MAGA Rep Is Already Weaponizing Charlie Kirk’s Death for Censorship

Republican lawmakers have had enough of the First Amendment in the aftermath of the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Representative Clay Higgins said Thursday that he planned to use his congressional seat to convince tech platforms to go after anyone who “belittled” Kirk’s death.

Kirk was fatally shot during a “Prove Me Wrong” table event at Utah Valley University, where he’d invited college students to debate him. Kirk’s final words were in a debate about gun violence in the United States. 

“If they ran their mouth with their smartass hatred celebrating the heinous murder of that beautiful young man who dedicated his whole life to delivering respectful conservative truth into the hearts of liberal enclave universities, armed only with a Bible and a microphone and a Constitution … those profiles must come down,” Higgins wrote on X. 

“So, I’m going to lean forward in this fight, demanding that big tech have zero tolerance for violent political hate content, the user to be banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER,” he continued. “I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked.

“I’m basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination,” he said. “I’m starting that today. That is all.”

Ironically, Higgins was the subject of social media censorship in 2020 after he posted on Facebook threatening Black Lives Matter protesters, writing that he would shoot and “drop any 10 of you where you stand.” Higgins’s post was removed for inciting or facilitating “serious violence.” 

Kirk seemingly supported the free expression of political ideas—no matter how controversial.

Now lawmakers disturbed by his horrific death want not only to curb free speech on the internet but to punish it too. 

Already, the notorious hate account Libs of TikTok has launched a doxxing campaign targeting apparent Democrats who made callous comments celebrating Kirk’s death on the internet, as part of a newly declared “war” on liberals. 

Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna also called on social media platforms to remove the videos of the shooting, and Representative Lauren Boebert agreed. 

“He has a family, young children, and no one should be forced to relive this tragedy online,” Luna wrote on X. “These are not the only graphic videos of horrifying murders circulating—at some point, social media begins to desensitize humanity.”

Boebert replied, “Thank you!!! I agree completely! I NEVER want to see that again!! I hate that I saw it at all.”

Lily Tang Williams, a Republican congressional candidate from New Hampshire, also responded: “I respectively disagree. Freedom of speech includes content we don’t like or hate,” she said.  

“It hurts to watch the video, but we must defend free speech as the foundation of our Republic, no matter how horrible it is,” she wrote. “Where would you draw the line?  Who decides what people can see?  Censorship is one of the primary tools of authoritarians for a reason—always couched in terms of safety or sentiment. Censorship is not the answer.”

Williams wrote that Kirk “would want us to speak the truth, protect free speech and practice civil discourse which he did!”

Team Biden has struck back after former Vice President Kamala Harris offered scathing criticism of her former boss in an excerpt from her forthcoming book, 107 Days.

In the memoir, Harris called former president Joe Biden’s decision to remain in the race amid rampant health concerns “recklessness,” and decried his ego and ambition.

One former Biden administration member sounded off on Harris in comments made to Axios, arguing that the former vice president’s own deficiencies were the problem.

“Vice President Harris was simply not good at the job,” they said. “She had basically zero substantive role in any of the administration’s key work streams, and instead would just dive bomb in for stilted photo ops that exposed how out of depth she was.”

“[President Biden was] not the reason she struggled in office or tanked her 2019 [presidential] campaign,” they continued. “Or lost the 2024 campaign, for that matter. The independent variable there is the vice president, not Biden or his aides.”

In the memoir excerpt, Harris wrote that although she thought it was clear that Biden shouldn’t run again, she never felt comfortable expressing that earlier in his campaign because she thought it would look bad.

Biden’s staff, however, wasn’t buying it.

“I’m not sure the very robust defense of not having the courage to speak up in the moment about Biden running is quite as persuasive as she thinks it is. If this is her attempt at political absolution: Lots of luck in your senior year,” an aide said. “If she had spent a fraction of the time and energy doing the work that she did on complaining, about how she was perceived, she would have been perceived a whole lot better.”

Not all of Biden’s former staffers felt the same contempt for Harris and her memoir, though.

“We all know that the Biden folks treated her and her team like shit. We never thought she would actually say anything,” another aide said, corroborating the claims Harris made in 107 Days. “The staffers across a range of ages and positions that I’m talking to are proud of her.”

