IMHO – this assassination of Charlie Kirk is sus.

A European Perspective on the Assassination of Charlie Kirk

I am a European citizen who has no intention of ever residing in or relocating to the United States. My observations regarding American politics, society, and current events are those of an informed outsider, shaped by direct experience, academic engagement, and critical distance.

In 2011, I spent several months in Washington, D.C., as a guest of a researcher affiliated with DARPA and a liberal activist. During that time, I attended an LGBT rights conference in Minneapolis. In 2012, I participated in a similar event in San Francisco. While I found many aspects of U.S. culture vibrant and its people often welcoming and generous, I also observed systemic issues—including widespread misinformation, educational disparities, extreme polarization, and a deeply militarized state apparatus—that left me profoundly skeptical about long-term societal stability.

In 2013, I delivered a presentation in Croatia on the topic of mounting national debt in the united states (at the time still under trillion, how locked in to become 45.1 trillion iby 2034) and the potential geopolitical decline of the United States. The event was indirectly supported by the U.S. State Department. Notably, my contribution was initially omitted from official records—a detail that only resurfaced years later, coincidentally around the time Donald Trump entered national politics.

From my vantage point in Europe, I have followed U.S. political developments with growing concern. I find much of the built environment—particularly inner cities—architecturally bleak and socially alienating. The quality of everyday food, outside elite enclaves, strikes me as dangerously poor. And the level of public discourse, particularly around science, truth, and governance, often appears detached from verifiable reality.

Let me be unequivocal: I am opposed to all forms of political assassination, state-sponsored killing, and private murder. I only condone violence in self-defense.

That said, I also believe it is possible—and necessary—to speak honestly about the nature of public figures. Charlie Kirk was, in my view, a deeply deplorable individual who for years promoted hate, disinformation, and the dehumanization of vulnerable minorities. His rhetoric aligned closely with what I would classify, in European terms, as far-right extremism and sociopathic manipulation. He did not merely hold controversial opinions; he weaponized them to inflame division and incite contempt.

Therefore, while I do not grieve his death, I also do not celebrate it. I do not believe anyone deserves to be murdered, no matter how odious their beliefs. The fact that a man who spent years stoking rage may have become a victim of it is a tragic illustration of how hatred can spiral beyond control—not a moment for vindication.

My commentary here is offered not as an American, but as a foreign observer with firsthand familiarity with the U.S., one who sees this event not in isolation, but within a broader context of escalating political violence, collapsing institutions, and moral decay. If I were discussing a similar event in Australia, Canada, or elsewhere, few would assume my analysis implies approval. The same standard should apply here.

This is not an endorsement. It is a reckoning—with ideas, with consequences, and with the dangerous paths nations walk when they normalize cruelty.

The Killing of Charlie Kirk: A Political Shockwave Amid an Escalating Scandal

On September 10, 2025, conservative political activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during a public speaking event at Utah Valley University (UVU) in Orem, Utah. The assassination—a single sniper round to the neck fired from approximately 200 yards away—occurred just one day after a major development in the long-simmering Jeffrey Epstein investigation. This convergence of events, occurring amid visible signs of President Donald Trump’s increasing stress, has created a moment of profound national tension, raising questions about timing, security, and the fragility of American political stability.

The Immediate Event: Precision, Chaos, and Lax Security

At 12:20 p.m. MDT, Kirk was answering a question about transgender individuals and mass shootings when he was struck by a bullet from the roof of the Losee Center. Witnesses described immediate panic, with attendees scattering as blood poured from his neck. Despite traveling with private security and being supported by six university police officers, no metal detectors were used, no tickets were required for entry, and concealed firearms were permitted on campus under state law. There was no visible counter-sniper protocol or rooftop surveillance—measures typically expected for high-profile figures in today’s volatile political climate.

Kirk was transported to Timpanogos Regional Hospital but died later that afternoon. President Trump confirmed the death via Truth Social at 2:40 p.m., ordering flags across the nation to be flown at half-staff for four days.

The Epstein Files: A Preceding Crisis

Just 36 hours before the shooting, on September 8–9, 2025, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee released a new batch of documents tied to the Jeffrey Epstein case. These included:

Epstein’s so-called “birthday book,” listing numerous high-profile contacts.
An alleged letter from Trump to Epstein referencing a “wonderful secret” they shared regarding underage girls at Mar-a-Lago.
Internal FBI communications indicating Trump’s name appears multiple times in unredacted files related to trafficking operations.

While not conclusive proof of criminal involvement, the release placed Trump under intense scrutiny. His usual strategy of dismissing such revelations as “fake news” appeared less effective this time. Reports indicated he had been briefed by Attorney General Pam Bondi about the seriousness of the material, and his responses in media appearances grew increasingly strained.

This context is critical: the nation was on the brink of a potential constitutional and moral reckoning over elite complicity in abuse scandals—when the focus abruptly shifted.

