Republicans Prepare Punishments for Progressives After Charlie Kirk Murder

“Listen, we are in a fight right now to save our democracy—that’s true.”

(Composite / Photos: Shutterstock / GettyImages)

The assassination of conservative podcaster and political organizer Charlie Kirk was rightly condemned by politicians and public figures across the political spectrum in the days following his death. Many called for unity and for a lowering of the national temperature in response to the shocking act of violence. But among Republicans, even more visible than grief over Kirk’s murder was a growing sense of rage. In the last few days, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have operationalized that rage by pushing for crackdowns on speech, on the left in general, on liberal organizing, and more. Their furor has produced executive branch investigations, new bills, and a cultural push to punish ordinary people for speaking ill of Kirk, whose importance to the MAGA movement is hard to overstate.¹

The activist has received governmental honors normally reserved for deceased lawmakers and members of the military, including Trump’s order to lower flags to half-staff. In an unusual move, Vice President JD Vance guest-hosted, from the White House, an episode of the podcast Kirk ran, making comments that illustrated the party’s dark mood—and its aggressive posture: “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out—and, hell, call their employer.” Vance also dedicated time on the show to excoriating financial backers and subscribers who support publications whose coverage of Kirk’s murder he considers offensive, saying, “There’s no unity with people who fund these articles, who pay the salaries of these terrorist sympathizers.”

It wasn’t the only podcast on which immoderate words were spoken by administration officials. In an interview with Katie Miller, the former White House and DOGE staffer, Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested that the Department of Justice would expand the scope of its investigation to include almost anyone who may have had a role in promoting the violent ideology Republicans believe to have motivated the assassination. (There is no evidence that suspect Tyler Robinson did not act alone.)

Asked by Miller if “we” are gonna target more people beyond Robinson, Bondi said, “We have to look at all of that,” adding, “We’re going to look at everything. We are looking at everything.”

Bondi went a step further when she appeared on television, telling Fox News that the DOJ’s civil rights division would probe any reports of denials of service from companies that, in her example, refuse to produce materials for vigils for Kirk. Bondi also posted on X that “Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence. It is clear this violent rhetoric is designed to silence others from voicing conservative ideals.”

Trump seemed to confirm that investigations into left-wing organizations and individuals have already begun, although it’s often hard to tell whether he’s just blustering for the cameras or revealing genuinely new information.

“Well the problem is on the left. It’s not on the right like some say—on the right—the problem we have is on the left,” Trump said Monday. “And when you look at the agitators, if you look at the scum that speak so badly of our country—the American flag burnings all over the place—that’s the left. That’s not the right.”

“We’ll see. We’ll be announcing. They’re already under investigation,” he added. “You know they’re already under major investigation. A lot of the people that you would traditionally say are on the left.”

Trump continued on Tuesday morning, telling reporters that media organizations would also be targets. After an ABC reporter mentioned Bondi’s comments teasing investigations and asked whether hate speech is free speech, Trump said, “She’ll probably go after you. Because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart.” (Today, Bondi clarified that she was not directing the DOJ to investigate or prosecute anyone for hate speech, only speech that incites violence.)

---

In Congress, Republicans have been similarly animated about the Kirk assassination. In the days since, they have introduced a series of legislative actions ranging from simple resolutions honoring his life and work to bills that would aggressively crack down on speech and organizing.

While there are currently four separate proposed resolutions either honoring Kirk’s life, condemning his assassination, or combining honor and condemnation, more bellicose bills are also expected in the congressional hopper.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is planning to restore the Smith-Mundt Act, renaming it after Kirk. Originally passed in 1948, Smith-Mundt directed the State Department to regulate broadcasting programs making information about the United States available to foreign audiences for the purposes of public diplomacy. In 2012, under President Barack Obama, Congress modified the law to allow for the dissemination of this material inside the United States.

Now Lee wants to alter the law in some way, though it’s still unclear how since the official bill text has not yet been released.

Lee also used his X account to winkingly suggest Apple may face congressional scrutiny for keeping apps like Reddit and Bluesky available in its App Store after previously banning Parler because of the role it played for organizers of the January 6th riot.

On the cultural front, MAGA activists have been tracking down anyone who took to social media to respond to Charlie Kirk’s death in ways the activists consider inappropriate; they insist these people be fired from their jobs. Ryan Fournier, a MAGA activist, ensured a manager at an Apple store in Arizona lost his job. The Murdoch-owned New York Post kept a tally of which NFL teams did or did not provide tributes to Kirk on Sunday.

House Speaker Mike Johnson defended the practice of seeking consequences for those who have been vocal about their negative feelings about Kirk in the days since he died, telling reporters Tuesday, “That’s not the government censoring speech. That’s personal behavior and decorum, and you have a right to enforce that.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told me he believes the retributive mood is emanating primarily from the White House, not Congress. He added that “if they really go through with what they might be planning—arresting certain mainstream Democratic donors or trying to shut down mainstream progressive organizations—I would hope that Republicans here would speak up.”

Asked if he had any faith that would actually happen should it come to it, Murphy coldly offered, “I mean, I just—I would hope they would.”

