The American Reichstag? Charlie Kirk's Assassination and the Unravelling of the Republic
The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, is not merely another act of political violence in a nation increasingly defined by it. It is a political event horizon. The shots that killed Kirk, the charismatic and controversial founder of Turning Point USA, have created a vacuum, and as Hannah Arendt warned us, vacuums in politics are never empty for long (Arendt, 1951). They are filled by those waiting for their moment.
Less than twenty-four hours after the shots rang out, Americans confront a question that cuts to the heart of their democracy: Is this their Reichstag moment? The critical question is not 'who killed Charlie Kirk?', but 'what will be done in his name?' Kirk's assassination presents a textbook opportunity for crisis exploitation; a moment that could justify authoritarian measures and the final dismantling of American democratic norms. The danger lies not in the unknown motives of the shooter, but in the calculated response of those who stand to benefit from the chaos.
To be clear: this analysis takes the assassination at face value as reported - a genuine act of violence by an unknown shooter for reasons currently under investigation. The focus here is not on the authenticity of the event, but on how political actors exploit such crises to advance authoritarian agendas.
The Symbol: Why Charlie Kirk Mattered
Charlie Kirk's assassination transforms a provocative political figure into something far more dangerous: a martyr. At 31, Kirk had built Turning Point USA into the largest conservative youth organisation in America, claiming over 250,000 student members across 3,500 campuses (BBC News, 2025). But his true significance lay not in organisational metrics, but in his role as the bridge between Trump's populist movement and the next generation of American conservatives.
Kirk perfected the art of weaponising campus controversy. His "Professor Watchlist" targeted academics for their political views, while his campus events deliberately provoked confrontations that generated viral content and media attention. More than mere trolling, this was systematic political theatre designed to portray conservatives as victims of liberal persecution, while radicalising young supporters through manufactured conflict.
His timing was impeccable. Kirk built his movement during the precise moment when American conservatism was transforming from a political philosophy into an identity-based tribal movement. He understood that young conservatives didn't want policy papers - they wanted cultural warfare, and he provided both the weapons and the battlefield.
Kirk's death at the height of his influence creates the perfect martyrdom narrative. He becomes not just another political casualty, but a young Christian soldier cut down while fighting for America's soul. This narrative transforms his assassination from a criminal act into a sacred cause demanding vengeance, providing Trump with both emotional justification for extreme measures and a rallying cry that transcends normal political boundaries.
The Historical Precedent: Lessons from the Reichstag Fire
The comparison to the Reichstag Fire is not made lightly. On February 27, 1933, the German parliament building was set ablaze in what would become one of the most consequential political events of the twentieth century. The Nazis, led by the newly appointed Chancellor Adolf Hitler, immediately blamed the communists for the fire and declared a national emergency (Evans, 2003). The speed and decisiveness of their response revealed a movement that had been waiting for precisely such an opportunity.
The next day, President Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree, officially titled the ‘Decree for the Protection of People and State.’ This single document suspended most civil liberties guaranteed by the Weimar Constitution, including freedom of speech, assembly, and the press. It allowed for arrests without charge, gave the central government the power to overrule state and local authorities, and effectively placed Germany under a state of emergency that would never be lifted (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2025).
The decree was the legal foundation upon which the Nazi dictatorship was built. It was used to systematically arrest political opponents, dismantle rival political parties, and silence all forms of dissent (Kershaw, 2008). Within weeks, thousands of communists, social democrats, and other opponents of the Nazi regime had been arrested and imprisoned. The fire, regardless of its true origin, became the indispensable pretext for the swift and brutal consolidation of authoritarian power.
The lesson of the Reichstag fire is a timeless one for students of authoritarianism: never let a good crisis go to waste. Authoritarian leaders do not merely respond to crises; they exploit them (Boin, 't Hart, & McConnell, 2009). They use the fear and uncertainty generated by shocking events to justify the expansion of executive power, the erosion of checks and balances, and the persecution of their political enemies. The crisis becomes not just an opportunity, but a necessity for the authoritarian project.
What makes the Reichstag Fire particularly relevant to the current moment is not just the mechanics of crisis exploitation, but the broader context in which it occurred. The Weimar Republic was already a fragile democracy, beset by economic crisis, political polarisation, and the rise of extremist movements on both the left and the right. The fire did not create these conditions, but it provided the catalyst that allowed authoritarian forces to exploit them decisively.
