How Trump Is Dangerously Exploiting Kirk’s Assassination

President Donald Trump speaking in the Oval Office on Wednesday. White House video

There are an estimated 500 million civilian-owned guns in the United States. There are 340.1 million people in America. It only takes 0.00000029 percent of the population—one person—with one of those half-billion guns to change our world.

We cannot prevent every extremist or deranged person bent on killing from doing so. We certainly can institute gun safety measures and firearms restrictions and provide more and better social services to those in need. We can also try to adjust the tenor of our politics to counter or restrain the accelerants of violence. That latter point is a top-down matter of leadership. And as Donald Trump quickly demonstrated in the aftermath of the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, the MAGA warrior, there’s no chance of that occurring on his watch. In fact, unsurprisingly, he and his lieutenants quickly seized on this tragedy to intensify their politics of hate and division and reinforce the conditions in which political violence is likely.

On Wednesday night, mere hours after Kirk’s murder in front of an audience of students at Utah Valley University, Trump posted a video on his social media platform. Speaking from the Oval Office, he hailed Kirk as a “patriot” who “devoted his life to the cause of open debate” and “fought for liberty, democracy, and justice.” He referred to Kirk, a prominent proponent of Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election and a social media influencer who routinely uttered racist and bigoted remarks, as a “martyr for truth and freedom.” Then he addressed the issue that plagues the nation: “This is a dark moment for America. It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible.”

Many Americans on the different sides of the divide could agree with this. This is what a president should say at such a terrible time. But then Trump weaponized this sentiment: “For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today and it must stop right now.” He listed incidents of political violence: the assassination attempts on him, assaults on ICE agents, the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and the 2017 shooting of Republican House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. “Radical left political violence,” he said, “has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.”

You see what Trump did there, right? He assumed the shooter—who had yet to be apprehended—was aligned with the left, and he ignored the acts of violence committed against Democrats or by gunmen with extreme right views. These episodes include the murders of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, and the shooting of state Sen. John Hoffman; the recent shooting at the Atlanta headquarters of the US Centers for Disease Control that resulted in the death of a police officer; the brutal attack on Paul Pelosi, the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi; and the mass shootings in El Paso and Buffalo and at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, each perpetrated by a killer apparently motivated by racist and far-right conspiracy theories. And, of course, January 6.

This was unconscionable conduct on Trump’s part—though nothing surprising. After all, he did not attend the funeral for the Hortmans. He did not bother conveying his condolences to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. “Why waste time?” he said. (Yes, he really said that.) Nor did Trump publicly address the shooting at the CDC by a gunman with grievances pertaining to the Covid vaccine. And Trump pardoned hundreds of violent J6 domestic terrorists, who are now seeking financial reparations from his administration.

With this speech, Trump was crassly using Kirk’s murder to score political points and smite his enemies. He was not acting as the leader of the nation. He was behaving as the leader of a tribe. This was not a time to turn down the heat. It was a time to inflame.

His only culprit was the “radical left”—a phrase he has used in the past to refer to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and virtually all Democrats and liberals. He has long demonized his political foes as “communists” and “radicals” bent on destroying the United States. This is the foundation of the political cultural war Trump has been waging for almost a decade. The Kirk assassination was more ammo for him—even before anything was known about the at-large assassin or his motivation. (As I was writing this on Friday, it seemed possible the alleged shooter, who was now in custody, was tied to or inspired by the Groypers, a group of alt-right white nationalists led by Nick Fuentes, a Hitler fanboy. There was yet no definitive information about his motive.)

Only two weeks earlier, White House aide Stephen Miller, Trump’s newest Roy Cohn, laid out for Sean Hannity on Fox their intent to delegitimize the Democratic Party as part of Trump’s march toward authoritarianism and their preparation for the 2026 midterm elections: “The Democrat [sic] Party does not fight for, care about, or represent American citizens. It is an entity devoted exclusively to the defense of hardened criminals, gangbangers, and illegal, alien killers and terrorists. The Democrat Party is not a political party. It is a domestic extremist organization.”

Trump and Miller’s goal—boosted by Steve Bannon and others—is to completely denigrate the Democrats and brand them as anti-American evildoers. And what do you do with enemies of the state? You eradicate them.

