Beatrice Prince (‘28):
I met Charlie Kirk this summer outside the White House while I was interning for Senator Tom Cotton. I had followed him for nearly ten years, but that day he became real to me. He didn’t just shake my hand and move on; he stopped, smiled, and spoke to me with a kindness I’ll never forget. We talked about Israel, and as a Jewish student, it meant everything to hear him speak with such conviction and love for Jews and Israelis. He was one of the only people in the media, on either side, who defended us without hesitation. Before we parted, he gave me his number, and over the summer we texted. He even told me how much he wanted to come to Princeton to speak with students, to engage with us directly.
Charlie wasn’t just a voice for conservatives. He pulled young people in–conservatives, yes, but also Democrats–making politics feel urgent, alive, and worth caring about. He pushed me to think more deeply and gave me the courage to stand in my beliefs when it often felt lonely to do so. To me, he was more than a public figure. His passing feels crushingly personal. I’ve lost not just a voice I looked up to, but someone who, in a small but unforgettable way, touched my life.
May his memory be a blessing.
Allison Rodrigues (‘26):
Charlie Kirk once said, “What gives me strength is hundreds of thousands of [young adults] that say, ‘Keep going, Charlie.’”
I was one of them. I first encountered Charlie Kirk when I was 15, and that moment forever changed the trajectory of my life. His ability to stand before an audience that disagreed with him and still see inherent dignity and worth in each person. He asked questions that we are often too fearful to raise. He taught me that courage is the willingness to speak truth into opposition and fervently defend it with the undeniable facts.
Charlie inspired me to choose Princeton, knowing that every day on this campus is a reminder that God has called me to enter this arena, which has tested my Faith. Engaging in civil discourse with my peers (many of whom I wholeheartedly respect as the brightest minds of our generation) has only strengthened my convictions. Charlie’s example gave me the courage to glorify God on the global stage, remembering that silence is never a virtue when Truth is at stake. At every conference, he declared that “We as Christians are called to go into the public arena and correct error with Truth.” That charge belongs to us now. It is time to run your race for real, and speak boldly in a world that would rather we stay silent.
Were Charlie here, he would remind us that we are different: we do not respond to tragedy with outrage, vengeance, or politics of grievance. The measure of our movement is in how faithfully we witness and how honestly we confess our mistakes. On every campus Charlie entered, he met hostility with Truth spoken in Love. That is the legacy he leaves us: faith over fury, prayer of pride, and Truth over comfort. We mourn because we feel the gravity of this loss for ourselves, but we also rejoice, knowing exactly where Charlie is now. His message was, and remains, one of courage, conviction, and Christ.
To my fellow Princetonians who are angered by this inexcusable attack: remember that “to be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.” Charlie would not want us to retreat in fear or anger. He would want us to keep going—to pursue what is greater than ourselves, to carry the torch he lit, and to meet the confusion of our world with Truth spoken boldly and Love lived fully.
Charlie Kirk inspired a generation to take up that torch. We must keep going with Charlie’s courage.
Max Salzinger (‘29):
When I first heard the news of Mr. Kirk’s assassination, my heart sank. Completely. This was a man whom I looked up to since middle school, a man who inspired my own journey as a politically active conservative on a predominantly liberal high school campus. When I opened social media a few minutes later, I expected to see mostly silence from my liberal peers and perhaps notes of commemoration from others. However, I was shocked when I found liberal after liberal, including Princeton peers, posting various iterations of, “while I feel bad for the family, I do not feel at all for Charlie himself. What a right-wing bigot!” They did not feel anything, anything at all, for a man who was shot and killed because of his beliefs. When bullets become an acceptable form of protest for many on the progressive left, no one is safe.
This led me to my next reactions, anger and disgust. Democrats should not collectively be blamed for Mr. Kirk’s death, but every single democrat who posted a version of the quoted content written above contributed to the political atmosphere on the left that led to the assassination. Yes, the mainstream liberal media has blood on its hands for falsely portraying Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, and the MAGA movement as the second coming of the Third Reich. Yes, the celebration among some on the left shows the moral rot in the party. But most importantly, now is not only the time to rightfully criticize some on the left for their contribution to the lust for violence against prominent conservatives. Rather, it is also the time for conservatives ourselves to take the high road. We are at a crossroads: continue the track towards civil war that some on the progressive left seem to seek, or renew the importance of civil discourse and the American right to freedom of speech. Civil discourse is not yet dead, but it very well may be if we allow the left to scare us into silence. Therefore, I resolve to fight for civil discourse for Mr. Kirk and for America.
William Neumann (‘27) — Chairman of the Cliosophic Society:
Like so many others, I am absolutely appalled by the abject, gruesome political violence witnessed on Wednesday against 31-year-old husband, father, and conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Kirk, founder of the conservative student organization Turning Point USA, was a prominent voice in American politics known for mobilizing young people around free-market and limited-government principles. His books, frequent media appearances, and campus events made him one of the most influential conservative activists of his generation. While his methods of persuasion and engagement were often considered controversial, the last thing Kirk deserved was a political assassination. Kirk was actually practicing something that is fundamentally and concretely American: civil discourse. Kirk, rarely one to shy away from a disagreement, consistently engaged respectfully with those across the aisle and eagerly put himself in uncomfortable situations to prove a point or open someone’s eyes to a different perspective. Even more disturbing, Kirk’s murder occurred on a college campus – a place that should embody safety, freedom of expression, and the respectful exchange of political ideas. Instead, on Wednesday, that campus descended into darkness and death, leaving only grief, fury, and a more divided nation behind.
