her committee assignments over the Minnesota Congress member’s comments about Kirk.
- Kirk reaction by the numbers: A whopping 79 percent of adults in a Sept. 11 YouGov poll said the shooting of Charlie Kirk represents a broader problem in American society, and 53 percent were very or somewhat familiar with Kirk before his death. Just 10 percent said violence can sometimes be justified.
- Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett told radio host Hugh Hewitt that Kirk’s killing is a sign that “political discourse has soured beyond control and something that we need to really pull back. … To create a culture in which political discourse can lead to political violence is unacceptable in the United States.” (h/t Mediaite)