The Tactical Use of Charlie Kirk’s Death by MAGA Supporters

Ever since the untimely demise of Charlie Kirk, Trump administration officials have been commemorating him through one of his most appreciated mediums — conservative podcasts — and maintaining his custom of challenging those who voice contrary views. The head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Brendan Carr, communicated this view quite bluntly on Benny Johnson’s podcast on September 17. This comment was directed towards comedian Jimmy Kimmel, who speculated on his talk show that the MAGA supporters were exploiting Kirk’s death for political leverage. Carr condemned these remarks as ‘truly distasteful,’ and shortly after, ABC declared an indefinite hiatus for Kimmel’s show.

These incidents unfolded shortly after a controversial event on September 15 when Vice President J.D. Vance, hosting Charlie Kirk’s podcast, slammed an article in The Nation. Vance wrongly attributed the author of the piece with reveled over Kirk’s death, and misleadingly accused George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation of funding The Nation. He vowed to challenge organizations that allegedly encourage violent acts and terrorism within the country, leaving a chilling impression on society. Such actions and words were hardly unusual, given the tense political climate.

We had apprehensions about this type of assault during the start of the resurgence of a potential Trump presidency era. Conservative scholars at the Heritage Foundation and Capital Research Center had outlined an array of strategies to marginalize the left, as revealed in certain documents. These strategies included challenging the immigration and legal status of dissenters and threatening to revoke the tax-exemption status of nonprofits. Other tactics could involve nuisance lawsuits and expansive RICO charges, facilitating guilt by association accusations.

We now see clear parallels between our apprehensions and the language employed by Vance. It’s a haunting echo of what was premeditated in those pages last year. Our fear was that the new administration would weaponize state apparatus against a wide array of progressive structures: activists, independent media, legal support systems, and organizations providing financial backing.

The discourse between Vance and White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, indicates that the administration is strategizing how to dismantle the entire progressive civil society structure. Kirk’s death might present them with a pretext for testing their blueprint. In a conversation with Miller, Vance expressed awareness of the backlash the administration would receive for their planned wide-ranging crackdown.

According to Miller, ‘violence’ encompasses organized doxing, riots, street attacks, dehumanization, and the deliberate incitement of violence through targeted messaging and action cells. These sentiments were echoed by Trump, who stated he would categorize ‘Antifa,’ shorthand for anti-fascists, as a domestic terrorism entity. This is despite the lack of a unified Antifa organization.

All of this has caused alarm, especially considering Trump’s unexplained assurance that he would classify ‘Antifa’ as a ‘major terrorist organization’ and recommended a thorough investigation into its funding. The aura of the ‘terror’ label, even without specifics of its application, suggests alarming prospects as it often precedes official declarations of ‘war’. As Whitlock and Bronski rightly articulated a decade ago, the ‘terrorism’ frame usually calls for increased surveillance, policing, and deployment of military force.

Following Kirk’s demise, the ‘terrorism’ and ‘war’ labels were concurrently invoked. Prominent right-wing figures such as Andrew Tate, Steve Bannon, Alex Jones, and many more declared that war was upon us. During a guest stint on The Charlie Kirk Show, Stephen Miller pledged to use all available resources to eradicate leftist networks, promising to make America safer for its citizens.

The use of ‘war’ in the current discourse is more than a simple provocation; it’s a tactical decision. It indicates a shift in norms and regulatory boundaries, permitting state-sanctioned acts of violence, including an increased use of the death penalty and police-inflicted killings, as well as detention without fair trial – all becoming accepted practices. In addition, there have been increased calls for unfettered criminalization and unrestricted usage of state power.

In a discussion with NBC News, White House representative Abigail Jackson leveled several accusations against left-leaning organizations, from alleged orchestration of violent riots to coordinating doxing attacks. Jackson asserted, ‘The Trump administration will get to the bottom of this vast network inciting violence in American communities,’ emphasizing their intentions to account for the criminal acts and bring the actors to justice.

Moreover, Trump’s strategy extends beyond organizations to target individuals deemed to be noncompliant: Pam Bondi threatens criminal prosecution of an Office Depot employee who denied printing a customer’s flyers for a Charlie Kirk vigil. These tactics and strategies are not strictly reactionary. They are a tactical exploitation of Kirk’s death to consolidate power for a right-wing movement let loose by its pursuit for dominance.

Precedents of using legally dubious tactics against progressive organizations demonstrate this pattern. Vance’s recent threats to rescind nonprofits of their tax-exempt statuses draw uncanny parallels to the notorious ‘nonprofit killer bill’. Tried and failed last year, it was resurfaced in a large budget bill this summer before being scrapped again. It is crucial to notice the sophisticated usage of RICO charges to suppress leftist organisations across multiple administrations.

Lastly, it’s critical to highlight the confidence that successful pushback against these strategies can kindle. The right’s means and methods are not deterministic, even with their formidable power and state machinery. Those of us in the media and allied organizations occupy critical positions to counter this narrative and to uphold the democratic institutions we hold dear. As we prepare to counter these forthcoming challenges, by firmly grounding ourselves in solidarity, we reaffirm our commitment to an egalitarian, interdependent, and liberating future.