Just a week after the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University, the nation is still reeling from the shockwaves set off by his assassination and the subsequent flood of graphic footage across social media. The incident, which unfolded on September 11, 2025, in Orem, Utah, has stirred fierce debate about political violence, the mental toll of online imagery, and the future of public discourse in America.
Charlie Kirk, a prominent 31-year-old political figure and founder of Turning Point USA, was addressing a large crowd as part of his "American Comeback Tour" when a gunman shot him in the neck, killing him on the spot. According to NPR, the event was being livestreamed, and with thousands of attendees wielding smartphones, footage of the shooting appeared online within minutes, amassing millions of views almost instantly. The rapid, widespread dissemination of the video left many Americans—whether they wanted to see it or not—confronted with the brutal reality of political violence in their social media feeds.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox, speaking at a press conference days after the shooting, expressed deep concern over the psychological impact of such graphic content. "We are not wired as human beings, biologically, historically — we have not evolved in a way that we are capable of processing those types of violent imagery," Cox said. "This is not good for us. It is not good to consume." His remarks echoed a growing chorus of experts warning that the prevalence of violent media, especially when encountered involuntarily, can have profound and lasting effects on mental health.
Roxane Cohen Silver, a professor of psychology, public health, and medicine at the University of California, Irvine, has spent years studying the impact of traumatic events and media exposure. Speaking to NPR, she was unequivocal: "The clearest message that I have after studying the impact of media exposure to tragedies since the Columbine High School shooting…is that there is no psychological benefit to viewing graphic, gruesome images of violence. For many, many people, it is associated with distress, anxiety, emotional numbness, nightmares, flashbacks, hypervigilance, symptoms of acute stress, symptoms over time of post-traumatic stress."
The proliferation of such content is not just a psychological issue—it is also reshaping the political landscape. Nicole Hemmer, a political historian at Vanderbilt University, told NPR, "It's remarkable how much graphic violent media is just part of politics now. I think that it's difficult to understand people's emotional response to and connection to politics right now if you don't see some of the really graphic and heinous imagery that they're exposed to." Hemmer noted that exposure to these videos can heighten emotions, fuel feelings of fear and vulnerability, and even provoke calls for revenge. "You can see that in the reaction among people who are responding to Kirk's assassination saying that blood has to meet blood," she added, raising concerns that the normalization of violence online could further erode boundaries against violent acts in political life.
Despite these troubling trends, research suggests that most Americans remain firmly opposed to political violence. Lilliana Mason, a political science professor at Johns Hopkins University, cited survey data indicating that 80% to 90% of Americans say it is never acceptable to use violence to achieve political goals—a figure that has held steady since 2017. However, Mason noted that attitudes shift when the question turns to retaliation: up to 60% of respondents say violence may be justified if the other political party commits a violent act first. "Basically, nobody wants to start violence, but if violence has already begun, then people are much more open to engaging in it," Mason explained to NPR.
Amid the grief and outrage, the nation’s leaders have weighed in. On September 18, 2025, President Donald Trump addressed the killing of Charlie Kirk during a press conference with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. According to ABC News and NBC News, Trump closed his remarks by praising Kirk’s legacy and expressing sorrow over his death. "Charlie Kirk had a 'good shot' of being president one day," Trump said, a comment that underscored both Kirk’s political influence and the sense of loss felt by his supporters. Trump’s remarks were widely covered and echoed across networks, with NBC News airing a video segment highlighting the president’s tribute to Kirk.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, standing alongside Trump, called Kirk’s assassination "shocking," according to NBC News footage. The international attention given to the event reflected both the gravity of the attack and Kirk’s stature as a leading figure in American conservative circles.
The reaction to Kirk’s murder has not been limited to expressions of grief and condemnation. Fox News aired a segment on September 18 titled "Campus Reform reporter calls out vile, disgusting response to Charlie Kirk's murder," spotlighting the heated and sometimes vitriolic reactions that have surfaced online. The debate over the boundaries of free speech, appropriate public mourning, and accountability for incitement has only intensified as the story has unfolded.
Meanwhile, the investigation into the shooting continues. As reported by NPR, authorities have recovered a "high-powered" rifle believed to have been used in the attack, and video images of the suspect have been obtained. The suspect, who reportedly targeted Kirk during the live event, remains at large, adding an element of fear and uncertainty to an already fraught situation. Vigils have been held in Orem and across the country, with supporters gathering to mourn Kirk’s death and call for justice.
The impact of Kirk’s assassination—and the viral spread of its imagery—has prompted soul-searching about the role of social media in amplifying violence. Emerson Brooking, director of strategy and senior resident fellow at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, told NPR, "Social media and violent imagery often go together these days. This took place where everyone could see it and it was intended that everyone would see it." Brooking and Hemmer both warned that social platforms reward extreme content, driving cycles of outrage and, in some cases, personal profit for those who share the most graphic footage. "They are part of an outrage cycle…in which if you are out there sharing some of the most gruesome videos of the Charlotte murder, of Kirk's assassination, then you are gaining credibility and influence in that social media ecosystem," Hemmer said.
As the nation grapples with the aftermath of Kirk’s death, questions abound: How can society protect itself from the corrosive effects of political violence and the trauma of graphic media? Where is the line between public awareness and public harm? And how can Americans honor the memory of those lost without fueling cycles of fear and retaliation?
For now, the country mourns Charlie Kirk, reflects on the dangers of a hyper-connected world, and searches for a path forward in the shadow of tragedy.
