The political temperature in the United States has soared once again following the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, with Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene doubling down on her call for a "national divorce" between red and blue states. Greene’s latest remarks, made both on social media and in an interview with Newsmax on September 15, 2025, have reignited a fierce debate about the future of American unity, with supporters and critics alike weighing in on her controversial proposal.
Charlie Kirk, a prominent right-wing activist and founder of Turning Point USA, was shot in the neck while moderating a debate event at Utah Valley University last week. The shocking incident left the nation reeling and prompted a wave of speculation about the motives of the alleged shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson. While many have described the attack as "politically motivated," The Independent has reported that Robinson is not affiliated with any political party and actually comes from a Republican family—an important detail that complicates the prevailing narratives on both sides of the aisle.
In the aftermath of Kirk’s death, Marjorie Taylor Greene took to X (formerly Twitter) with a lengthy post that left no doubt as to her feelings about the current state of the country. "There is nothing left to talk about with the left. They hate us," Greene wrote, arguing that the assassination and its aftermath have convinced her the nation is "too far gone and too far divided" when it comes to politics. She continued, "They assassinated our nice guy who actually talked to them peacefully debating ideas. Then millions on the left celebrated and made clear they want all of us dead." Greene’s words, while incendiary, reflect a growing sense of frustration and alienation among some conservatives who feel besieged in the current political climate.
Speaking to Newsmax on the same day, Greene reiterated her online statements and went even further, suggesting that the only way forward might be a "peaceful national divorce." "I think that we could go item by item and every single issue, but we couldn't be further apart from the left," she told the outlet. "And after Charlie Kirk was martyred—and I say martyred because I believe that's what happened to him—I don't think there's anywhere to go from here. And I don't know what that looks like, and I don't know how to do it. But millions of people celebrated Charlie Kirk being assassinated."
For those who have followed Greene’s career, her call for a national divorce is not new. In 2023, she first floated the idea in a social media post, proposing that the United States "separate by red states and blue states to shrink the federal government." At the time, the suggestion drew widespread criticism and fears that she was advocating for a modern-day secession, or what some dubbed a "Civil War-lite." Nevertheless, Greene has continued to raise the idea, citing mounting political polarization and what she sees as irreconcilable differences between conservatives and liberals.
The debate over Kirk’s assassination has only deepened these divisions. Vice President JD Vance, another prominent figure in the Trump administration, has placed the blame for Kirk’s death squarely on "left-wing extremism" in the United States. This assertion, however, is complicated by the fact that the suspect, Robinson, is not connected to any left-wing group and hails from a Republican family. According to The Independent, this fact challenges the narrative that the attack was a straightforward case of political violence driven by partisan animosity.
Greene’s rhetoric has also drawn attention for its reference to previous acts of political violence, including the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump in July 2024. At a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Trump survived a shooting that left the nation on edge. "We saw this happen after they celebrated President Trump being shot back in July when he was a candidate for president," Greene said. "As a matter of fact, they were angry that the assassin's bullet did not kill him that day. And I don't know how to go forward from here." Her comments suggest a belief that political violence is becoming normalized—and even celebrated—by some factions, though such claims remain deeply contested and have been criticized by those who argue they inflame rather than heal national wounds.
While Greene’s supporters see her as a truth-teller unafraid to speak out against what they perceive as left-wing hostility, her critics warn that her language risks further inflaming tensions. The notion of a "peaceful national divorce" has been met with skepticism across the political spectrum, with many arguing that such a split would be logistically and morally fraught, potentially plunging the nation into deeper chaos. The phrase itself evokes memories of the country’s darkest chapter—the Civil War—a comparison that is not lost on those who fear the consequences of such rhetoric.
Despite the controversy, Greene remains steadfast. "To be honest, I want a peaceful national divorce," she wrote on X, lamenting that America is "no longer safe for any of us." Her words echo the anxieties of many Americans who feel that the country’s political divisions have become insurmountable. Yet, as history has shown, calls for secession or partition have rarely led to peace or stability. Instead, they often deepen existing wounds and make reconciliation even harder to achieve.
It is also important to note that, despite the heated rhetoric, the facts surrounding Kirk’s assassination remain complex. The suspect’s lack of political affiliation and Republican family background muddy the waters, making it difficult to draw simple conclusions about motivation or intent. As reported by The Independent, this ambiguity highlights the dangers of rushing to judgment and the importance of allowing the investigation to proceed without politicization.
As the nation grapples with the fallout from Kirk’s death and the renewed calls for a national divorce, the question remains: Is America truly too divided to mend? Or can cooler heads prevail, finding common ground even in the face of tragedy? For now, Greene’s remarks have ensured that the debate over unity and division remains front and center in the national conversation—and that the wounds of political violence are far from healed.
In this moment of heightened tension, the country faces a critical choice: whether to heed calls for separation or to recommit to the difficult work of bridging its divides. Only time will tell which path Americans will choose.