The parallels to contemporary America are striking. Like Weimar Germany, the United States is experiencing profound political polarisation, economic inequality, and the erosion of democratic norms (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). The institutions of American democracy, from Congress to the courts to the electoral system itself, are under unprecedented strain. In such an environment, a single shocking event can have consequences far beyond what might be expected in more stable times.
The Reichstag Fire also demonstrates the importance of narrative control in authoritarian consolidation. The Nazis did not simply respond to the fire; they immediately shaped the story of what it meant. They presented it as evidence of a communist conspiracy, proof that extraordinary measures were necessary to protect the German people. The truth of these claims was less important than their political utility. What mattered was that the fire provided a compelling justification for actions that the Nazis had long wanted to take.
Trump's Playbook: Crisis as Political Capital
Trump's response to Kirk's assassination reveals the authoritarian playbook in action. Within hours, he transformed a criminal act into evidence of systematic "radical left political violence," explicitly connecting Kirk's death to other unrelated incidents to create a narrative of organised conspiracy (BBC News, 2025). This rhetorical transformation follows a predictable pattern: individual tragedy becomes collective threat, isolated violence becomes systematic conspiracy, and emotional response becomes political justification.
Trump's selective outrage about political violence exposes the calculated nature of this response. He pardoned the January 6 insurrectionists who committed violence at the Capitol, remained silent when a right-wing extremist nearly killed Paul Pelosi with a hammer, and ignored the stalking and shooting of Minnesota Democratic legislators and their families, including attacks on House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and State Senator John Hoffman. Yet Kirk's assassination immediately triggers claims of systematic "radical left political violence" demanding extraordinary response. This selective concern reveals that Trump's response is about narrative control and political exploitation, not genuine concern for political violence.
This selective focus serves a defensive purpose as well as an offensive one. Political violence often indicates a society that is fundamentally ill, and until the broader causes are examined, the malady will not disappear. But Trump and his allies want to focus exclusively on ‘what this says about the left’ because a broader examination of the roots of political violence in American society has no political value to them, and would inevitably raise uncomfortable questions about their own conduct and how their actions have amplified the very divisions that generate such responses. By framing Kirk's assassination solely as evidence of left-wing extremism, Trump avoids accountability for his role in creating the conditions that make political violence more likely while simultaneously exploiting the crisis for authoritarian purposes.
The timing provides additional political benefits beyond crisis exploitation. Kirk's assassination conveniently dominates news cycles, pushing uncomfortable questions about Trump's connections to Jeffrey Epstein off the front pages - a welcome relief for an administration facing mounting scrutiny over those relationships. Crisis management becomes crisis opportunity, allowing Trump to control the narrative while deflecting from other vulnerabilities.
The precedents are clear. Trump has already deployed National Guard forces to California and Washington DC, while threatening similar deployments to Chicago. Kirk's assassination provides the perfect pretext to expand these deployments, particularly to Chicago, transforming disaster response into political control operations.
The legal framework already exists - emergency powers, surveillance authorities, domestic terrorism definitions broad enough to encompass almost any political opposition. What the assassination offers is not new legal authority, but political cover for using existing authority in unprecedented ways.
The conservative media ecosystem stands ready to amplify this narrative. Within hours of Kirk's death, major figures declared war on domestic political opponents. Greg Gutfeld announced: "You woke us the fuck up" (Guardian, 2025). Alex Jones declared: "We're in a war" (Guardian, 2025). Steve Bannon framed Kirk as "a casualty of war," while Jack Posobiec promised "swift, quick retribution" (Guardian, 2025).
This rhetoric reveals a movement prepared to abandon democratic norms entirely. When major media figures declare war, promise retribution, and announce that "debate time is over" (Laura Loomer, Guardian, 2025), they signal the rejection of democratic conflict resolution in favour of violence. The assassination provides not just political justification for authoritarian measures, but ideological justification for treating political opponents as enemy combatants rather than fellow citizens.
But this isn't merely Trump exploiting the crisis. It’s an entire ecosystem of figures who actively benefit from pushing the "war" narrative because it elevates their status and brands them as essential movement leaders. Figures like Steve Bannon can present themselves as strategic masterminds of political warfare, Alex Jones as voices of resistance against perceived conspiracies, while Elon Musk can frame his role as defending free speech against authoritarian threats. The incentive structure is clear: they want civil conflict because it makes them the vanguard, the essential voices people turn to during crisis. Peace and normal politics diminish their relevance, but "war" makes them indispensable.
