By Joshua Yow and Shams Jouve - Crime, Terrorism & Extremism Desk

The present state of political violence

On the 10th of September 2025, Charlie Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at an outdoor Turning Point USA event on the campus of Utah Valley University. Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old, was subsequently arrested by the police and charged with Kirk’s murder.

This killing quickly became a national flashpoint, sparking a broader debate on rising political violence and deepening party polarisation, culminating in a highly publicised and elaborately high-level memorial service for Kirk’s death. 

However, this ongoing escalation of violence in the United States is not an unprecedented phenomenon. Following John F. Kennedy’s death, a wave of violence directly targeting political figures was observed, resulting in the assassination of key political leaders and civil rights activists between 1960 and 1970.

While those events also deepened political divisions, today’s environment is fundamentally different. Social media has become a defining factor, setting this crisis apart from earlier episodes, with Utah Governor Spencer Cox noting that “social media has played a role in every single assassination attempt that we have seen over the last five, six years”, in a speech reacting to Charlie Kirk’s death. To understand the changes in the state of political violence, this article aims to identify the current modes of violence and the factors that accelerate them.

Social media as an amplifier for polarisation

Currently, online platforms act as a prominent amplifier for political violence following the assassination. Kubin and von Sikorski highlight that “social media [...] can exacerbate both ideological and affective political polarisation”, playing a key role in polarisation dynamics by fostering online echo chambers. These are a consequence of the design of online platforms and algorithmic engagement strategies, which are intended to connect like-minded individuals and reinforce their political beliefs, leading to increasing engagement while directly fueling political divides. 

Polarisation is further powered by the spread of disinformation and misinformation online. Elites also play a disproportionate role within this dynamic, as “social media can provide [them] with the ability to shape their supporters’ opinions and mobilise turnout for elections and political events”, often by disseminating polarising content. Furthermore, the mediatic and political scene in the US reinforce these existing divisions, privileging the most extreme voices, where “the incentives that fuel American political life reward the people and platforms that turn up the heat, not those who dial tensions down.” This highly charged  political rhetoric results in a declining faith in institutions, which creates a feedback loop of violence.

Chavalarias notes that though echo chambers can form offline, online processes clearly enable the fast development of tensions directly impacting offline relationships. Thus, political violence should not be confined solely to online dynamics, but should be attributed to a convergence of deeper structural causes like economic insecurity, demographic anxiety, and increasingly provocative political discourses, ultimately contributing to growing fault lines. These ideological disagreements, transformed into personal animosity, have been heightened by social media, as well as the spread of conspiracy theories and personal grievances. 

The methods and meanings of radicalisation

The methods of Tyler Robinson, the accused perpetrator, are also telling of the present climate of political radicalisation. His actions are indicative of a wider pattern of lone-actor or small-cell attacks that erupt out of political grievance rather than from hierarchical, organised forms of gang-related violence or terrorism. Robinson’s signalling to an online audience, including referential engravings alluding to internet subculture, is not a new phenomenon, but it is one of growing concern. It reflects how extremist communication increasingly panders to these echo chambers present within internet culture. The purpose of these engravings goes beyond the traditional manifesto, instead acting as performative cues to in-group communities that subsequently propagate the act and idea of violence.

These online communities have the potential to “exacerbate both ideological and affective political polarization”, acting as both a stage and an amplifier, which raises the attention rewards for identity-affirming, antagonistic content. 

When this form of political extremism is coupled with a perpetrator’s unhindered access to the internet, this makes sources of online radicalisation much more opaque, which in turn makes the attribution of violence increasingly nebulous by leaving a vacuum of motive, encouraging a partisan narrative-setting after the act of killing.

Research on recent U.S. domestic terrorism exhibits a rise in incidents linked to public political events and reciprocal confrontation between opposing camps, leading to a local security dilemma in which each side’s self-protection fuels the other’s escalation. With access to firearms and constant permeation of radical thought, would-be assassins can operate as self-directed agents inside online and offline networks, functioning as individual cells of decentralised radicalisation. Law enforcement and government have also often been the most frequent targets across extreme ideologies, with far-right incidents having more lethal outcomes due to firearms use.

Robinson’s targeting of a political commentator instead of a government official also signals a shift from attacking positions of formal power towards an attack on rhetoric and identity. Kirk’s confrontational debate style has also made him a visible symbol, inviting division between his supporters and their opponents, while crystallising division within the American population. This reflects how demonstrations and public events have become focal points for violence, evoking the public stage as a site of contest, therefore revealing a nexus between policy and performance, which is present within echo chambers, audiences, and their associated performative cues. 

Ripple effects/ Consequences: What does it mean for American society?

Currently, the ripple effects of Charlie Kirk’s assassination are being felt across the United States and beyond. Against the backdrop of deepening political polarisation and the erosion of a political “middle,” his death has triggered a surge of highly charged online discourse, disinformation, and calls for political violence, dynamics that extend well beyond domestic borders.

One sector feeling the strain is academia. In Canada, for instance, the University of Alberta placed several professors on non-disciplinary leave following threats linked to reactions surrounding Kirk’s death. Within the U.S., the climate for free speech on university campuses has also grown increasingly tense. A 2024 survey found that 27% of students agreed that campuses should “prohibit speech they may find offensive,” up from 22% in 2021.

The debate surrounding Kirk’s death has also reignited broader discussions about First Amendment rights, which safeguard fundamental freedoms such as free expression. In a controversial statement, Vice President J.D. Vance asserted that the First Amendment “does not protect those who celebrated Kirk’s death from consequences.” His remarks came shortly after the President announced that the Antifa movement would be designated a terrorist organization—“just one of many actions,” according to a White House official, “to address left-wing organizations that fuel political violence.”

Critics of the government’s response to Kirk’s assassination have themselves faced backlash. Some have received threats, others have lost their jobs, and even prominent figures in entertainment have come under pressure. Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, for example, was briefly suspended by ABC (owned by Disney) after joking that the “MAGA gang” was attempting to score political points from Kirk’s death; the network later reinstated him following public criticism.

Already, Kirk has been enshrined within martyrdom by the Republican Party, shifting the attention away from the root cause of rising rates of gun violence. These party divisions are further capitalised on during the Kirk’s Memorial, blending American Evangelicalism and invocations of nationalism as a rallying platform, reinforcing partisan identity cues. This has been exacerbated by right-wing media figures demanding retribution for Kirk’s death, calling Kirk’s killing a declaration of “war”, illustrating the increase in sectarian escalation. Public spaces are also changing to reflect the heightened tensions, ushering in a deeper level of securitisation. President Trump also showed up to Kirk’s memorial hidden behind layers of bulletproof glass, reflecting the deep paranoia plaguing the event. Therefore, Kirk’s assassination exists within a self-reinforcing cycle of violence in which lone-actor radicalisation, online echo chambers, and performative politics harden sectarian identities while normalising a securitised public life. Breaking this cycle will depend on elite de-escalation and partisan compromise, though whether either will materialise remains uncertain.

As the United States navigates the fallout of this tragedy, the challenge lies not only in addressing immediate security threats but also in rebuilding a digital and political culture capable of disagreement without dehumanisation.