In an Oval Office address delivered before the person who killed conservative activist Charlie Kirk had even been identified, Donald Trump blamed “the radical left” for the shooting and promised a crackdown.
“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,” Trump said.
“My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity, and to other political violence, 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.”
He then cited a list of incidents of what he termed “radical left political violence,” including the attempt to assassinate him last year, the killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the 2017 shooting of Republican congressman Steve Scalise, and what he called “the attacks on ICE agents.”
The president’s list notably did not include violence against Democrats, such as the murder of Minnesota state lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, or the June shooting of another Democratic state lawmaker and his wife by a man carrying a hit list of 45 elected officials — all Democrats.
He also omitted the attack on former House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, the Trump supporter who sent pipe bombs to leading Democrats, and the threats against his first vice-president, Mike Pence, made by pro-Trump rioters who beat police officers on January 6, 2021.
Traditional news organizations were cautious in their midafternoon coverage of Charlie Kirk’s assassination not to depict the moment he was shot, instead showing video of him tossing a hat to his audience moments before, and panicked onlookers scattering afterward.
In practice, though, it mattered little. Graphic video of the shooting was available almost instantly online, from several angles, in slow-motion and real time. Millions of people watched. Clips circulated widely on X, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube — and even Truth Social, where President Trump posted official word of Kirk’s death. The spread of such content illustrated how the “gatekeeping” role of news organizations has eroded in the social media era.
Kirk was shot at a public event on a Utah college campus before hundreds of people, many of them recording on their phones. One video showed a direct view of Kirk being shot, his body recoiling and blood visible. Another looped the moment of impact in slow motion, cutting before blood appeared. Yet another clip suggested Kirk was speaking about gun violence at the time he was hit.
The images spread quickly. In Ithaca, New York, college professor Sarah Kreps’ teenage sons texted her about Kirk’s assassination shortly after school. She replied that he had been shot but reports of his death were unconfirmed. Her son insisted: “Have you seen the video? There’s no way he could have survived that.”
Calls circulated online urging people not to share the footage. “For the love of God and Charlie’s family,” one message read, “just stop.” YouTube said it was removing some graphic content, restricting other videos to signed-in adults, and elevating verified news coverage. Meta applied warning labels and limited distribution of the most graphic clips. An X spokesperson offered no immediate comment.
The situation echoed earlier cases, such as the livestreamed mass shooting in New Zealand in 2019. Kreps, author of the forthcoming book Harnessing Disruption: Building the Tech Future Without Breaking Society, noted that social platforms have repeatedly struggled to prevent violent content from spreading.
Some images did seep into mainstream outlets. TMZ and the New York Post posted videos in which Kirk’s upper body was blurred. Most major news organizations, however, chose not to broadcast graphic scenes, citing responsibility to protect audiences from disturbing imagery.
“The traditional media can amplify and validate behavior,” Kreps said. “It can be a signal for how things should be stigmatized, rather than validated or normalized.”
But on the day of the shooting, in a deeply polarized nation, the easy availability of shocking images risked deepening wounds and intensifying the political fallout.