How Should Charles Kirk be Honored after his Tragic Assassination?
Philip Kotler
Charles Kirk, a Republican activist and founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated on September 10, 2025, by a 22-year-old white male, Tyler James Robinson. Utah Valley University was Kirk’s first speaking stop, on his planned “American Comeback Tour”. His death was a great loss to his wife and two children and mourned by many as a great loss of an important upcoming political leader.
Almost everyone condemns the use of political violence and agrees that the killer must be arrested, tried, and convicted. Some are advocating the death sentence for Tyler Robinson, independent of his motives for killed Kirk. The death penalty would communicate that there is no justification for killing an innocent person on political grounds.
The current issue, however, is “How much honor should be given to an assassinated person?” Should he only have the normal memorial and burial as chosen by his family? Or should he be given some honors such as a medal of freedom, for examples?
This question has arisen most often with famous individuals who were assassinated, such as Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, and Marthin Luther King Jr. All three have been honored and memorialized by their country’s majorities but each also drew many who dishonored them. Lincoln was hated by the South for destroying their way of life. Mahatma Gandhi was hated by many Hindus for his generous treatment of Muslims. Martin Luther King Jr was hated by many white Christian nationalists as someone who undermined law and order.
Charles Kirk didn’t rise to the level of these giants of history. Yet he is being proposed for exceptional honors. Many feel that any honor for Charles Kirk would be excessive.
Republicans and President Donald Trump think that Charles Kirk posthumously deserves great honor.
· Trump issued a proclamation ordering that the U.S. flag be flown at half-staff at the White House, all public buildings, military posts, U.S. embassies, etc., as a mark of respect for Charlie Kirk until sunset on September 14, 2025.
· A large public memorial service is scheduled for September 21 at State Farm Stadium in Arizona.
· A vigil was held at the Kennedy Center that was attended by Trump admin officials and Republican lawmakers.
· Turning Point USA (Kirk’s organization) has pledged to carry on his work, with his widow Erika Kirk stepping into leadership roles.
· The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bipartisan resolution honoring Kirk’s life and legacy and condemning political violence.
· Others has suggested additional proposals: the President should confer a Presidential Medal of Freedom; pass a “National Charlie Kirk Day”; GOP lawmakers have submitted a resolution to establish an annual “Charlie Kirk Day” of remembrance; a memorial sculpture/statue should be created; and Cardinal Timothy Dolan called Kirk a “modern‐day Saint Paul.
Opposition to Any Honor for Charley Kirk
The opposition, typically Democrats, view Kirk as a dangerous demagogue who normalized misinformation and intolerance, making society less inclusive and more unstable. Critics say that Charles rhetoric often demonized immigrants, Black people, Jewish donors, and LGBTQ+/transgender people, deepening polarization. Kirk has been accused of spreading conspiracy theories and false claims about elections, vaccines, and COVID-19. He cast doubt on election integrity. He opposed pluralistic democratic values. He prized provocation and media attention more than policy solutions.
Support for Honoring Charley Kirk
Charley was seen as a free speech advocate. He welcomed public debate. He embodied strong pro-capitalism, pro-religion, and nationalist values that Republicans feel is under attack. Kirk helped energize conservative students and young voters to counter perceived liberal dominance in academia. He generated visibility and loyalty to MAGA politics and is seen as a hero to that group.
My Conclusion
Charles Kirk never deserved to be murdered. He had the right to speak and be heard. He welcomed debate. Too often, other politicians are closed-minded and avoid debate.
Was Charles Kirk a courageous conservative fighter or a dangerous demagogue? Republicans certainly have the right to honor him in private ceremonies around the country. Yet Trump has been excessive in his use of public events and proposed honors for Kirk. Clearly the Republican party is seeking to use Kirk’s death as a weapon to demonize Democrats and liberals. Trump is always dividing rather than uniting the public. We now understand why many Democrats decided to abstain or to vote negatively for U.S. House of Representatives motions that carried excessive honoring of Charles Kirk.
