THE assassination of Charlie Kirk has dominated not only the news in the US but also the news around the world.
Foreign governments and international organisations that have been focusing on President Donald Trump’s tariff policy and other foreign initiatives affecting global politics and economics now need to include into their calculus what appears to be a new element: deciphering the internal dynamics shaping American politics and society, and influencing US relations with the rest of the world.
Who was Charlie Kirk?
Charlie Kirk was a 31-year-old American conservative political activist, author and media personality who founded the student organisation Turning Point USA in 2012.
He was a close ally of Trump and was known for his work in mobilising support for the Republican party and the “Make America Great Again” (Maga) movement among young people.
Some analysts credit him as bringing out the young and conservative voter constituencies that enabled Trump to win the presidential election.
Kirk was a figure who thrived on provocative political rhetoric, positioning himself firmly against progressive ideologies.
Conversely, he was often portrayed by opponents as a purveyor of misinformation and hate. This created a highly charged environment where he was simultaneously a hero to his followers and a villain to his detractors.
He was fatally shot while speaking at a university campus in Utah. The assassination of Kirk – whilst not unprecedented in the US, given its history of political violence against personalities in American political life – is an event whose full domestic impact is currently being assessed and determined.
However, based on historical precedent and current political climate, some potential impacts can be suggested.
Heightened political polarisation, violence
The incident has been condemned as a direct assault on democracy and free speech. Political commentators suggest that it could further escalate the political violence and polarisation that have been a growing concern in the US. It could also normalise aggression as a tool for political change and discourage civil discourse.
Collateral impact on freedoms
Freedom of speech and expression, media freedom and independence, and judiciary neutrality and independence are likely to be impacted collaterally for the worse. The assassination has already led to increased security measures for politicians and activists, limiting their accessibility to the public and hindering their engagement in public forums.
‘Political martyrdom’ impact
Kirk’s followers have described him as a “martyr for truth”. This could galvanise the conservative youth movement and the Maga movement he helped build, potentially increasing their resolve and political participation. This impact is likely to continue with repercussions for American politics and society for a long time.
Erosion of trust and confidence
The tragic event further contributes to an erosion of trust in political institutions and processes, making many Americans have less faith in their political leaders, including Trump and his Republican party leaders. Suffering a similar lack of trust and respect are leaders of the Democrat party who have been accused of fomenting the ideological divide and extremism that Trump and Kirk’s supporters see as directly responsible for his assassination.
Foreign policy impact
For many in the rest of the world, Kirk’s death has drawn attention to not only the endemic violence that is a feature of American exceptionalism. It also highlights the US use of force and violence to achieve its foreign policy ends.
Since WWII, the US has been involved in five major wars (Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan) and dozens of other significant military operations, resulting in over 120,000 US military deaths and a total death toll in the millions across all affected nations.
Instrumentalisation of political violence
Just as a lone actor decided that violence was a legitimate tool to achieve a political goal (silencing a voice he disagreed with), states often make the same calculation. The US has a long history of utilising violence as a primary instrument of foreign policy – from direct military intervention (for example, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) to drone strikes, covert operations and sanctions – that have devastating humanitarian consequences. The underlying principle – that force is an acceptable means to achieve an ideological or strategic end – is similar, albeit on a different scale and with different processes.
The ‘with us or against us’ mentality
The deep domestic polarisation, where political opponents are not just rivals but are framed as existential threats to the nation, mirrors the rhetoric often used to justify foreign intervention. The language used to dehumanise foreign adversaries (for example, “terrorists”, “axis of evil”, “autocrats”) is increasingly used domestically (for example, “fascists”, “socialists”, “enemies of the people”). This moral absolutism creates a permissive environment for violence as it frames the target as being outside the bounds of humane and peaceful treatment. What has been evident also is that the US has successfully impregnated its “with or against us” foreign policy mindset in some countries, leading to political turmoil, wars and the division of countries into pro and anti-US camps.
Of special concern is the unprecedented increase in the war budgets of American allies at the behest of Trump along with the rationale to engage in a new Cold War in which American lives are less at risk.
A symptom, not an anomaly
Some cynics see the Kirk assassination as karma – the inevitable result of past deeds and embodying the principle of cause and effect.
Others see it as an example of how the logic of violence has seeped from the realm of state-on-state foreign policy into the very heart of domestic political conflict.
What is indisputable is that Kirk’s death not only marks the decline in perceived moral authority in the US and outside it. The event has also diminished the perception of the US as a beacon of stable democracy and a force for progressive social change on the international stage.
Lim Teck Ghee’s Another Take is aimed at demystifying social orthodoxy. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