I insist that the focus should remain squarely on the public being able to access any information regarding the criminal organization surrounding Epstein, and all accomplices should be held accountable. It is my belief Donald Trump was not merely a visitor to Epstein organized pedosexual bacchanalia, he was an accomplice and enabler in facilitating Epstein’s active recruitment of pre-pubescent girls.

And oh wait…

In July 2025, Kirk “conducted extensive interviews about Jeffrey Epstein on his podcast and pressured Trump’s administration to release more information” Charlie Kirk – Wikipedia

Kirk “devoted Tuesday’s podcast to extensive interviews about Epstein” and “urged the Trump administration to fix the Epstein mess by disclosing more information” Charlie Kirk talks Epstein, urges Trump administration to act

Kirk had been leading MAGA pressure on Trump, saying the base’s “emphasis” on Epstein files was “because we care about you” Jeffrey Epstein Files Update: Charlie Kirk Has New Message For Trump – Newsweek

The Pressure Was Massive: Kirk said they were “getting flooded with thousands, hundreds of thousands of comments that are very unhappy” about Epstein handling Charlie Kirk on the Trump administration and Epstein: “We’re getting flooded with thousands, hundreds of thousands of comments that are very unhappy” | Media Matters for America

Trump Tried to Shut It Down: After Trump called Epstein criticism a “hoax,” Kirk backed down saying “I’m done talking about Epstein for the time being” and “I’m gonna trust my friends in the administration” NewsweekNewsweek

But Then Kirk Pivoted Back: Despite saying he’d move on, Kirk’s producer said “Charlie is not done talking about it. The ball is in the administration’s court to find a solution” Charlie Kirk talks Epstein, urges Trump administration to act

This Timing is DAMNING:

July 15: Kirk says he’s “done talking about Epstein”
July 17: Kirk issues “new message to Trump” about Epstein pressure
September 8-9: House releases Epstein birthday book with Trump letter
September 10: Kirk assassinated

Kirk Had Become Trump’s Epstein Enforcer-Turned-Problem: He was the one pushing hardest for Epstein file releases, generating “hundreds of thousands” of angry comments from the base, and wouldn’t fully back down even after Trump told him to.

From Trump’s perspective, Kirk had become:

The face of Epstein pressure within MAGA
Impossible to control (kept pushing even after being told to stop)
A liability during the document releases (would have demanded Trump explain the birthday book)

Trump’s Deteriorating Health and Stress Indicators

In the weeks leading up to the shooting, multiple outlets reported visible signs of physical and emotional strain in President Trump:

Bruising on his hands, first noted in December 2024, persisted into mid-2025.
In July 2025, it was confirmed he had been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a condition linked to poor circulation and increased cardiovascular risk.
He has a documented calcium heart score of 133, placing him at intermediate-to-high risk for a cardiac event.
By late August 2025, observers noted erratic behavior: sudden outbursts, slurred speech during interviews, and prolonged silences during rallies.
On September 7, during a press briefing, Trump cut off an aide mid-sentence, shouting, “We’re not talking about that!” when asked about the upcoming document release.

The Epstein fallout clearly weighed heavily on him. Then, within 24 hours of the most damaging disclosures yet, a national tragedy occurred—one that allowed him to pivot instantly from defendant to grieving leader.

A Convenient Distraction? Timing and Narrative Shift

The timing of Kirk’s assassination is striking. Just as the media and public attention were locked onto the Epstein scandal—a story threatening Trump’s legacy—the narrative was violently rerouted.

Within minutes of the shooting:

Graphic videos of the attack spread across social media.
Major news networks suspended regular programming.
By 3:00 p.m., all cable channels were covering the assassination exclusively.

Trump seized the moment. He blamed the “radical left” for inciting violence, despite no suspect having been identified. This framing fit neatly into his existing political narrative: that conservatives are under siege. It also deflected attention from the Epstein allegations, replacing a story about his past with one about their present hatred.

The speed and uniformity of the response suggest a pre-existing script was activated—one designed to respond to attacks on conservative figures with maximum outrage and minimal inquiry.

Investigation Anomalies and Public Confusion

The official investigation has been marked by unusual developments:

Authorities recovered a bolt-action rifle from a wooded area near the scene, along with a palm print, footwear impression, and forearm imprints.
CCTV footage reportedly shows the suspect fleeing the rooftop.
Despite these leads, the shooter remains unidentified.

More troublingly:

Two individuals were arrested within hours, including George Zinn, a known progressive activist.
FBI Director Kash Patel announced on social media that “the subject” was “now in custody”—only to retract the statement two hours later, confirming the person had been released.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox similarly referred to a “person of interest” before clarifying there was no connection to the shooting.

These premature announcements created confusion and undermined trust in the process. They also fed speculation that law enforcement may have been under pressure to produce a quick resolution—or to validate a particular narrative.

Political Reactions: Polarization Over Healing

Rather than uniting the country, the assassination deepened partisan divides.

