Condemn the murder, confront the legacy: Why Charlie Kirk’s harmful ideology cannot be sanitized

Since last week’s brutal murder of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk on a Utah college campus, emotions have run high. A suspect is now in custody, but questions, accusations and rising tensions persist, with little sign that the national climate is cooling.

The right-wing propaganda machine—with leaders like Donald Trump and Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters—has been “warning” people not to be critical of Kirk. While it is our civic duty to condemn his murder, it is also responsible—and necessary—not to let this machine sanitize his legacy.

Supporters on the far right often portray Kirk as a moral Christian who mobilized young conservatives, built media influence, and shaped the next generation of right-wing leadership. Many non-supporters, however, believe his true legacy lies in deepening the culture wars: fueling fights over identity, gender, critical race theory, DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion), “wokeness,” transgender rights, and Christian Nationalism. Critics argue this shift redirected conservative energy—especially among young activists—away from traditional policy debates (economics, foreign affairs) toward cultural identity battles that are inherently more divisive.

Both perspectives have merit when looking back at Kirk’s history and the rise of Turning Point USA (TPUSA).

TPUSA did not begin as an explicitly far-right or Christian Nationalist group. When it launched in 2012, its focus was economic conservatism, free markets, entrepreneurship and limited government. At the time, many conservatives—including myself—welcomed a counterweight to what we saw as campuses dominated by left-wing orthodoxy and protests against conservative voices.

Kirk co-founded TPUSA with conservative businessman Bill Montgomery, who heard him speak at a “Youth Government Day” at Benedictine University. Impressed, Montgomery encouraged the 18-year-old Kirk to skip college and dedicate himself to activism. Just a month after high school graduation, they launched TPUSA as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Montgomery, who funded and supported the organization from behind the scenes until his death from Covid-19 in 2020, largely stayed out of the culture-war fights that later defined TPUSA. From 2012 to 2016, the group’s message was centered on economic conservatism and anti-socialism.

That changed between 2016 and 2020, as Kirk increasingly aligned himself with Donald Trump’s brand of populism. The movement began emphasizing culture-war issues, a sharp rhetorical and tactical shift. Over time, Kirk’s messaging grew more explicitly religious and nationalist. By 2020–2021, he launched Turning Point Faith, promoted the Christian Nationalist “Seven Mountains Mandate,” and more directly tied evangelical politics to conservative activism.

In these later years, his rhetoric embraced MAGA themes: “Great Replacement” talking points about demographic change, attacks on “woke” culture and firm loyalty to Trump and MAGA figures. This evolution makes Kirk and TPUSA a case study in how the Republican Party has transformed over the past decade—from more secular, libertarian conservatism toward explicitly religious, identity-focused nationalism.

Kirk’s early message was clear and credible. But as time went on, his words became increasingly divisive. He made openly racist and sexist statements—calling the Civil Rights Act a mistake, denouncing Martin Luther King Jr. as a “bad guy,” mocking Black women leaders as lacking “brain power,” and dismissing successful professionals as mere “DEI hires.” He also inserted himself into misogynistic debates, most recently telling superstar Taylor Swift to “submit to her husband” (fiancé Travis Kelce) and remember “he’s in charge.”

The motive of Kirk’s killer remains unclear. What we do know is that the shooter does not fit the caricature MAGA leaders want to promote—the suspect is just another young, white, male with his own unknown grievances.

Even as we mourn Kirk’s death and condemn the violence that took his life, we cannot ignore or excuse his harmful ideology. His racist, sexist and exclusionary interpretation of Christianity must be challenged.

 Condemning violence and rejecting dangerous ideas are not contradictions—they are moral responsibilities we must hold together.