The assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, during a public speaking event at Utah Valley University, has sent shockwaves through the nation—both for its tragic violence and for what it reveals about the changing landscape of information and political discourse in America. As millions witnessed the horrifying moment unfold, not through the measured filters of traditional media, but via a torrent of graphic videos spreading instantly across social media platforms, the event crystallized a new reality: the old gatekeepers of news are losing their grip, and the consequences are profound.
According to the Associated Press, Kirk was shot in front of hundreds of attendees, many of whom held up smartphones to record the event. Within minutes, explicit footage of the shooting—some showing Kirk recoiling from a bullet wound to the neck, blood visible—was available on X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and even Truth Social, where former President Donald Trump posted the official word of Kirk’s death. The FBI quickly released photos of a potential suspect, captured by security cameras and described as wearing sunglasses, a black hat, and a black long-sleeve shirt. As the manhunt continued into the following day, investigators also released high-quality video and images of the person of interest.
Traditional news organizations, such as television networks and newspapers, exercised their usual caution: blurring graphic content, showing only the moments before and after the shooting, and avoiding the most explicit footage. TMZ and the New York Post posted videos with Kirk’s upper body blurred, while other outlets refrained from showing the shooting at all. But as Sarah Kreps, a Cornell University professor and author, told the AP, "The traditional media can amplify and validate behavior. It can be a signal for how things should be stigmatized, rather than validated or normalized." Still, in this fragmented era, such editorial decisions seem almost quaint. As Kreps’ teenage sons texted her about the shooting before she’d even heard the news herself, she realized how little control traditional media now has over what the public sees. "There’s no way he could have survived that," her son wrote after seeing the video online.
Social media companies, meanwhile, scrambled to respond. YouTube announced it was removing "some graphic content" and restricting viewing to users over 18 or those signed in, while Meta (parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads) applied warning labels to the videos but did not ban them outright. An X representative did not immediately return requests for comment. The rapid, unfiltered spread of such footage is not new—Facebook, for example, faced similar challenges after the 2019 mass shooting in New Zealand was livestreamed—but the Kirk assassination underscores just how powerless legacy media has become to shape public consumption of traumatic events.
The shock of Kirk’s murder was compounded by its political undertones. Utah Governor Spencer Cox called the killing a "political assassination," a phrase echoed by Trump and others. Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was known for his relentless campus tours and his commitment to engaging directly with students—often those who disagreed with him. As The New York Times noted, Kirk was "practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him." His efforts were widely credited with helping shift college-age voters sharply to the right in the 2024 election.
Yet Kirk’s death is only the latest in a string of high-profile political attacks that have rattled the country in recent years. According to a Northeastern University analysis, there has been a disturbing rise in politically motivated killings and assassination attempts in the United States. Criminologist James Alan Fox points to two assassination attempts on President Trump during the 2024 campaign, the 2025 murder of Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman, and the December 2024 shooting of UnitedHealth Group’s CEO in Manhattan. Other incidents include the 2020 foiled plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, the 2021 Capitol riot and pipe bombs at party headquarters, the 2022 home invasion targeting then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the 2025 Molotov cocktail attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s home.
Fox told Northeastern University’s news service, "There’s been a shift from expressing violence against the government as an entity to partisan individuals representing the opposing set of views." He notes that while actual fatalities remain a relatively small number, the number of threats and attempts has soared. Data from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) backs him up: in the past five years, the U.S. has seen almost three times as many political attacks and plots as in the previous quarter-century. Reuters reports that political violence is now at its worst point since the 1970s.
What’s fueling this surge? Experts point to the role of social media platforms in deepening political polarization and, by extension, violence. Fox observes, "There is all sorts of stuff brewing on social media; people can find others who agree with them, and, therefore, solidify and reinforce their point of view." A 2025 Gallup poll found that more Americans than ever are identifying at the extreme ends of the political spectrum, with both sides increasingly disagreeing on basic facts. The ability to instantly share—and sometimes weaponize—information has made it easier for individuals to find affirmation, outrage, and, in rare but devastating cases, justification for violence.
At the same time, the motives behind these attacks can be murky. As Peter Fraunholtz, a Northeastern University historian, cautions, "It’s not so easy to discern a motive in these cases, even if the target appears to be clearly linked to one or another political faction." Investigators are still piecing together the reasons behind Kirk’s killing, as they are with other recent attacks. Nonetheless, the impact is clear: the boundaries of acceptable political action are being tested in ways that threaten the very foundation of American democracy.
The response to Kirk’s assassination has, at least, united political leaders in condemnation. Former President Joe Biden said, "There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now," adding that he and First Lady Jill Biden were praying for Kirk’s family. Trump announced that he would award Kirk a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom. Across the political spectrum, there is a sense of shared loss—and, perhaps, a glimmer of hope that the nation might step back from the brink.
Still, as CNN’s David Chalian told the AP, "I think we are broken, and potentially beyond repair." The old certainties—about who controls the narrative, about the safety of political participation, about the boundaries between argument and violence—are fraying. As the videos of Kirk’s assassination continue to circulate, and as the search for his killer goes on, Americans are left to grapple with the uncomfortable truth that in this new media environment, the wounds of political violence are not just physical; they are broadcast, replayed, and relived, over and over, for all to see.
In the end, the tragedy of Charlie Kirk’s death is not just a story about one man or one moment. It’s a warning about the direction of American politics—a reminder that, as one New York Times writer put it, "We are all safe, or none of us are."
