The killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk this week in Utah has rocked the nation. 

On Wednesday, Kirk, the co-founder of Turning Point USA, was speaking at an event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, when he was shot and killed. After a manhunt, that involved local, state and federal law enforcement, authorities identified the alleged suspect to be Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old Utah resident, on Friday morning. 

The assassination was condemned by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. 

Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, spoke about her late husband and predicted that the movement the conservative activist built will not go away. 

“If you thought that my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea. You have no idea what you just have unleashed across this entire country and this world…,” she said on Friday.

“You have no idea the fire that you have ignited within this wife, the cries of this widow will echo around the world like a battle cry,” she added. “To everyone listening tonight across America, the movement my husband built will not die.”

As part of the investigation, authorities recovered the alleged rifle, a Mauser 98 .30-06 caliber, with a scope mounted on it. 

Law enforcement also found unfired casings that had inscriptions, according to Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R). The first one had “Hey fascist!” The second had the lyrics of the Italian folk song “Bella Ciao” and the third read “if you read this, you are gay, lmao.”

According to the Utah Board of Higher Education, Robinson is a third-year student at Dixie Technical College. 

Cox will be on ABC’s “This Week,” NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and CNN’s “State of the Union,” where he will likely discuss the ongoing investigation into the shooting. 

President Trump said Friday that he is planning to deploy the National Guard to Memphis, Tenn., as part of the administration’s crackdown on crime. 

“And the mayor is happy. He’s a Democrat mayor. The mayor is happy. And the governor, Tennessee, the governor is happy,” Trump said on “Fox & Friends.”.

Across the Atlantic, Poland invoked Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty this week after fighter planes downed several Russian drones that illegally entered the country’s airspace. The incident prompted condemnations from NATO members. 

On Saturday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky condemned the presence of the Kremlin’s drones in Romania. Romanian Air Force dispatched two F-16 fighter planes to track the drones. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a staunch supporter of Ukraine in the Senate, NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where he will likely discuss the ongoing developments in the Russia-Ukraine war. 

Trump reupped his request to NATO members to stop buying Russian oil and added that he is prepared to slap sanctions on Russia. 

NewsNation’s “The Hill Sunday”: Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.); Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and the Director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at American Enterprise Institute, Yuval Levin. 

Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday”: Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.); Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.); Robert P. George and Cornel West, professors at Princeton University and co-authors of “Truth Matters” and Harvest Christian Fellowship Senior Pastor Greg Laurie. 

ABC’s “This Week”: Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R); Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D); Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas). 

NBC’s “Meet the Press”: Cox; Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.); Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. 

CNN’s “State of the Union”: Cox and Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.). 

Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures”: Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem; Trump Organization Executive Vice President Eric Trump; Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.); Trump Media CEO and former Rep. Devin Nunes; Turning Point USA Spokesman Andrew Kolvet. 

Comedian Bill Maher on Friday said both political parties need to tone down the political temperature after the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk.

“The only way this starts to get better is if both sides admit, ‘Okay, let’s not have this debate about who started it. Let’s not debate about who’s worse because, plainly, both sides do it now,’” Maher said during a Friday episode of HBO’s “Real Time.” 

“And the right has done it too. A lot,” he added.

In the aftermath of Kirk’s death, many lawmakers voiced frustration at their colleagues, fearing some have contributed to rising political tensions that can serve as a jumping-off point for acts of violence.

Republican Reps. Nancy Mace S.C.), Clay Higgins (La.) and Anna Paulina Luna (Fla.) have each blamed their political opponents for Kirk’s death.

Their comments echoed President Trump’s, who condemned the “radical left” for the shooting on the Utah Valley University campus. 

“For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals,” Trump said in a Wednesday night video from the Oval. 

“This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.”

However, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a conservative voice often at odds with his party, pointed to the president as among those who should seek to tamp down their rhetoric.

“I mean, there is a lot of rhetoric. And the president himself engages in it — he called it a hostile act to co-sponsor the Epstein resolution,” said Massie, who is a leading voice in pushing a motion to force the release of files related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “I think that’s ridiculous rhetoric.” 

“It’s amusing,” he added. “It doesn’t offend me that he’s over the top with the rhetoric, but some people take it literally, and he should probably tone that down himself.”

Democrats have also condemned the unexpected act of violence.