The Kirk assassination appeared to be their chance to advance this agenda. On Wednesday, Miller posted a long statement on X that displayed his Manichean view of the world:

There is an ideology that has steadily been growing in this country which hates everything that is good, righteous and beautiful and celebrates everything that is warped, twisted and depraved. It is an ideology at war with family and nature. It is envious, malicious, and soulless. It is an ideology that looks upon the perfect family with bitter rage while embracing the serial criminal with tender warmth. Its adherents organize constantly to tear down and destroy every mark of grace and beauty while lifting up everything monstrous and foul. It is an ideology that leads, always, inevitably and willfully, to violence — violence against those uphold order, who uphold faith, who uphold family, who uphold all that is noble and virtuous in this world. It is an ideology whose one unifying thread is the insatiable thirst for destruction.

We see the workings of this ideology in every posting online cheering the evil assassination that cruelly robbed this nation of one of its greatest men. Postings from those in positions of institutional authority—educators, healthcare workers, therapists, government employees—reveling in the vile and the sinister with the most chilling glee. The fate of millions depends upon the defeat of this wicked ideology. The fate of our children, our society, our civilization hinges on it.

I do not like jumping into Nazi Germany analogies. But it’s hard to read this and not think about how Hitler and his henchmen used similar language to vilify Jews and the other marginalized groups they targeted: the enemy within undermining society. Ask Miller to identify who adheres to this ideology that is an existential threat to America’s families, and he will point to Democrats and progressives. Perhaps to readers of this newsletter.

Like Trump, Miller’s concern over political violence is one-sided and transactional. It’s a cudgel to wield against political opponents that stand in the way of their quest for power.

In the aftermath of episodes of political violence, there’s often an argument over whether more of such violence comes from the right or the left. That’s a pointless debate. The question is which side is encouraging and fueling the politics of hate, division, and extremism. Many pundits feel most comfortable referring to this as a both-sides problem. That’s wrong.

On the right, the folks who engage in extreme politics and demonization and who spread baseless lies and conspiracy theories are...the president, his advisers and appointees, members of the House and Senate, the heads of major advocacy groups, and prominent media figures. On the left it’s...largely social media posters, if anyone, not Democratic Party leaders. Trump has promulgated numerous conspiracy theories that feed right-wing paranoia, such as the destructive nonsense of QAnon. His FBI Director Kash Patel has whipped up fantasies about a supposed diabolical Deep State and supported purveyors of January 6 conspiracy theories. Nancy Pelosi? Chuck Schumer? They’re middle-of-the-road liberals who rushed to issue kindhearted statements about Kirk.

There’s no contest here. Only one side is led by a man who incited an attack on the Capitol, in which hundreds of his supporters beat up cops and called for the death of the vice president. Some of these pardoned insurrectionists in the past few days have issued calls to their networks to seek revenge for Kirk’s assassination. Other right-wingers have also demanded vengeance. And Trump and his crowd will now try to stifle any criticism that compares Trump’s actions to fascism and accuse those who make such critiques of inciting domestic terrorism.

On Friday morning, appearing on Fox, Trump explicitly dismissed the threat of violence from the right and went so far as to essentially excuse it. “The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don't want to see crime...They’re saying we don’t want to see these people coming in. We don’t want you burning our shoppin g centers. We don’t want you shooting our people in the middle of the street.  The radicals on the left are the problem, and they're vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy.”

Trump has no interest in tamping down the political violence that emanates from right-wing and pro-Trump extremism. He denies it’s a problem. His aim is to annihilate his foes and critics by deepening division and sharpening the rhetoric of fear and loathing that can lead to violence. For Trump, the tragic death of Kirk is not a moment for healing. It is an opportunity to further tear apart America and grease the way to autocracy.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

On Thursday, New York Times opinion writer Ezra Klein posted a piece declaring that Charlie Kirk practiced politics “the right way.” He wrote, “You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion." Klein added that he "envied" the political movement Kirk built and praised "his moxie and fearlessness."

