The killing of Charlie Kirk has become one of the most prominent and shocking events in American political life in recent years. The 31-year-old blogger and founder of Turning Point USA was shot dead by a sniper while speaking at Utah Valley University. Having built an audience of millions on social media and turned into a symbol of right-wing conservative activism, Kirk was seen by his supporters as one of the chief defenders of the established social order. His death not only triggered an outpouring of grief among Trump loyalists but also intensified debate over the deepening divide within American society.
The assassination of 31-year-old Charlie Kirk, one of the most visible conservative bloggers in the United States, may carry profound political consequences—not only for America itself but also for the international agenda, including Ukraine.
Kirk was a central figure in the right-conservative media sphere. His TikTok audience reached 7 million followers, with nearly as many on Instagram and X, and about 4 million on YouTube. President Donald Trump called him "great, even legendary" and stressed that "no one understood the hearts of young Americans better than he did." "Everyone loved him, especially me, but now he is no longer with us," Trump wrote on his social platform.
As the founder and leader of the student movement Turning Point USA, Kirk declared his mission to counter the "left-liberal agenda" in education and to promote the established social order. He personally toured universities across the country, hosting public debates on migration, LGBT issues, transgender identity, and other contentious topics. His last tour at Utah Valley University ended in tragedy: at the start of the event, he was struck by a sniper’s bullet and died shortly after in hospital.
In Ukraine, his views on the war drew particular attention. Kirk was a consistent opponent of U.S. military aid to Kyiv, arguing that such spending placed an excessive burden on the American budget and served only the interests of the Ukrainian authorities and the U.S. military-industrial complex. In one interview, he referred to southeastern Ukraine and Crimea as "historically Russian lands" and linked the war to what he described as "Biden and the Democrats breaking their commitments not to expand NATO."
Yet the "Ukrainian question" was only one element of his public rhetoric. Kirk’s primary focus was on America’s internal culture war—his campaign against the so-called woke agenda. He harshly criticized LGBT activism, calling it a threat to American society, denounced pride parades, and categorically opposed adoption by same-sex families.
His stance on transgender issues was particularly uncompromising. Kirk demanded a ban on gender reassignment surgeries and "gender-affirming therapy," especially for minors. In his view, such practices did not help children but instead deliberately pushed them toward transitioning, leading to psychological crises and, in some cases, suicide.
Kirk’s figure symbolized not only a new form of right-wing populism but also the social polarization that has come to define American politics in recent years. His assassination is seen as a harbinger of further escalation in this confrontation.
Kirk was no less scathing in his attacks on radical feminism. "Feminists say women will be happiest alone, without children, without a husband, with only a career. That is a lie," he declared, drawing applause from his audience.
Migration and crime occupied a central place in his rhetoric. He described the situation as an "invasion" requiring "military measures"—phrasing also employed by Donald Trump and his closest allies. Kirk regarded uncontrolled migration as the main driver of rising crime in the United States and accused the "left-leaning media" of concealing the true scale of the problem. He went further, raising an even more contentious issue—the role of African Americans in violent crime statistics. "The media will not tell you about cases of black-on-white violence," he asserted, adding that public figures in the United States "are not allowed to speak about who commits crimes." Kirk accused the American justice system of selective enforcement, claiming that crimes committed by members of nonwhite communities often went unpunished. In this context, he commented on the recent killing of a Ukrainian immigrant by an African American in the United States, calling it a telling example—his last post online before his death.
Views like these earned him no shortage of opponents. He was accused of racism, homophobia, and inciting hatred. For the American left, Kirk became a symbolic figure of deep hostility. The reaction of Trump loyalists and right-wing politicians to his assassination was therefore predictable. "The left is the party of murderers," wrote Elon Musk.
Kirk’s death will inevitably sharpen an already ferocious confrontation between the right and the left in the United States. The tragedy coincided with other high-profile episodes that rattled the conservative camp: the shooting of children at a Catholic school in Minneapolis by a transgender assailant, and the murder of a Ukrainian woman in the subway by a black perpetrator. All of this only further fuels the intensity of political conflict.
In American discourse, some are already calling Kirk’s death "the first shot of a new Civil War." That may be an exaggeration for now. But one thing is clear: Trump, and with him his administration, is increasingly focused on the internal ideological struggle. This will inevitably shape U.S. foreign policy—not least its stance on Ukraine, where Trump had long shown reluctance to deepen support.