“The attack on Charlie Kirk is disgusting, vile, and reprehensible. In the United States of America, we must reject political violence in EVERY form,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) wrote online. Newsom had Kirk as a guest on one of his first podcast episodes.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris also spoke out against the incident.

“I am deeply disturbed by the shooting in Utah. Doug and I send our prayers to Charlie Kirk and his family,” she wrote in a post on X. 

“Let me be clear: Political violence has no place in America. I condemn this act, and we all must work together to ensure this does not lead to more violence.”

Although the motive of Kirk’s shooter remains unknown, lawmakers in both parties said they are worried an escalation of political violence could follow Kirk’s death. This has also prompted lawmakers to reconsider their public movements.

The gruesome assassination of conservative activist and Trump ally Charlie Kirk is putting candidates on edge, creating a chilling effect among those meeting with constituents on the campaign trail as the nation grapples with a troubling rise in political violence. 

Kirk’s murder while speaking at an event at a Utah college on Wednesday reverberated across the country, with both parties quickly condemning the violence and expressing their sympathies to the prominent conservative commentator. Less than 24 hours later, the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) headquarters were targeted by a bomb threat that turned out to not be credible, yet the incident shook an already rattled country. 

The recent events have struck a nerve with those campaigning for office, who are contending with heightening security measures and changing safety protocols as acts of violence against politicians and other prominent figures show few signs of waning. 

“I think that we’ve all got to rethink how you do events outdoors,” House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer told The Hill. 

Yet, Comer acknowledged that most lawmakers wouldn’t have access to the kind of security needed to avoid similar attacks to the one that happened to Kirk. 

“Someone said, ‘Do you need to increase the security budget?’” Comer said. “You could’ve had all the security in the world and not notice that. That’s like a Secret Service kind of security, and … members aren’t going to have that.”  

“Hopefully the temperature will be turned down in America, and we can have a little more civility in our political rhetoric,” he said. 

Rep. Nikema Williams (D-Ga.) told The Hill that “this absolutely gives a chilling effect to everything that is happening.” 

And it’s not only incumbents dealing with the increased unease.  

At a campaign event in San Antonio shortly after announcing his Senate bid in Texas, state Rep. James Talarico (D) told attendees that he almost cancelled the event.  

“But canceling this gathering of neighbors — canceling this community — is the goal of political violence,” Talarico said. 

Michigan Senate candidate and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D) said in an X post on Wednesday that a number of her colleagues and friends had received death threats following the shooting.  

The unease is also being felt among operatives and staffers as well.  

“No one is all that enthusiastic about doing any public events,” said Republican strategist Jason Cabel Roe.  

One Democratic operative who works on campaigns told The Hill that while Kirk’s shooting, as well as other recent acts of political violence, have not forced campaigns to change their day-to-day operations, there is a feeling that the job is more difficult.  

“You don’t work in campaigns for the money or the hours,” the strategist said. “You do it because you think you’re doing something good.”    

The strategist noted the inherent risk that comes with working campaigns, including open air events and door-knocking.  

“Our job is talk to strangers all the time. You hope nobody is trying to kill you,” they added.  

However, the Democrat said they hoped the uneasiness did not translate into less accessible events.  

“Campaigning should be public and big and accessible. It’s bad for our politics if we move things smaller and more closed and more inside. Every campaign is going to make that decision for themselves,” they said.  

Operatives on both sides of the aisle also say they are concerned about how Kirk’s shooting and other acts of political violence could impact candidate recruitment.  

“It has to,” Roe said.  

Roe noted he has been in the process of trying to recruit a candidate who had already voiced concerns about how campaigning could impact their family and their security, and that Kirk’s shooting only heightened those concerns. 

When asked if the candidate was still on the fence, he responded: “The fence just got a lot higher.”

“It’s a really hard decision to decide to run for office,” said the unnamed Democratic operative. “It’s long hours, you don’t make any money…a lot of times your family is not always on board and then it’s, you know, I hope you don’t get assassinated.” 

Officials announced on Friday that they detained a 22-year-old man following Kirk’s murder. As of publication time, officials have not established a motive behind the deadly Wednesday shooting, yet within minutes and hours of the news that Kirk had been shot, Democrats and Republicans lamented the growing trend of political violence taking hold of the country. 

“I think that more political violence is probably likely, and that makes me sad, and I hope that it doesn’t happen, but I think that that is the tinderbox right now,” Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) said. 