Both sides of this conflict feel extremely unsatisfactory. It seems abundantly clear at this point that Biden should have dropped out earlier, and the chorus of staffers and party leaders that told everyone to shut up until it was undeniable should be held accountable.

At the same time, for Harris to come out with all this well after the fact, when she could have tried to make a difference in the actual moment, feels like too little and far too late.

“There were others on the Biden team, though, who really tried to help her thrive as VP. But she and her team did not seize that support and make the most of it,” yet another staffer told Axios. “It is all a tragedy.”

President Donald Trump on Wednesday ordered American flags to be flown at half-staff after the deadly shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk—something he did not do when Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman, a Democrat, was assassinated months ago.

“In honor of Charlie Kirk, a truly Great American Patriot, I am ordering all American Flags throughout the United States lowered to Half Mast until Sunday evening at 6 P.M.,” Trump wrote on Truth Social after Kirk was shot and killed Wednesday, later issuing a proclamation to that effect. The president also announced Thursday that he would posthumously award Kirk the presidential medal of freedom.

Observers online noted that such commemorative measures were not extended to Hortman when she and her husband were fatally shot in June by a gunman who also targeted State Senator John Hoffman and his wife (both of whom survived).

On Truth Social, Trump described the June Minnesota shooting as an instance of “horrific violence” that “will not be tolerated in the United States of America.” Asked the next day if he’d called Minnesota Governor Tim Walz about the incident, the president said, “I could be nice and call him, but why waste time?”

The Minnesota shooting went notably unmentioned in Trump’s Wednesday address about Kirk’s death, in which he decried a general increase in political violence—but attributed it only to the “radical left,” overlooking myriad recent examples of right-wing violence.

Russia has followed up its recent incursions against Poland with threats to other NATO members.

Nineteen Russian drones, many originating from Belarus, crossed into Polish airspace late Tuesday, forcing the Eastern European nation to shut down four of its airports as it scrambled to fire up its defense systems. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk invoked Article 4 of the NATO Treaty the following day, calling the ​​situation the “closest” that Poland had come to armed conflict since World War II.

But rather than de-escalate the situation, the Kremlin has decided to stoke more fear. Deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev—who has also served as the country’s president and prime minister, and remains a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin—warned in a statement that Finland could collapse “forever” if it decided to oppose Russia’s power.

“The Finnish establishment mustn’t forget: Confrontation with Russia can lead to collapse of Finnish statehood—this time forever,” said Medvedev. “Unlike in 1944, no one will go soft on them this time.”

Any attack on Finland would invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which would call all other NATO members into a unified defense strategy. The article has only ever been activated once during the 70-year history of the international alliance: 24 hours after September 11, 2001.

Medvedev also made reference to the Mannerheim Line, a defensive fortification that Finland built against the Soviet Union roughly a century ago. In the statement, he implied that Finland’s “new” version of the defense strategy had been interpreted by Russian leadership as a retaliatory measure.

The statement also linked out to a lengthy Telegram post that baselessly accused Finland of committing “genocide and war crimes” against the Soviet Union, and of being “a satellite of Nazi Germany.”

Speaking with CNN Wednesday, Poland’s Deputy Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski said that the drone incursion was accompanied by a massive Russian disinformation campaign, and that attempts to blame the drones’ presence on other countries, especially Ukraine, were little more than propaganda.

U.S. President Donald Trump, who claims he has a good relationship with Putin, has yet to meaningfully comment on the drone incursion into Poland. On Wednesday, he wrote on Truth Social, “What’s with Russia violating Poland’s airspace with drones? Here we go!”

Republicans have decided that they are at war following the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, while simultaneously complaining about violent rhetoric on the left.

Without knowing the identity of the shooter, their politics, or what motivated them, grief-fueled right-wingers quickly launched into preparations for a battle against liberals.

“THIS IS WAR,” declared Libs of TikTok, the notorious far-right hate account with the Trump administration’s ear, on Wednesday afternoon, before setting off on a doxxing spree of Democrats who’d posted callously about Kirk’s death.

Former DOGE czar Elon Musk helped lead the charge, using combative rhetoric to condemn violence from the left—even though the political affiliation of the assassin was still unknown.