Murphy has himself been targeted by some on the right as an instigator of violence, with some citing comments he made to Chuck Todd the day before Kirk’s murder: “We’re in a war right now to save this country. And so you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to save the country.” Asked to clarify those remarks, Murphy said he was “obviously not” calling for violence.

“Listen, we are in a fight right now to save our democracy—that’s true,” he said. “I’ve spent my entire career trying to push back against the growing trends of violence in this country, but I do believe that within the traditional bounds of politics, we have to act urgently right now to stand up against an attempt to try to destroy our democracy. But I’ve been pretty vocal, as have many of my Democratic colleagues, in condemning what happened in Utah and condemning political violence of any kind. I’ll continue to do that.”

Amid the right’s outrage, Kirk’s own views on speech rights are at risk of being overlooked. The activist was a staunch defender of protected speech, no matter how grotesque. In May of last year, Kirk posted on X that “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”

Ack!

Citing a New York Post report about how much of New York City’s Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s $2.4 million super PAC war chest is the result of donations from wealthy Californians and other non–New Yorkers—almost four fifths, it turns out—billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman compared the out-of-state contributions to election meddling by noncitizens.

“We don’t allow foreigners to fund elections in America,” Ackman tweeted. “Why should we allow Californians to fund elections in NY when they don’t have to live with the consequences?”

But Federal Election Commission records show Ackman routinely donates to candidates and organizations far beyond the borders of his home state of New York.

There actually isn’t enough space in this newsletter to document all of them, but here are a few examples of the billionaire’s long-range bipartisan political donations to support candidates across the country.

• $5,400 to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)

• $2,700 to former Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.)

• $2,900 to Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)

• $6,600 to former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)²

I pointed out this hypocrisy on X and saw my mentions quickly overwhelmed with protected political speech.

Some users wondered whether Ackman could own properties in all of these states where he had sent his donations. Someone of his means could, sure, but it’s unlikely.

Another user remarked that there is a clear distinction between donating to federal candidates and donating to statewide and local candidates, and Mamdani would surely be classified in the latter category. Ackman didn’t make that distinction in his own post, of course, but it’s also not applicable. In 2024, Ackman donated $250,000 to the PA Victory Fund, which pools donations for Republican candidates across Pennsylvania, including those running in state and local races.

Finally, one person observed that Ackman makes out-of-state donations because it is legal for him to do so, but he would prefer that it not be. Again, Ackman did not make any claim of his own to this effect. But I suppose it’s a fair point—reminiscent of the lawmaker who opposes stock trading by sitting members of Congress but who makes use of highly lucrative investment tools that tether a brokerage account to his public disclosures. Let someone else be the change you want to see in the world, first.

Honey, what’s this purchase on the credit card?

One of the best ways to cop a sick fit is by going to a thrift shop or consignment store. The old clothes that stick around tend to do so because their styles are timeless and their quality is more enduring than that of fast fashion and cheap synthetics. Normally, you can get older duds for pretty cheap, too. But not always: A couple days ago, I found out that a relatively plain navy-blue quarter-zip sweatshirt with an American flag patch on the shoulder recently sold for $11,000 in Miami.

It turns out that its monogram—JEE, in ornate stitching on the chest—is what resulted in the high price tag: The sweatshirt belonged to Jeffery Epstein. According to a report from the Miami New Times:

Mar, the owner of the Restricted showroom in Midtown, tells New Times that he didn't recognize the sweatshirt when his client first offered it, nor did he know it belonged to Epstein. (Mar requested that he be identified solely by his first name in this story.)

"I don't know how he got it. I don't really ask. You know, what's funny, like, as curious as I was, I normally don't even ask people how they get things. Some things are just better not to know," Mar tells New Times. "It was unbelievable."

His client, who did not wish to be identified, brought the sweatshirt to the showroom for authentication. Mar's authentication process included one-to-one comparisons of the sweatshirt to the photographs of Epstein wearing it and close examinations of the sweater's zipper and stitching. He says the sweatshirt was in good condition, with no stains or noticeable smells. However, he did notice an "old man" stench.

The New Times noted the shop owner purchased the sweatshirt for $5,000 and eventually sold it—to a “loyal client [who is] also famous”—for $11,000.

If the buyer intends on wearing it, that’s weird as hell. If the buyer views it as a historically significant curiosity of the sort you might find in the Nazi paraphernalia collection owned by Supreme Court justice–courting Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, that’s also weird as hell. Frankly, I’m not sure I can come up with a use for this sweatshirt that isn’t weird as hell.

1. Correction (September 16, 2025, 11:15 p.m. EDT): When originally published, this sentence now saying that Charlie Kirk’s “importance to the MAGA movement is hard to overstate” mistakenly said “understate.” Thanks to a keen-eyed commenter for flagging the error.

2. Prior to Ackman’s donation, Sinema was a registered Democrat, but switched to no party affiliation. She ultimately didn’t run for re-election, but has spent the accumulated campaign funds from Ackman and others on luxury travel, meals, and lodging.