In the span of a year, President Trump survived two assassination attempts, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) and his family were the targets of an arson attack at his residence; and a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband were assassinated, while another lawmaker and his wife were also shot.

One Republican strategist noted “a real progression” in Congress following the 2017 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) at a congressional baseball game practice.  

In addition to Kirk’s assassination and the non-credible DNC bomb threat, the last few days have also seen threats directed at historically Black colleagues and universities (HBCUs), as well as lawmakers like Michigan Lt. Gov Garlin Gilchrist.

Some members say while there are inherent risks, that shouldn’t be grounds to stop their day-to-day activities. 

“It’s always a risk. I mean, it’s a bigger risk when your profile gets elevated. I’m sure I have a lot of people who’re not happy with me,” said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who’s drawn the ire of Trump and his allies as they’ve looked to unseat him this cycle. 

“It’s a risk and it’s a concern, but it’s not a reason to quit seeing people,” he said. 

But that doesn’t mean it’s business as usual either. 

“They’re definitely greater, for sure,” Massie said, when asked if he felt the risks had grown given how much Trump and others had targeted him. 

“Yeah, I’ve heightened my own security.”   

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) upped his critiques of President Trump over his handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, claiming he will be “judged in the history books” over it. 

“‘It is [former President] Biden’s and [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy’s war’ is so morally blind and factually wrong,” Bacon said in a Saturday morning post on social platform X, referencing an earlier post from Trump.  “Mr President, Putin is the one who is the invader.”

“And, now this war is on your watch and you’ll be judged in the history books in the decades to come by your actions or lack thereof,” he continued.

The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment. 

Bacon, who is not running for reelection and is a frequent critic of Trump’s stance on the war in Eastern Europe. Trump posted on Truth Social Saturday, reupping his call for NATO members to halt buying Russian oil, adding that he is “ready” to impose “major” sanctions on the Kremlin when NATO nations do the same. 

“As you know, NATO’S commitment to WIN has been far less than 100 percent, and the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking! It greatly weakens your negotiating position, and bargaining power, over Russia,” the president wrote. 

“Anyway, I am ready to ‘go’ when you are. Just say when? I believe that this, plus NATO, as a group, placing 50 percent to 100 percent TARIFFS ON CHINA, to be fully withdrawn after the WAR with Russia and Ukraine is ended, will also be of great help in ENDING this deadly, but RIDICULOUS, WAR,” Trump added.

Trump signaled Friday morning, while on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends,” that his patience with Russian President Vladimir Putin is wearing thin. 

The deadline for a potential huddle between Zelensky and Putin has passed, while Russia has continued its aerial attacks on Kyiv and other cities. 

On Friday, Russia said that negotiations with Ukraine are on “pause.” 

In July, Bacon praised Trump regarding the Russia-Ukraine, when the president announced a deal with NATO to provide weapons to Ukraine and threatened to slap sanctions on nations that buy oil and gas from Russia. 

Trump on Saturday said that China has a firm grip over Russia, arguing that tariffs are a way weaken its grasp.

“This is not TRUMP’S WAR (it would never have started if I was President!), it is [former President] Biden’s and Zelenskyy’s WAR. I am only here to help stop it, and save thousands of Russian and Ukrainian lives (7,118 lives lost last week, alone. CRAZY!),” the president wrote on social media.

“If NATO does as I say, the WAR will end quickly, and all of those lives will be saved!” he continued. “If not, you are just wasting my time, and the time, energy, and money of the United States.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Saturday condemned the presence of Russian drones in Romanian territory.

The Kremlin’s air surveillance in Ukraine has persisted while unmanned aircrafts have been reported in neighboring nations this week.

“The Russian military knows exactly where their drones are headed and how long they can operate in the air. Their routes are always calculated. This cannot be a coincidence, a mistake, or the initiative of some lower-level commanders,” Zelensky said in a statement on X.

“It is an obvious expansion of the war by Russia – and this is exactly how they act. Small steps at first, and eventually big losses,” he continued. 

The Romanian Air Force deployed two F-16 fighter jets to track the drone presence before it disappeared near Chilia Veche, according to officials.

The country’s leaders denounced the surprise onslaught of drones, citing security concerns for citizens.

