Regarding the Charlie Kirk Shooting

Flash analysis: this is a powder keg moment—treat it as such.

Earlier this afternoon, Charlie Kirk was shot while speaking at Utah Valley University. I was immediately filled with dread, and felt compelled to write this post.

Right at the outset I want to state plainly that, whatever you think about Charlie Kirk, I hope you think carefully about what you post and write on digital platforms (public and private). I don’t say that from a place of judgement but concern about collective safety (I elaborate on this below).

Immediately after the shooting, videos started circulating on social media showing Kirk being struck in the neck while addressing a crowd under a tent in Utah Valley University’s courtyard. He was there for “The American Comeback Tour,” organized by the school’s chapter of Turning Point USA (TPUSA)—the organization Kirk founded. Other clips show students fleeing across campus after hearing the gunfire. (I’m not linking to them here because they are upsetting to watch, but if you feel so inclined, they’re all over the Internet). He has since been pronounced dead.

Who was Charlie Kirk?

Charlie Kirk has emerged as one of the most influential figures within the MAGA movement, largely through his leadership of TPUSA, the youth-focused conservative organization he founded in 2012. Kirk has become a crucial bridge between Trump’s populist message and the next generation of conservative activists. His ability to mobilize young people on college campuses, perceived as liberal spaces, has been particularly important for expanding the MAGA coalition beyond its initial base. On many occasions, clips of him verbally sparring with attendees have gone viral.

Kirk’s media presence—through his daily podcast, frequent appearances on conservative television, and active social media accounts—has allowed him to amplify Trump’s messaging, defend the movement against critics, and push its priorities in real time. Unlike many traditional conservative leaders, Kirk embraces the combative, anti-establishment tone that defines the MAGA ethos, presenting himself not just as a political strategist but as a cultural warrior in the ongoing battles over speech, education, and national identity.

My perspective, which admittedly may be blinkered, is that he’s received the most attention (and vitriol) among liberal and leftist circles through his positions opposing trans rights, abortion, and gun control, and in fact he was responding to a question about transgender mass shooters when he was shot, which may be a coincidence or a strategy timed for effect by the shooter.

To state it plainly: I am vehemently pro-trans rights, pro-women’s rights, and pro-gun control, among other leftist positions; there is likely very little that Charlie Kirk and I agreed on, and I can remember dozens of examples of Kirk saying things that fly in the face of not only my political positions, but of my morals and sense of basic human decency. In what follows I’m not meaning to tell how you should feel about this shooting or arguing that you should believe something different than you do; I’m trying to draw attention to the possible impacts of what you say using digital devices—even on apps you think of as private—as well as use my foresight hat to speculate on the broader authoritarian trends this might accelerate.

Analysis: Watch Out for Powder Keg Dynamics (“Gradually and Then Suddenly”)

Note: I elaborate what the next 12 months might hold for Americans using my polycritical foresight methodology in a more recent post:

America has been determinedly marching toward martial law, with the Trump administration increasing its direct control over both federal and state law enforcement and ramping up surveillance capacities under the auspices of immigration enforcement (I’m including a timeline at the bottom of the piece for deeper context). After today, I have a hard time imagining how all of that doesn’t intensify—and that the associated Supreme Court cases won’t be impacted by it.

I’m not going to say it’s a JFK or Archduke Franz Ferdinand assasination-level moment—it’s not—but where there are at least echoes of those events is that it has occurred in a powder keg, in which so many critical decisions about the future of American policing, military activity, and surveillance are being made in real time. I suspect Kirk’s shooting will increase sympathies and diminish the efficacy of democratic resistance to activities like the occupation of cities, increased digital surveillance, and ICE raids—and in fact I feel pretty confident we’re going to see an increase in all three in the days, weeks, and months to come because of it.

It doesn’t end there. American civilians are armed. We know this. A 2024 study concluded that recent gun purchasers may be “arming up for anticipated civil conflict. Our findings strongly suggest that large numbers of armed individuals who are at least potentially willing to engage in political violence are in public places across the US every day.” Of course, the shooting on Kirk is testament to this conclusion—as are the June 2025 shootings of state representatives Melissa Hortman, John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette Hoffman—and I’m worried that reprisals are on the way, likely in major U.S. cities deemed to be “enemy” blue dots. I know this sounds paranoid, but if you live in such a city, or are going to be spending time in one, I hope you’ll keep your situational awareness up.

What stands out to me about this particular assassination is all the available footage; there is already a video where you can see Kirk killed close-up, and I imagine more will surface in the coming hours. Never in modern American history has there been a killing of a public figure that was this palpably online—and the fact that it was of an extremely online public figure will only amplify the virality of these videos. Only time will tell what the impact of that will be on the American psyche, but I feel I can say with some confidence that it will traumatize some and catalyze violence among others.

On a related point, it’s my view that most Americans don’t appreciate how deeply surveillant their daily Internet experience has become. Google, Amazon, and Meta (just to name a few) are all known to cooperate and collaborate with the military and law enforcement—a trend that is increasing. This degree of surveillance is historically unprecedented, and it’s one of the primary tools by which the Trump administration can and likely will exert force over the American public.