This dynamic extends globally, with figures like Tommy Robinson immediately connecting Kirk's death to his own Saturday event, demonstrating how the assassination becomes a brand-building opportunity for far-right figures worldwide. Kirk's death is being weaponised by an international network of actors whose power and influence depend on maintaining a state of perpetual crisis and conflict.
The semantic preparation for this domestic warfare is already underway. Trump's proposal to rename the Pentagon the "Department of War" takes on sinister implications when combined with conservative media's declaration that "we're in a war" against domestic political opponents. This renaming removes psychological barriers to domestic military deployment: when you have a Department of War and declare your political opponents are "at war" with America, you've created the framework for treating domestic political opposition as military targets requiring military solutions. The assassination provides the perfect crisis to activate this framework, transforming what might have seemed like symbolic rebranding into operational preparation for civil conflict.
Kirk's assassination could provide the justification for the first domestic operations of Trump's "Department of War,” not against foreign enemies, but against American citizens deemed complicit in political violence.
Institutional Vulnerabilities Under Crisis
The question is not whether Trump will exploit Kirk's assassination, because his immediate response suggests he already is. The pressing question is whether American institutions can withstand this exploitation. The answer, based on historical precedent, is deeply troubling.
Federal judges, despite lifetime tenure, historically defer to executive claims of national security necessity - the Supreme Court's Korematsu decision upheld Japanese American internment, while recent rulings grant broad presidential immunity. Kirk's assassination provides exactly the shocking event that triggers this judicial deference, creating legal space for measures that would be unconstitutional under normal circumstances.
State and local resistance proves practically ineffective against determined federal action. Trump's current deployments to California and DC, along with threats to Chicago, demonstrate how easily federal authority overrides local objections. When the federal government claims necessity in responding to political assassination, state resistance appears not just futile but unpatriotic, particularly for a city like Chicago that Trump has repeatedly targeted.
Congressional oversight faces crisis-driven paralysis. Political violence generates demands for decisive response, making opposition to emergency measures appear as obstructing justice for Kirk's murder. Partisan identity overrides institutional responsibility, while emergency funding authorities allow executive action before Congress can react, making deliberative processes appear inadequate when Americans demand immediate response.
The media landscape presents perhaps the most complex vulnerability. Conservative media has already declared war on domestic opponents, creating closed information loops that legitimise authoritarian measures. Meanwhile, mainstream media faces pressure for immediate response over careful analysis, while the assassination's shocking nature generates audience demand for dramatic coverage that aligns with authoritarian narrative preferences.
Most ominously, civil society organisations - traditionally democracy's last line of defence - become targets rather than safeguards. The assassination could justify investigations into organizations deemed connected to political violence, however tenuously. Financial surveillance could expose donor networks, creating chilling effects that operate independently of formal legal constraints.
Conclusion: The Choice Between Democracy and Civil Conflict
The assassination of Charlie Kirk presents American democracy with a fundamental test. The historical precedent is clear: democracies die not through dramatic coups, but through the gradual erosion of norms and institutions, often justified by appeals to security and order (Gerschewski, 2021). Kirk's death provides the perfect pretext for such erosion, wrapped in the compelling narrative of a young conservative martyr whose death demands justice.
Historian Timothy Snyder's warning is particularly relevant here: "Be calm when the unthinkable arrives. Modern tyranny is terror management. When the terrorist attack comes, remember that authoritarians exploit such events in order to consolidate power. Do not fall for it" (Snyder, 2017). Kirk's assassination represents precisely such an "unthinkable" moment: a shocking act of political violence that creates the emotional conditions for authoritarian exploitation.
But the rhetoric emerging from conservative media suggests this moment could determine not just the future of American democracy, but whether America descends into civil conflict. When Greg Gutfeld declares "You woke us the fuck up," when Alex Jones announces "We're in a war," when Steve Bannon frames Kirk as "a casualty of war," and when Jack Posobiec promises "swift, quick retribution," they signal the abandonment of democratic conflict resolution in favour of violence (Guardian, 2025). Laura Loomer's declaration that "debate time is over" represents the explicit rejection of democratic discourse itself.
The choices facing American institutions are immediate and concrete. Will federal judges issue injunctions against unconstitutional emergency measures, or will they defer to executive claims of national security necessity? Will state governors refuse to cooperate with federal overreach, or will they acquiesce to avoid being labeled as obstructing justice? Will congressional Republicans prioritise constitutional constraints over partisan loyalty when emergency measures come up for funding or oversight? Will career civil servants resist politically motivated investigations, or will they implement directives that transform law enforcement into political weapon?
