The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10 was a tragedy. But in the days since, MAGA leaders have transformed it into something else: a political weapon in their ongoing war over who gets to speak, joke, and criticize in our democracy.
From the jump, the rhetoric was hostile. Donald Trump declared Kirk’s death the result of “a climate of hate from the radical left,” while Attorney General Pam Bondi pledged the administration would “absolutely target” people spreading “hate speech.” That vow might delight Trump’s base, but it doesn’t take much to know the United States has no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, which one might worry at this point could simply just be removed from the official government website. As The Guardian noted, offensive or even ugly speech remains protected because the alternative opens the door to authoritarianism. Is the majority of this country okay with that? Do people understand the implications, and how it differs completely from the foundations of this country’s democracy?
This irony is blatant. For years, MAGA has railed against so-called “cancel culture” and accused liberals of censorship. But here’s Trump’s attorney general vowing to criminalize speech the government doesn’t like. And suddenly Tucker Carlson becomes the unlikely voice of reason, once you get past the heavy Christian stuff, in defying the Bondi announcement to speak in defense of the First Amendment. As a liberal, I never thought I’d write anything positive about Carlson, but just like watching Greene up there with the Epstein victims, Trump has a way, evidenced by the recent trials and tribulations of the RFK and Patel hearings, of dividing MAGA.
And the latest chapter in the Epstein files distraction telenovela: Jimmy Kimmel, one of the few remaining late-night hosts willing to lampoon Trumpism, criticized conservatives for trying to play both victim and opportunist after Kirk’s death. “You can’t play the victim and the arsonist at the same time,” he quipped, causing immediate backlash. Nexstar Communications pulled his show, and Disney suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! indefinitely.
Stephen Colbert’s Late Show was canceled earlier this year, a decision Republicans celebrated as a victory over “liberal smugness.” In truth, it signaled the shrinking space for satire at a time when America needs it most. Comedy’s often the sharpest check on power. Punishing comedians for offending those in power doesn’t just silence laughter, it silences critique.
The press faces its own purge. On September 15, The Washington Post fired columnist Karen Attiah, who noted she was “the last remaining Black full-time opinion columnist” at the paper, after she posted on social media about Kirk’s killing and America’s tolerance for political violence. The paper called her actions “gross misconduct.” Attiah called it censorship, telling The Guardian: “This was about silencing a Black woman who dared to tell the truth.”
MSNBC fired analyst Matthew Dowd after he observed that “words of hate often become acts of hate.” Dowd later clarified that he didn’t blame Kirk for his own death, but the message was clear: even hinting at the connection between rhetoric and violence can be a firing offense.
Journalists, comedians, and commentators who challenge MAGA orthodoxy are being sidelined by corporations terrified of right-wing outrage campaigns. The challenge to free speech we’re witnessing is real cancel culture, driven not by pink-haired left-wing radicals, but by a well-oiled right-wing political machine. When comedians make jokes, they’re fired. But a Fox News host who says homeless people should be killed by lethal injection keeps his job after a simple apology.
The hypocrisy is staggering. Trump and his allies in the past have claimed to defend free speech, but really want controlled speech: satire neutered, journalism tamed, dissent discouraged. Yet Trump directly threatened ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl on Tuesday when he asked about free speech on the White House lawn, saying “maybe we’ll go after you.”
The First Amendment is clear: speech is protected unless it crosses into direct incitement or threats. But corporate America, facing boycott threats and political intimidation, is creating a new reality where controversial expression is punished. A democracy without satire, without fearless journalism, without dissenting voices, is a democracy in name only.
Kirk’s assassination should’ve been a moment to reflect on the dangers of political violence. Instead, it has become a test of whether the United States can still tolerate free expression in its rawest, most uncomfortable forms. Trump’s movement isn’t defending the First Amendment, it’s narrowing it, twisting it into a privilege reserved for MAGA cheerleaders.