“The Left is the party of murder,” he wrote on X. In another post, he said: “If they won’t let us live in peace, then our choice is fight or die.”

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones said that right-wingers were “in a war” during a livestream Wednesday. “The Left has been saying, ‘Put a bullseye on Trump, put a bullseye on his supporters,’” he said.

Speaking about the corporate media “bastards,” Jones said, “They love death and scum, we’re gonna get them. We’re gonna save this country and the world together.”

MAGA architect Steve Bannon also called Kirk “a casualty of war” while speaking on his War Room podcast.

Fox News host Jesse Watters unloaded a list of violent acts targeting the right, including Trump’s failed assassination and the vandalization of Musk’s Teslas. “They are at war with us,” said Watters. “Whether we want to accept it or not, they are at war with us, and what are we gonna do about it? How much political violence are we gonna tolerate?”

“This is a turning point, and we know which direction we’re going,” he added.

At least Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire called for unity … to mount an attack against Satan’s army.

“The entire Right has to band together. Enough of this in-fighting bullshit. We are up against demonic forces from the pit of Hell,” he wrote on X. “They’re killing us in our churches. They tried to kill our president. They killed Charlie, one of our greatest advocates. Put the personal squabbles aside. Now’s not the time. This is existential. A fight for our own existence and the existence of our country.”

President Donald Trump delivered an address Wednesday evening blaming the “radical left” and their rhetoric for political violence by “demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year in the most hateful and despicable way possible,” but had no similar message for those on the right.

For a group that’s begun complaining about the supposedly violent rhetoric of the left, perhaps they should take a good look at their own.

Meanwhile, the deadly shooting was swiftly condemned by Democratic leaders, such as former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama, former Vice President Kamala Harris, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (whose state suffered a political assassination in June), and Representatives Hakeem Jeffries and Nancy Pelosi.

The Trump administration wants to take 245 million acres of public land that was previously protected for conservation and use it to “drill, baby drill.”

In 2024, the Biden administration installed a federal rule to “restore habitats, guide strategic and responsible development, and sustain our public lands for generations to come,” particularly in the West. Now Trump is trying to repeal the law to make it easier to drill for oil and keep cattle and other livestock on land that makes up nearly a tenth of the United States.

The business side of this equation is rejoicing.

“The Biden administration unlawfully placed conservation above all else,” National Mining Association President Rich Nolan told The New York Times. “This new rule reinstates the balance of federal land use intended by Congress, ensuring that our vast resources can meet today’s soaring energy needs and become the secure mineral supply chains for American industry.”

Interior Secretary Doug Bergum echoed those sentiments.

“The previous administration’s Public Lands Rule had the potential to block access to hundreds of thousands of acres of multiple-use land—preventing energy and mineral production, timber management, grazing and recreation across the West,” he said in a statement on Wednesday. He also noted that the U.S. was looking to use the land to sell more natural gas to other countries and that artificial intelligence was a more pressing issue than conservation or climate change.

“What’s going to save the planet is winning the A.I. arms race,” he said. “We need power to do that, and we need it now.”

Environmentalist groups, unsurprisingly, see it much differently.

“It’s fitting that Secretary Burgum made this announcement while jet-setting across Europe. If he spent more time with Westerners and less time pretending he’s an international man of mystery, he’d learn that conservation is one of the core uses of our public lands,” Center for Western Priorities executive director Jennifer Rokala said in a statement.

“If Secretary Burgum spent more time in the West, he’d understand how conservation fits into everything the Bureau of Land Management does. Hunters, anglers, hikers and backpackers all praised the public lands rule because it helps ensure access to public lands for future generations” she continued. “Public lands management is a balancing act, and you just tipped the scales back to the 19th century.”

People on both sides of the aisle are rushing to conclusions to explain the assassination of Charlie Kirk, spreading conspiracy theories regardless of how little evidence they have to support their burgeoning political narratives.

Kirk was shot dead Wednesday during an event at Utah Valley University. Authorities have not yet captured a possible suspect for Kirk’s assassination, and have released only a few details about the suspect’s age and what weapon they used.