These are not abstract questions about democratic theory, but rather practical decisions that institutional actors will face in the coming days and weeks. The assassination creates urgency that makes deliberation appear inadequate and resistance appear unpatriotic. This is precisely the dynamic that authoritarian movements exploit: the transformation of normal political disagreement into existential crisis requiring extraordinary response.
But outcomes are not predetermined. The Reichstag Fire led to Nazi consolidation not because it was inherently transformative, but because German democratic institutions failed to resist authoritarian exploitation of the crisis. Key figures chose accommodation over confrontation, believing they could control or moderate authoritarian forces. This calculation proved catastrophically wrong, but it was a choice - one that American institutional actors now face themselves.
The media's role in this moment cannot be overstated. Authoritarian consolidation requires narrative control; the ability to shape public understanding of events to justify extraordinary measures. Independent journalism that challenges official narratives, fact-checks claims, and exposes authoritarian overreach serves as a crucial democratic safeguard. But this requires media institutions willing to resist both government pressure and economic incentives to sensationalise rather than analyse. The assassination creates particular challenges for responsible journalism: the emotional impact of political violence makes measured analysis difficult, while the demand for immediate response rewards reaction over investigation.
Civil society organisations face their own moment of testing. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Brennan Center for Justice, and various legal advocacy organisations have already demonstrated their willingness to challenge authoritarian measures in court. Their continued independence and effectiveness depend on maintaining funding, legal standing, and public support in the face of government harassment that will likely intensify following the assassination.
The international dimension adds another layer of complexity. Allied governments and international organisations will face pressure to respond to American authoritarian measures, but their willingness to impose costs on the United States remains uncertain. The assassination context may generate sympathy for American security concerns, potentially muting international criticism of emergency measures that would otherwise prompt strong responses.
This moment demands public understanding of the authoritarian playbook and commitment to democratic values even when they protect political opponents. The coming days will reveal whether Americans possess this understanding and commitment, or whether Kirk's assassination will be remembered as the moment American democracy began its final unravelling - not through gradual erosion, but through the outbreak of civil conflict that makes democratic governance impossible.
The thread has been pulled. Whether it leads to authoritarian consolidation or civil war depends on choices made now - by institutions, by leaders, and by citizens who must decide whether democratic governance is worth defending against those who would exploit tragedy for power, or whether they will answer calls for "retribution" and "war" (Guardian, 2025) that could tear the republic apart entirely.
If you value this kind of writing, please consider subscribing to Plague Island.
We don’t hide our work behind a paywall, because we want it to be read. But if you can support it, we’ll use that support to keep writing more, and writing better.
Paid subscribers receive early access, behind-the-scenes newsletters, and the chance to shape future essays.
We write with rigour, we cite everything, and we answer only to our readers.
Or please support us with a one-off tip → Buy Me a Coffee
References
Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Schocken Books.
BBC News. (2025). Charlie Kirk shooting: FBI to give update on Charlie Kirk killing at university in Utah. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c206zm81z4gt [Accessed: 11 September 2025].
Ben-Ghiat, R. (2020). Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present. W. W. Norton & Company.
Boin, A., 't Hart, P., & McConnell, A. (2009). Crisis exploitation: political and policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), pp.81-106.
Brennan Center for Justice. (2020). Martial Law Explained. Available at: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/martial-law-explained [Accessed: 11 September 2025].
Evans, R. J. (2003). The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin Books.
Feldman, W. (2005). Theories of Emergency Powers: A Comparative Analysis of the American and French Constitutions. Cornell International Law Journal, 38(3), pp.1071-1102.
Gerschewski, J. (2021). ‘Erosion or decay? Conceptualizing causes and mechanisms of democratic regression.’ Democratization, 28(1), pp.23-42.
Guardian. (2025). 'We are in a war': rightwing media vow retribution for Charlie Kirk killing. The Guardian, 11 September. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-shooting-rightwing-media-reaction[Accessed: 11 September 2025].
Kershaw, I. (2008). Hitler: A Biography. W. W. Norton & Company.
Plague Island (2025). ‘Wake-Up Call: The Echoes of Weimar and the Fight for Democracy.’ Notes From Plague Island. Available at: https://www.plagueisland.com/p/wake-up-call-the-echoes-of-weimar [Accessed: 11 September 2025].
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.
Snyder, T. (2017). On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Tim Duggan Books.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (2025). The Reichstag Fire. [Online] Available at: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-reichstag-fire (Accessed: 11 September 2025).