“Romania condemns Russia’s reckless behavior, which threatens regional stability. Together with our @NATO Allies, we remain vigilant and ready to defend every inch of Allied airspace,” Ionut Mosteanu, Romania’s Minister of National Defense said in a post on X, noting the population was never in danger. 

On Wednesday, Russian drones were found in Polish airspace causing the country to invoke NATO’s Article 4, convening member nations to develop a collective response to a potential threat.

President Trump told reporters the crossover into Polish territory “could have been a mistake,” but other world figures rejected the notion, instead categorizing the measure as Moscow’s escalation of war.

“Sanctions against Russia are needed. Tariffs against Russian trade are needed. Collective defense is needed – and Ukraine has proposed to its partners the creation of just such a system of protection,” Zelensky said Saturday.

“Do not wait for dozens of ‘shaheds’ and ballistic missiles before finally making decisions.”

The recently released U.S. Department of State Human Rights Reports have stirred significant controversy about notable cuts in length and issue coverage, delayed release, and perceived bias, particularly on countries like Hungary, Brazil and South Africa. 

Equally concerning is the disconnect between migration policy and the reports’ coverage of countries like Haiti, Ukraine and Afghanistan and the unduly rosy reporting of countries like El Salvador. Each case highlights this troubling inconsistency, as well as the willingness to deport people to dangerous situations, and — more broadly — a significant divergence from American foreign policy.

The State Department should seriously review the concerns voiced by journalists and democracy defenders about the mischaracterization of human rights situations in countries aligned with the U.S. and those with which tensions exist.

The Department of Homeland Security should carefully review those past or pending deportation cases to highly insecure countries. Given its important oversight responsibility, Congress should investigate whether deported migrants face life-threatening situations due to U.S. deportation, since that would be both inhumane and counter to America’s democratic values. 

The inconsistency between U.S. human rights reporting and immigration policy is most clearly seen in efforts to lift protective designations such as temporary protected status for certain foreign nationals in the United States. This provisional legal classification is granted when a home country is considered temporarily unsafe or unable to “adequately” handle the return of its nationals. 

Haitians initially received temporary protected status due to a 2010 natural disaster, followed by extensions triggered by extreme security conditions which make return unsafe. The Human Rights Report found that the human rights situation there “worsened significantly” because of “the lack of state capacity to protect civilians from expanding gang violence and individuals’ decreasing rights in areas such as freedom of expression.” 

Nevertheless, the administration recently sought to lift temporary protected status for Haitians and has terminated the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela Parole Program that allowed some nationals from those four countries to legally enter and work in the United States temporarily. The courts blocked the effort to remove Haitians’ temporary protected status, but the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela Parole Program termination was allowed to proceed. The administration’s position on these programs illustrates a troubling gap between the reports and humanitarian immigration policy.

Similarly, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced in May that the United States would rescind temporary protected status for Afghan nationals, many of whom supported U.S. objectives in Afghanistan.

“Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country,” Noem argued in determining that the conditions “no longer meet the statutory requirements” for temporary protected status. 

But the Human Rights Report stated that there was “significant deterioration in respect for women’s rights during the year” and that Taliban members “reportedly killed persons in retaliation for their association with the pre-August 2021 government.”

This is particularly concerning for those Afghans who served U.S. interests and face a heightened threat of retaliation upon return. Leaving aside the moral argument against sending back Afghans who helped the U.S., the State Department’s report makes the case that deporting them would place them in grave danger. 

Similarly, Ukrainians who have fled the brutal Russian war were granted a temporary humanitarian status due to the war. The administration withdrew this status which means over 120,000 Ukrainians will be forced to return to their homeland during an active war if they lack an existing asylum request.

Of additional concern is the U.S. deportation of migrants to third countries that have deeply problematic human rights records as clearly delineated in the Human Rights Reports, such as South Sudan, Rwanda and Eswatini.

In the case of El Salvador, whose president is a close partner in the administration’s deportation efforts, the State Department assessments diverged from widespread evidence by respected sources that there are major human rights violations, including against children. The country report states that there are “no credible reports of significant human rights abuses,” raising questions about its credibility. 

While deporting people from the United States is within the purview of any American administration and removing people with criminal records is standard policy, sending these individuals to countries where they may face significant abuse and danger is a troubling divergence from traditional U.S. standards and simple decency. So is cutting deals and providing U.S. financial and/or political support to problematic regimes and leaders who host deportees but are also sanctioned by the United States, as is the case with South Sudanese leader Benjamin Bol Mel. 