There’s not much the average person can do in the face of the above other than be filled with dread, but what you can do is the bare minimum to deeply consider your activity online right now (and God forbid, in any future instances like this). It’s worth taking a beat to think through what actually needs to be said—whether online or in messaging apps. In this case, I question the value of talking about the shooting, Kirk, and his positions—and it is crystal clear to me what the risk is. If you do feel compelled to post, read whatever you write through the lens of either an angry civilian (if regarding a public comment) or a machine learning algorithm (if regarding a private text message)—if you were to read this, would you interpret it as glorifying the shooting? Would a large language model? Ideally you don’t want a scenario where there is any imaginable angle where the answer to those questions could be construed as “yes.”

The Trump Administration’s Tightening Control of the Military and Law Enforcement

As you’ve no doubt witnessed if you’ve paid any attention to the news over the past six months, one of the arenas Trump has exerted rapid, sustained influence is over the forces of domination in America: the military and law enforcement. This extends both his actions and rhetoric from 2016-20. Martial law and a surveillance state have never been far from Trump’s mind, and as mentioned above, my concern is that Kirk’s shooting will only intensify these desires.

Here’s a quick timeline of the key actions Trump has taken since assuming office in January—alongside related activities by government contractors and Supreme Court decisions connected to these and related efforts.

• Border/immigration posture with criminal-enforcement framing (Jan. 20): From Day 1 he declared a national emergency at the southern border, directing DOJ/DHS to consider additional steps up to (and reporting on) whether the Insurrection Act should be invoked.

• On February 27, the Guardian reported that private ICE contractor Geo Group expanded its electronic monitoring operations. As of early 2025, it tracked ~186,000 immigrants using devices like ankle monitors, smartwatches, and facial recognition apps. The company expected to scale up to 370,000–450,000 monitored individuals within a year.

• On March 27, the administration directed U.S. intelligence agencies—the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)—to use spy satellites to monitor the U.S.-Mexico border. This marks a significant expansion of real-time, space-based surveillance integrated into border enforcement efforts. Simultaneously, active-duty troops equipped with night-vision gear, armored Stryker vehicles, and foot patrols were deployed to the border—representing an unusual militarization of domestic surveillance on American soil.

• Trump signed a policing executive order (April 28): “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens.” It prioritizes aggressive policing, expands federal support and protection for officers, and pushes resources to state & local agencies.

• Scaled back federal police-oversight work (May 21): DOJ announced it was dismissing Biden-era pattern-or-practice investigations and proposed consent decrees (e.g., Minneapolis, Louisville), reducing federal leverage over local departments. Independent reporting the same week described broader pullbacks across several agencies.

• In June, Trump directed Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to increase migrant deportations, leading to raids in cities all over the United States, with a special emphasis on Los Angeles. The same month, ICE issued a memo requiring GPS ankle monitors be placed on most of the ~183,000 participants in its Alternatives to Detention program (up from just 24,000 earlier), with pregnant women receiving wrist monitors. Critics condemned the move as treating homes like “digital cages.”

• In Trump v. CASA, Inc. (June 27), the Supreme Court granted partial stays and said universal injunctions likely exceed courts’ equitable powers—narrowing the ability of challengers to halt Trump orders nationwide while cases proceed. This makes it easier for the administration to keep implementing contested policies (including on policing/immigration) outside the plaintiffs.

• Declared a crime emergency in Washington, D.C. (Aug. 11). The administration then pursued a standing domestic “quick reaction force” of Guard units for rapid city deployments during unrest (Aug. 12), according to internal Pentagon planning documents reported by major outlets, and pressed for its continuation; a House joint resolution to extend the emergency was introduced. Trump then invoked Section 740 of the DC Home Rule Act to transfer control of the Metropolitan Police Department to the federal government—deploying FBI, DEA, ATF, ICE, and other agents, along with up to 800 National Guard troops (Title 32 status)—to patrol Washington, D.C., purportedly to support federal and local law enforcement as part of a “Safe and Beautiful Task Force.” This unprecedented federalization of local law enforcement in a major U.S. city raised alarms about surveillance overreach and militarization of policing—especially given that crime in D.C. was at a 30-year low at the time. On Aug. 25, the administration ordered additional measures centralizing federal direction during the “emergency.”

• On Sept. 7, Trump announced that the Department of Defense would be renamed the Department of War, later posting “Chicago is about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR” to Truth Social, alongside an AI-generated poster with the title “Chipocalypse Now,” referencing the Vietnam-War film Apocalypse Now.

What’s Heading Toward the Supreme Court

• D.C. & city deployments/domestic use of troops: After adverse lower-court rulings and ongoing deployments (D.C., L.A.), multiple disputes over using Guard/active-duty forces for law-enforcement roles are expected to climb toward the Court. A recent piece in TIME notes the Court may have to decide how far a president can go in sending troops into U.S. cities.

• Immigration enforcement & emergency powers: Several cases challenge the administration’s reliance on emergency or wartime-style authorities for immigration and removals; outcomes could indirectly shape how DOJ and DHS partner with local police.

---

I don’t really know how to end this admittedly raw analysis other than to say that I’m worried about what comes next, and that I’ll be thinking it through in more depth, adding to this piece, and offering further analysis if it feels appropriate.

Stay safe out there.