But that hasn’t stopped people from speculating. Even Donald Trump has become implicated in the messy conspiracies. On X, some users blamed the president for Kirk’s death, claiming that the 31-year-old firebrand’s shooting could have been orchestrated by Trump in a supposed attempt to distract people from the Epstein files.

“How do we know Trump didn’t order Kirk’s assassination as a distraction from Epstein—and a tactic to start the civil unrest he needs to declare Martial Law and delay the 2026 midterms?” wrote film director Morgan J. Freeman. The post received more than 40,000 likes.

Kirk had torched the Trump administration for failing to increase transparency for the investigation of the pedophilic sex trafficker earlier this summer. In July, the Turning Point USA founder stoked fury over the issue at a Turning Point USA Student Action Summit, querying his young conservative followers on how seriously they viewed Trump’s connections to Epstein. Regardless of the apparent public frenzy, Kirk chose to quiet down his criticism after receiving a personal call from the president.

Now that sequence of events has been cannibalized as a possible explanation for Kirk’s murder.

“Charlie Kirk, who headed an org essential to Trump’s political support network, stepped out of the party line and demanded the release of the Epstein files and now he’s dead,” posted an account relating itself to the decentralized, anarchistic hacker movement Anonymous. “I’m not saying one led to the other but it doesn’t look good.”

But Trump wasn’t the only individual bearing the conspiratorial blame. Israel and its leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were also identified as potential threats to the conservative thought leader, with online users digging up previous statements made by Kirk in which he appears to be concerned that his political rhetoric could put him at risk with the foreign power.

“It’s not ‘totally ridiculous’ to point out ISRAEL possibly assassinated Charlie,” posted conservative grifter Jackson Hinkle. “He defended Israel throughout his entire career until the final months when he condemned the Iran war, called out Epstein as Mossad, offered to host Tucker & Dave Smith at TPUSA & condemned the terrorism against Christians in Gaza (I acknowledged this tepid change).

“Two weeks ago, Netanyahu invited him to Israel and he likely declined the request,” Hinkle continued. “Only [a] ZIONIST SHILL would claim Israel couldn’t have killed Charlie.”

President Donald Trump claimed that the United States military acted out of “self-defense” against an “imminent threat” last week by striking a vessel it claimed was carrying drugs. So why was the boat turning around?

The New York Times spoke Wednesday with officials briefed on the strike who said that the administration’s public statements, and a less than 30-second video of the boat exploding, only gave an abridged version of the deadly incident. 

Officials said that the boat began to turn around, likely because it had spotted the military aircraft above. The video Trump shared also does not show that the vessel was struck multiple times after it was disabled, before it eventually sank.  

Retired top military lawyers argued that these revelations severely undermine the administration’s defense of its extrajudicial attack, that the military acted in “self-defense.” 

“If someone is retreating, where’s the ‘imminent threat’ then?” Rear Admiral Donald Guter, a retired top judge advocate general for the Navy from 2000 to 2002, told the Times. “Where’s the ‘self-defense’? They are gone if they ever existed—which I don’t think they did.”

“I would be interested if they could come up for any legal basis for what they did,” said Rear Admiral James E. McPherson, who served as the top judge advocate general for the Navy from 2004 to 2006 and later held prominent civilian military roles in the Trump administration. “If, in fact, you can fashion a legal argument that says these people were getting ready to attack the U.S. through the introduction of cocaine or whatever, if they turned back, then that threat has gone away.”

A White House spokesperson did not directly respond to questions about the boat’s maneuvers, and repeated the line that Trump had “acted in line with the laws of armed conflict to protect our country” from “evil narco terrorists trying to poison our homeland.”

Senator Rand Paul revealed to The Intercept Tuesday that the deadly strike had been the work of drones, and a blatant violation of the rules of engagement. 

“The recent drone attack on a small speedboat over 2,000 miles from our shore without identification of the occupants or the content of the boat is in no way part of a declared war and defies our longstanding Coast Guard rules of engagement which include: warnings to halt, non-lethal force to capture, and ultimately lethal force in self-defense or in cases of resistance,” Paul said. 

