September 10, 2025, 12:23 p.m., University of Utah Valley campus: Charlie Kirk collapses. The conservative influencer and central figure in the MAGA movement had just been assassinated while giving a speech. The death of this “martyr for the truth,” in the words of Donald Trump, came as a thunderclap, revealing the intensity of the ideological battle raging in the United States.
Ideas that were once confined to the margins are now circulating openly, championed by figures who are neither elected officials nor journalists, yet who wield significant influence in public debate. This shift in what is considered acceptable to say—which political scientists describe as a shift in the Overton window—is driven today less by the political parties themselves than by digital influencers. The death of Charlie Kirk was one of the most striking examples of this trend.
Although he was neither a political leader nor a candidate, he nevertheless held a prominent place in the American public debate, which his death has further polarized. As the founder of Turning Point USA, with millions of followers, he served as an ideological trailblazer, publicly normalizing radical conservative positions that the traditional political establishment is reluctant to embrace.
For Charlie Kirk, his effectiveness stemmed from a perfectly executed strategy. Long podcasts, scripted debates on college campuses, short clips designed to go viral: Charlie Kirk combined the legacy of conservative talk shows with the native conventions of social media platforms. He was one of the few influencers to physically visit universities—those ideological lion’s dens—to confront “face to face” audiences he knew would be hostile, audiences that activists often provoke only through screens. Undoubtedly, these formats—intended to be heroic—were aimed less at deliberation than at rhetorical performance and the staging of confrontation. In any case, he galvanized a young, predominantly male audience in search of authority figures and clear, bold narratives in a world perceived as both chaotic and overly sanitized.
In the realm of political communication, the emergence of these influencers marks a strategic shift. They bypass traditional media and operate in an attention economy where outrage, confrontation, and radicalism are drivers of engagement. This makes it nearly impossible to express nuanced views.
The way Charlie Kirk’s supporters have exploited his death illustrates this logic taken to the extreme. Grief is a narrative, martyrdom is an argument, and the violence suffered is “proof” of the intractability of the culture war. In this context, freedom of speech is often, on both sides, a double standard—claimed for oneself but denied to the opponent. With Charlie Kirk gone, his wife has now taken over the media spotlight, basking in the glory of a husband who fell for his beliefs.
Bérénice Cherencé, Consultant
