Charlie Kirk’s death marks a dangerous turning point
Kirk’s assassination comes amid a surge in attacks on politicians. Carless breaks down what drives this violence and whether it informs a new era.
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump on September 17th showed new actions against the group following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, targeting the anti-fascist antifa movement as a “terrorist organization.”
Trump has said in truth that he “designates” the movement as a terrorist organization. “I also strongly recommend that these funding ANTIFAs be thoroughly investigated according to the highest legal standards and practices,” Trump wrote.
It was not clear what legal weight Trump’s declaration had. Antifa is a loosely organized ideological movement with no clear leadership structures or hierarchies, experts said.
No evidence has emerged linking 22-year-old Tyler Robinson to an outside group the day after Utah prosecutors announced a formal charge against the suspect in Kirk’s assassination. His exact motive remains questionable.
Trump and senior officials have repeatedly denounced the left-leaning group for creating an atmosphere of hostility towards conservatives before Kirk’s assassination. The White House is preparing an executive order on political violence and hate speech, Trump administration officials said earlier on September 17th.
In an interview with Fox News on September 17th, Vice President JD Vance repeatedly condemned political radicalization due to the assassination. He said the White House is working hard to ensure that “finance network for left-wing violence” is treated like a terrorist organization.
Critics say Trump uses Kirk’s assassination as an excuse to crack down on his political opponents.
Trump initially came up with the idea of such an designation for Antifa in 2020 amid violent nationwide protests after George Floyd’s police were killed in Minneapolis. At the time, legal experts said that, given that ideological subscriptions are not generally considered criminal, such steps were lacking in legal basis, difficult to implement, and raised concerns about free speech.
The White House did not immediately respond to details on September 17th.
(Reporting by Trevor Hunnicutt, Costas Pitas, Ismail Shakil, Editing by Colleen Jenkins, Kim Coghill, and Michael Perry)