Missing details continue to cast doubt on the Trump administration’s narrative. Some officials at the Department of Defense privately expressed concerns that the government had changed details of its story about the deadly strike, which is especially worrying considering that the government has offered no evidence to support its claim that the individuals on the boat were in fact drug traffickers, or that they were en route to the United States.

We know almost nothing about the shooter who killed conservative activist Charlie Kirk—yet President Donald Trump delivered an address Wednesday evening blaming the “radical left” and their rhetoric for political violence.

According to the president, Wednesday’s shooting, which was swiftly condemned by prominent Democrats, was the result of the left “demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year in the most hateful and despicable way possible.”

Trump went on: “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.”

The president promised to hunt down those he deems responsible for the violence on Wednesday and other violent acts, “including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.”

Trump continued, citing examples of “radical left political violence.” He mentioned the attempt on his life in July 2024, the assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, attacks on ICE agents, and the 2017 mass shooting at a congressional baseball game.

He notably failed to mention acts of political violence perpetrated by right wingers against the left—e.g., the June shootings of two Minnesota Democratic lawmakers and their spouses, which killed State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband; the 2022 attack on Paul Pelosi, in an attempted kidnapping of Nancy Pelosi (which Trump mocked); the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, stoked by Trump; and the thwarted kidnapping of Gretchen Whitmer, the Democratic governor of Michigan.

Despite his condemnation of “demonizing” rhetoric, Trump has done more than perhaps any other singular figure to stoke partisan tensions.

In 2024, Trump repeatedly called Kamala Harris a “fascist.” In May 2024, he said Biden had turned America into “a fascist state.” In November 2023, he vowed to “root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.” And back in 2020, he raised the specter of “left-wing fascism” gripping the Democratic Party, saying, “Fascists! They are fascists. Some of them, not all of them. But some of them.”

As The New York Times observed in September 2024, he has also “long favored the language of violence in his political discourse.”

In short, the president is no stranger to vilifying those with whom he disagrees, giving his words Wednesday a hollow ring.

On Wednesday, a Democratic representative brought up multiple ways in which her congressional colleagues received the “gender-affirming care” they wanted to ban. It made MAGA Representative Nancy Mace so upset she started screaming.

Democrats and Republicans were arguing in Congress about amendments to the annual defense bill. Mace had added multiple anti-transgender amendments, including one that specifically removed gender-affirming care from the U.S. military’s health care coverage.

Mace has a long history of bigoted anti-trans rhetoric and legislation, and California Democratic Representative Sara Jacobs used her time on the floor to rebuke her, calling Mace out for her blatant hypocrisy without mentioning the representative by name.

“I would just like to point out that I think it’s very interesting that my colleague from South Carolina is so obsessed with the issue of trans people, using horrible slurs about them, when many people in this body have received gender-affirming care,” Jacobs said. “Filler is gender-affirming care. Boob jobs is gender-affirming care. Botox is gender-affirming care. Lots of my colleagues have received gender-affirming care. And let me be clear, I think everyone should have access to the gender-affirming care that they need, and I think that we should respect everybody in this country.”

In response, Mace started hollering.

“Ridiculous,” the representative from South Carolina said. “You are absolutely ridiculous. What the hell is your problem? You are disgusting. You are an insult.”

Mace may have reacted so strongly because she’s been accused of getting nearly every kind of procedure mentioned by Jacobs. Back in November, Mace’s former communications director, Natalie Johnson, shared a text from Mace in which the congresswoman complained about not wanting to see the “trans mob” in her bathroom. “I don’t want to see your botched, cheap hooker-inspired boob job on my television,” Johnson hit back in a now-deleted post, alluding to the oft-spread rumors about Mace’s cosmetic work. “Can we introduce a bill to bar that?”

Mace took the time to call out Jacobs on X after losing control in the House.

“To @RepSaraJacobs, I talk about women’s safety and your response is commentary about my body on the House floor,” Mace wrote. “If you knew anything about survivors you would know some women change their bodies because of the trauma of sexual violence. They live with the consequences for a lifetime. PS—I have a good surgeon if you ever want to get your nose done.”

Jacobs responded to Mace’s display of hate with pity.

“I feel sad for you. Stop lashing out against trans kids and pretending it’s to ‘protect women,’” she replied. “Hope you get the help you need.”