Republicans, led by Trump, framed it as a politically motivated attack by the radical left.
Fox News host Jesse Watters declared, “They are at war with us,” while Elon Musk and Christopher Rufo echoed the sentiment.
Some MAGA supporters called for the cancellation of South Park, blaming a parody episode despite Kirk himself having praised the satire.
Democrats condemned the violence but accused Republicans of hypocrisy for ignoring a school shooting that occurred the same day.
The House descended into chaos when Speaker Mike Johnson called for a moment of silence, only for Representative Lauren Boebert to request a prayer—prompting derisive shouts from Democratic members.
MSNBC fired analyst Matthew Dowd for suggesting Kirk’s rhetoric may have contributed to a climate of hate, calling his comments “inappropriate, insensitive, and unacceptable.”

The reaction mirrored the broader dysfunction: grief weaponized, empathy conditional, and unity impossible.

Conclusion: A Nation Unraveling Under Pressure

The assassination of Charlie Kirk did not occur in isolation. It unfolded at a moment of extreme vulnerability for President Trump, who was already reeling from the Epstein document release and showing clear signs of psychological and physiological stress. The precision of the shot, the lax security, the rapid politicization of the event, and the confusing investigative trail all contribute to a deeply irregular case.

Whether orchestrated or coincidental, the effect is undeniable: a crisis that threatened Trump’s presidency was eclipsed by a national tragedy that cast him as a leader mourning a fallen ally. The shift in narrative was instantaneous and total.

As the manhunt continues and the Epstein investigation unfolds, one fact stands clear: the United States is navigating a period of unprecedented political instability, where personal vendettas, intelligence failures, and media manipulation converge in ways that challenge the very foundations of democratic governance. The killing of Charlie Kirk may be remembered not just as a loss of life, but as a turning point in how power, scandal, and violence intersect in 21st-century America.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, did not occur in a vacuum. It unfolded amid a well-documented period of “deepening division and increasingly frequent violence in American political life,” as noted by the Financial Times. This killing—like those of Paul Pelosi, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and Minnesota legislator Melissa Hortman earlier that year—is part of a disturbing trend where political rhetoric bleeds into real-world violence.

Kirk himself was a polarizing figure. As co-founder of Turning Point USA and a close ally of President Donald Trump, he played a central role in mobilizing youth conservatism and amplifying hard-right narratives across campuses and digital platforms. His rhetoric often targeted marginalized groups, particularly transgender individuals, and framed political discourse as a cultural war. While free speech protects such expression, its cumulative effect has contributed to an atmosphere in which dehumanization becomes normalized—and violence begins to feel inevitable to some.

Now, his death risks becoming not just a tragedy, but a strategic opportunity for destabilization.

There is a clear and present danger that this event could serve as an escape valve for deeper systemic crimes—including ongoing investigations into powerful figures tied to scandals like Jeffrey Epstein’s network. When national attention pivots violently from one crisis to another, accountability can be deferred, buried beneath waves of outrage, mourning, and retaliation.

President Trump’s immediate response—blaming the “radical left” before any suspect was identified—did not calm tensions. Instead, it fanned the flames of polarization, activating a base already primed for retribution. His declaration that flags be flown at half-staff for four days elevated Kirk to the status of martyr, while his framing of the act as ideologically motivated directed blame along partisan lines, regardless of evidence.

This narrative was amplified across conservative media: Fox News host Jesse Watters declared, “They are at war with us,” and Elon Musk, Christopher Rufo, and others echoed the sentiment. Some MAGA supporters even called for the cancellation of South Park over a satirical portrayal of Kirk—despite Kirk himself having praised the show’s humor—demonstrating how grief and rage have eclipsed reason.

Meanwhile, Democratic condemnation of the violence was met with accusations of hypocrisy when lawmakers objected to a prayer being offered in Congress, citing a school shooting on the same day. The moment descended into partisan chaos, revealing how fragile bipartisan norms have become.

The result is a country where:

Calm appeals fall on deaf ears.
Bloodlust is palpable.
Retaliatory violence feels imminent.

And in such an environment, the path toward further disorder widens.

History shows that periods of intense political violence can be exploited to justify extraordinary measures—surveillance expansion, suspension of civil liberties, or even the declaration of martial law under the guise of restoring order. If retaliatory killings follow—if cities erupt in unrest—the machinery of emergency governance may be activated, not to protect democracy, but to control a population pushed to the edge.

That escalation appears already locked in. The shooter remains at large, the investigation marred by confusion (including the premature announcement and release of suspects), and social media is flooded with graphic footage of the killing, ensuring its emotional impact lingers.

In this context, the fear is not only that justice will not be served—but that chaos itself may be the objective. By inflaming divisions, certain actors benefit: they distract, they consolidate power, and they prepare the public to accept authoritarian solutions to crises they helped create.

The death of Charlie Kirk is a symptom of a broken system. But if we are not vigilant, it may also become the pretext for something far worse.

I am greatful I don’t have to live in the US.