In a year marked by tragedy, controversy, and a fierce debate over the boundaries of free expression, the political right in America finds itself at a crossroads. The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, sent shockwaves through the nation, sparking not only grief but also a maelstrom of conspiracy theories, partisan finger-pointing, and renewed scrutiny of the First Amendment’s role in modern political discourse.
Charlie Kirk, a polarizing yet influential figure in conservative circles, was fatally shot in what authorities have described as a targeted attack. His death has become a flashpoint for debates about the limits of speech, the dangers of political extremism, and the responsibilities of public figures with massive online platforms. According to Oxford Free Press, Kirk’s own words—“There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America Free”—were echoed by both supporters and critics in the days following his assassination, highlighting an unlikely consensus on the importance of defending free speech, even when it’s uncomfortable.
The aftermath, however, was anything but unifying. In the two weeks after Kirk’s death, more than 145 people lost their jobs or faced disciplinary action for comments made about the killing, according to The New York Times. Vice President JD Vance went so far as to encourage employers to report workers who criticized Kirk or celebrated his death—a move that drew sharp criticism from civil liberties advocates. Yet, just months earlier, Vance had stated, “[W]e may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square.” The contradiction was not lost on observers, who questioned whether the right to free speech was being selectively defended.
At the same time, President Donald Trump moved to assert his administration’s commitment to free expression. In January 2025, he signed Executive Order 14149, entitled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” vowing that federal officials would not “unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” Yet, critics pointed out that the administration’s actions often told a different story. Reports surfaced that Trump officials had pressured major TV networks—including ABC, owned by Disney, and CBS, owned by Paramount—by threatening their broadcast licenses if they aired content critical of the administration. President Trump even suggested that evening talk shows, which are licensed by the FCC, should not be allowed to criticize him.
The controversy reached a boiling point when CBS canceled “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” citing financial reasons, though many noted Colbert’s frequent satirical jabs at the Trump administration. In the fall, ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel for remarks about the motivation behind Kirk’s assassination. FCC chairman Brendan Carr reportedly told Disney, “We can do this the hard way or the easy way,” and suggested Kimmel’s suspension—a suggestion that was promptly acted upon. After a public outcry and a dramatic loss of 1.7 million Disney and Hulu subscribers, Kimmel’s show was reinstated, though some local affiliates kept him off the air for an additional three days, demanding an apology that never came. Disney’s stock reportedly lost $6 billion in valuation during the debacle.
When Kimmel returned to the air, he didn’t mince words: “[They] tried to coerce the affiliates who run our show … That’s not legal. That’s not American. That is un-American and it is so dangerous … The president of the United States made it very clear he wants to see me and the hundreds of people who work here fired from our jobs.” The episode became a rallying point for those concerned about government overreach and the fragility of free speech in a hyper-partisan era.
Even prominent conservative voices expressed alarm. Senator Ted Cruz, no friend of Kimmel’s, compared the FCC’s tactics to “mafiosa” intimidation, quipping in a parody of “Goodfellas,” “Nice bar you have here, it’d be a shame if you lose it … If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives.” The libertarian Cato Institute, generally supportive of Trump on free market issues, broke ranks on the free speech question. Thomas Berry, Cato’s director of constitutional studies, told The Guardian, “When government officials use the power of the state either to suppress speech or tilt the free marketplace of ideas, that’s incredibly dangerous in the long term. It places a core restriction on individual liberty – the right to say what you want and say what you believe.”
Meanwhile, the right’s internal divisions were further exposed by the rise—and unraveling—of media personalities like Candace Owens. On November 22, 2025, Owens claimed in a conspiratorial post that a “high-ranking employee of the French Government” had informed her that President Emmanuel Macron and his wife had paid to have her assassinated. This followed a year of Owens promoting the baseless theory that the French first lady was born a man, prompting the Macrons to file a defamation lawsuit. Owens also alleged French involvement in Kirk’s assassination, weaving an ever-more tangled web of conspiracy theories that have found a receptive audience online.
Owens, who first gained prominence by opposing the Black Lives Matter movement and later worked with Kirk’s Turning Point USA, has seen her following explode—despite (or perhaps because of) her increasingly erratic and antisemitic commentary. After parting ways with The Daily Wire in 2024 over such remarks, Owens launched a “Becoming Brigitte” YouTube series that drew nearly 6 million views for its first episode. Since Kirk’s death, she has produced about 35 podcast episodes on the topic, and her subscriber base jumped by 430,000 in the week of September 22, 2025. She now boasts over 5.6 million YouTube subscribers, 7.4 million followers on X, and 6.5 million on Instagram.
Her influence is undeniable—so much so that she continues to appear on major conservative platforms, including Tucker Carlson’s show. Carlson himself has recently courted controversy by hosting Nick Fuentes, an openly antisemitic Nazi sympathizer, prompting Senator Cruz to condemn Carlson while the Heritage Foundation defended him. The right’s proximity to such figures has alarmed many traditional conservatives, who worry that the movement is being hijacked by provocateurs and grifters.
As USA TODAY columnist Nicole Russell argued, “It’s important that conservatives condemn and then ignore Owens because, for all her antics, theories and lawsuits, she continues to rub shoulders with some prominent conservatives who, in turn, influence massive portions of far-right conservatives.” Russell lamented that instead of uniting the right under shared principles in the wake of Kirk’s death, the movement has been further divided by “extreme, bizarre, outlandish figures like Owens, Fuentes and Carlson—influencers feeding off views.”
The debate over free speech, conspiracy, and the soul of the conservative movement is far from over. As Ben Franklin once warned, “Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” In 2025, America’s experiment with that liberty is being tested as never before.