Historically a powerful tool in American policymaking, the Human Rights Reports have traditionally provided an objective source to inform foreign and domestic policy, reflect American values, and project American democratic global leadership. Immigration enforcement, including removals, is a necessary component of immigration policy. But it should not undermine American values and foreign policy objectives. 

Any distance between American human rights standards and our handling of migration policy undermines American values and the United States’ position in the world. It also damages America’s credibility and ability to secure its interests globally at a time where these interests are threatened by global competitors. 

Nicole Bibbins Sedaca is the Kelly and David Pfeil Fellow at the George W. Bush Institute. Laura Collins is Director of the George W. Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute.

In January 2024, Ann Arbor Public Schools became the first public school district in the country to pass a resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza.

Regardless of one’s stance on the conflict, the resolution marked a troubling shift: A public K-12 school district was taking an official position on a deeply divisive geopolitical issue.

As a parent advocate in Ann Arbor concerned about my children’s schools providing an inclusive and high quality education, I was struck not only by the content of the resolution but by the precedent it set — one that risks politicizing our classrooms and alienating families.

What we have seen in K-12 education in the last several years mirrors the ideological shifts on college campuses, in which institutions of higher learning promote specific politicized viewpoints to both the student body and the outside world. 

To counter the growing trend of universities taking official positions on a wide variety of divisive social and political issues particularly after Oct. 7, 2023, a number of leading universities, including the University of Michigan, Northwestern University and the University of Pennsylvania finally embraced the principle of institutional neutrality first articulated in the 1967 Kalven Report at the University of Chicago.

These institutions now recognize that taking official stances on controversial political or social issues undermines academic freedom and chills open inquiry. Instead, they have now committed to remaining neutral with the goal of improving their ability to allow diverse viewpoints to flourish.

As the Kalven Report posited, “the university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.”

In the K-12 context, neutrality is even more essential. K-12 students are still forming their understanding of the world.

When a school district, administrator or teacher takes a political stance, it risks pushing impressionable young minds to conform, stifling freedom of thought and marginalizing dissenting voices. 

The San Francisco District agrees: “When at work, [district] employees hold a unique position of influence of students in their care, and this influence is a privilege.” 

When teachers take political positions, it can undermine the ability of students to develop critical thinking skills, distract from building core educational skills and lead to declines in academic outcomes. 

As my colleague David Bernstein explained, “When U.S. K-12 schools invest valuable time and resources into politicizing the classroom … actual educational outcomes suffer.” 

According to the most recent Nation’s Report Card, reading proficiency scores for U.S. students in grades four and eight have declined since 2019 with 69 percent of fourth and 70 percent of eighth graders performing below proficient levels.

Not only is neutrality a wise academic practice, it is also legally sound. Public schools, as government institutions, are entitled to limit educators’ speech in the classroom to serve the greater good of academic focus.

As the National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the country, rightly points out, “When the government is a public school or university, it has broad authority to limit educators’ speech on the job as well as to limit speech off the job that directly impacts the workplace.” 

And unlike universities, where students are there by choice, K-12 schoolchildren are there by law.

As the Supreme Court recently explained in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the majority of K-12 children attend public, government-run schools “either by choice or necessity.” And, as public institutions, these schools must not take sides. 

Just as our constitutional principles resist religious indoctrination in schools, so too should we resist ideological indoctrination. 

A K-12 school system that adopts institutional neutrality empowers parents to advocate for policies that keep schools focused on education, not activism. 

This is not about silencing discussion. On the contrary, neutrality creates the conditions for genuine dialogue by ensuring that no single viewpoint is institutionally endorsed. It affirms that schools exist to educate, not indoctrinate.

Across the country, in places like San Francisco and Chicago, parents and school leaders are waking up to the dangers of politicized classrooms.They know we must continue demanding schools return to their core mission: educating, not indoctrinating. 

By organizing around shared values of freedom, opportunity, inclusion and unity, we can restore trust in public education and ensure that every child is taught how to think, not what to think. 

Institutional neutrality isn’t just a policy, it’s a promise to our children that their schools will be inclusive places of learning, not battlegrounds of ideology. The future of our democracy depends on it.

Sharon Ceresnie Sorkin is the director of Community Engagement at North American Values Institute.