I realize that following a tragedy, there's a tendency to look for the best in people or, at least, to not dwell on the negatives. But Klein was wrong. Kirk, an election denier who routinely issued racist and bigoted statements, built a movement with deceit and incendiary rhetoric, hardly an exemplary endeavor. He did not do politics the “right way.” I wrote about this—carefully—noting, “if this is an appropriate moment to assess Kirk and issue bold statements about his participation in America's political life, there ought to be room for a true discussion.” You can read that piece here.

This installment comes courtesy of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who posted this video on X:

I expect such sucking-up from Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Tim Cook (Apple), Sam Altman (OpenAI), and the other Big Tech overlords. But Bill Gates praising Trump for his “incredible leadership”? What’s the point of being a billionaire if you can’t have no more Fs to give? Of all of them, Gates—the target of many noxious conspiracy theories spread by MAGA fabulists—ought to know better than to hobnob with and legitimize a wannabe autocrat who has waged a war on science, ripped up climate change efforts, and annihilated humanitarian relief programs.

After the Kirk assassination, there were too many frightening and idiotic comments for the judges to keep track of. My colleagues at Mother Jones pulled together a list of some from conservatives who called for an all-out war on the left in retaliation for the killing—before anything was known about the assassin and his motivation. Everyone in this collection deserves to share this week’s prize. On to other nominees.

Prior to the assassination, CNN was in the running for this notification it sent out:

This promotion made it seem that Kennedy is truly an advocate for a healthy America, despite his war on vaccines and ongoing destruction of the public health system.

Speaking of RFK Jr., when he recently appeared on Fox, he was asked what was the last great success of US public health agencies. He replied: “I don't think there have been successes.”

It’s understandable that this avid and deceitful vaccine opponent could not answer with Operation Warp Speed, which produced the Covid vaccines and saved millions of American lives. But he couldn’t even mention the eradication of polio?

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum was once again repeating Dear Leader’s talking points when he dissed solar and wind power during an interview on CNBC: "The intermittent sources, the unreliable and the expensive sources like solar and wind—you don't know when the wind's gonna blow. We do know when the sun is gonna shine and it's not 24 hours a day."

Has Burgum never heard of batteries? Does he not use a television remote? By the way, the sun does shine 24 hours a day. Every day.

While praising himself for lowering the crime rate in Washington, DC, to “virtually nothing”—which is, as you can guess, untrue—Trump dismissed the seriousness of domestic violence:

Things that take place in the home they call crime. They’ll do anything they can to find something. If a man has a little fight with the wife, they say this was a crime. So, see? Now I can’t claim 100 percent.

Trump seemed to be suggesting that counting incidents of violent spousal abuse as crimes was a conspiracy to deny him glory. That is an impressively warped view. He added, “We saved Los Angeles.” Uh, no.

And there’s more from Trump. In the Oval Office, he declared, “We could've won every war, but we really chose to be very politically correct, or wokey.”

Yes, affirmative action really screwed us in Vietnam.

Two GOP House members nearly shared first place this week. Both were asked about Trump’s claim that his signature on the creepy and bawdy birthday card he apparently sent his pal Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 was a forgery. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) replied, “It’s not his signature. I’ve seen Donald Trump sign a million things.” And when queried whether this was a fake, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) replied, “Somehow. It’s so easy to do.”

Neither one—nor the White House—could explain how this birthday message from Trump which appeared in a book compiled for Epstein two decades ago was forged. Before Epstein was nabbed for sex crimes, did someone, who presciently foresaw that Trump would be president (for a second time) in 22 years, decide to introduce a fake Trump note and drawing into the book to set up Trump down the road? It’s fortunate for Donalds and Burchett that cults don’t require rational explanations.

This week’s winner is on a streak. After bagging the trophy last week, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo is again on top. He was awarded the most recent prize for having compared vaccination to slavery while announcing Florida would no longer issue vaccine mandates. (Make Polio Great Again!) Then when he appeared on CNN this past Sunday, host Jake Tapper noted that cases of hepatitis A, whooping cough, and chicken pox were rising in Florida and asked Ladapo if his department had performed any data analysis to derive projections of how great an increase in these diseases would follow the end of mandated vaccination. Ladapo declared, “Absolutely not.”

An incredulous Tapper asked whether Ladapo had not looked at how to prepare hospitals for a boost in the number of kids who contract these preventable diseases. Ladapo replied, “It's an issue of right and wrong in terms of whether parents should be able to control, have ultimate authority over what happens to their kids’ bodies.” As I noted last week, Ladapo and his boss, Gov. Ron DeSantis, have fully rejected the concept of public health. Let’s hope Ladapo's streak ends.

No surprise, many readers cheered the recent issue that made the case for House Democrats introducing articles of impeachment against Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Bonnie Lane emailed:

He lied under oath during his confirmation hearing and his malicious firing of the CDC director for doing her job are among the incompetent acts creating serious risks to public health—which would support articles of impeachment. Asking him to resign as Sen. Sanders and others are demanding is the first step, but I’m hoping my congressman, Rep Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), will respond to this issue when he has his town hall here is Los Angeles on September 17. It is hard to remain optimistic during this time of stupidity and corruption, but seeing Republicans and Democratic senators questioning this madman and then reading your article was encouraging.

Linda Jack wrote:

RFK Jr has already caused enough damage to American public health services that it will take a generation to repair. Decades of continuing research have been scrapped. The world's foremost experts with years of experience in their fields have been fired. They'll be quickly hired by other nations or organizations and won't be willing to return after being treated so cavalierly. They also won't be available to teach the next generation of upcoming scientists. 

Limiting vaccine access is asinine. Viruses like the flu or Covid continue to survive by mutating, forming new strains that can reinfect those immune to the original form of the disease. We saw this with the surge in the Delta and Omicron Covid variants. The more people that get the disease, the faster a virus can mutate into a vaccine or immunity resistant, more infectious or deadly variant. All of it is a recipe for a preventable US disease outbreak or epidemic, resulting in the suffering and deaths of Americans. Other countries, with rational health officials and reasonable vaccination rates, won't be affected.

As for Joseph Ladapo bizarrely declaring every vaccine mandate “is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery,” the Supreme Court disagrees with him. Jacobson v. Massachusetts was a 1905 Supreme Court case in which the court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.

There was much fan mail for the interview with John Fugelsang about his new book, Separation of Church and Hate: A Sane Person’s Guide to Taking Back the Bible From Fundamentalists, Fascists, and Flock-Fleecing Frauds. Margo Landrum shared this: 

Loved this insightful and so readable interview. Thanks from someone with 16 years of Catholic education who agrees with you both and who wants this book!

Paul Milliken emailed:

Thank you very much for this. It made my day a whole lot richer!

Rebecca Secor sent this note:

Thank you for such an enlightening interview. I was raised a Catholic in a conservative community in Ohio. I graduated in 1971 from Manhattanville, a liberal Catholic college, which would have made Fugelsang’s]book required reading. Over the years I have participated many times in discussions about what it means to be a practicing Catholic. Your interview answers that.

From Lorraine Pantaleo came this:

This was a great interview. I am nearly 96 and grew up in a religious family but had parents who were fairly liberal in their thinking and dealing with others. I still go to church, but my thinking and practicing has evolved. Not always sure what I believe. Venturing into the great beyond every morning with APOD [a gene associated with neurological disorders] makes one think about beginnings and endings. How anyone today could think the world is only 6,000 years old is beyond belief. 

Douglas Jamiel sent us a brief history lesson:

Some great points in this interview, in particular the shift of Christianity from Christ as humble teacher and protector of the poor and downtrodden to heavenly CEO of the Catholic church which is simply an extension of Roman Empire without the Roman army. Constantine embraced the faith in 312, not out of earnest conversion, but as a useful tool for cementing his empire which he moved to Byzantium on the Bosporus (Constantinople). The New Testament, beginning with Paul, exploited the image of Christ not as the champion of the poor, but as a savagely murdered martyr whose image was useful in inspiring fear and obedience and conformity to church doctrine. It was the resolution of the earlier debate about Christ’s image: educator or victim. The later won out and has hung over human history like a dark cloud for centuries.

“Why does summer have to end?”
“Well, Moxie, if it didn’t, we wouldn’t have the next summer to look forward to.”
“That’s a bit weak.”
“It’s the best I have.”