I fear the repercussions that this will have for conservative speaker engagement across the nation’s college campuses. Already, the shockwaves from Charlie Kirk’s murder are being felt at Princeton’s centuries-old Cliosophic Society, as several speakers have declined recent invitations and already scheduled speakers for this semester’s series have canceled, specifically citing the despicable events in Utah. This is sad and disheartening for the Princeton community, to say the least. With conservative speakers already being a rare sight at Princeton, delaying or canceling events like these will only perpetuate a bias and perceived censorship that I hope administrators and students want to avoid.
The temperature of our political rhetoric must come down. Colleges should not be battlegrounds of fear, but sanctuaries where every perspective can be expressed and contested with dignity and respect. And, it is certainly high time for universities to make a renewed promise to make speakers with unpopular views, especially those of a conservative background, feel welcome and safe.
We can, and must, do better. My thoughts and prayers are with Kirk’s family during this difficult time.
Princeton College Republicans Board:
We were, as Princeton’s college Republicans, horrified by the heinous political assassination of Charlie Kirk. Kirk fought for that which he believed, and in so doing, spearheaded a lasting movement that saw a significant shift among our generation from liberal or apolitical to outwardly conservative. He heralded the principle of free and open debate, ALWAYS welcoming and, in fact, oftentimes encouraging those with whom he disagreed to participate in the discussion. That he was murdered by a deranged animal while actively engaging in open dialogue is all the more disturbing.
But above all else, Charlie Kirk was a devoted husband to his wife, Erika, and a beloved father to two young children. That must be the headline, which is why, whether one agreed with his politics or not, the reaction to his murder from some on the left has been unconscionable. Shame on the liberal political commentators blaming Kirk for his own assassination, and shame on those who can not find the decency to empathize with the Kirk family (including those on Princeton’s campus). Those reactions are disgusting, but unsurprising. In America, we have reached a tipping point. For too long, we have heard that ‘words are violence,’ and that those like Kirk were ‘jeopardizing our democracy.’ Wrong. Violence is violence. A left-wing nut murdering Charlie Kirk is violence. Engaging in open debate is not a threat to democracy, but rather a very bedrock of it; assassinating a man while exercising his right to freedom of expression, on the other hand, is a threat to democracy. We must put an end to this, and now, because continuing on this path leads down a dark road.
Alexander Bauer (‘29):
When I first scrolled through X and watched a clip of Charlie Kirk’s awful death, I simply could not believe what had happened. I initially dismissed the video as a vile AI deepfake, but as I saw more posts and reactions across my feed, dread set in as I realized Kirk actually had been shot. I immediately prayed for survival (though it seemed very improbable due to the graphic footage) and reflected on the personal impact Kirk has had on my life. His movement and bravery are a crucial part of my rationale for joining the Tory; he exemplified the power of voicing unpopular conservative opinions on college campuses and the need for thoughtful political discourse.
A friend who closely followed Charlie Kirk and cites him as the primary reason he became conservative perfectly encapsulated the feelings of many conservatives surrounding the heinous assassination: “Even though Kirk said some things I didn’t agree with, and I obviously haven’t met him, it feels like a best friend just died.” Kirk was certainly a polarizing figure, but he was a real American patriot who fought valiantly for his beliefs and impacted millions of young American conservatives. His eagerness to openly debate those with whom he disagreed modeled the civil discourse our country desperately needs and fostered political awareness across a wide array of college campuses. He deeply loved his family, faith, and our country, and stayed true to all three up until the moment he passed. His role in fostering civil discourse will undoubtedly be missed, but I firmly believe his movement and legacy will endure. Kirk said he wished to be remembered for “courage for [his] faith.” He will certainly be known for that, but also a leader, an inspiration, a proud American, and far more.
Jack Geld (‘26):
Amidst the anger and contention surrounding the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the reaction I have felt most of all is sadness. Sadness for Charlie Kirk and his family, and sadness for the soul of our nation. I have seen far too many celebrations of his death from people on the internet, and it pains me to see that these callous sentiments have made their way onto our own campus, as the Tory reported a few days ago. You don’t have to agree with someone in order to mourn for them.
We cannot let our nation become a place where violence against anyone, and especially against those with whom we disagree, is shrugged off as expected or even deserved. This tragedy was not simply an assassination—it was an attack on the idea of free public debate. Nowhere is public debate more essential than on college campuses, and now I fear that controversial speakers may be justifiably wary of visiting schools and speaking to students. Yet this fear only highlights the necessity of continuing the conversation, refusing to let heterodox views be intimidated into silence.
The world has just become a scarier place. Something that we thought was safe—speaking and debating openly on a college campus—is not safe anymore. But I have great faith in the community here at Princeton. We will not cease to express our disagreements with each other, and we will not lose our humanity in the process. My thoughts are with Charlie Kirk’s wife and children.
Joseph Gonzalez (‘28):
I must begin with an admission: I did not subscribe to Charlie Kirk directly, but he was an integral part of the conservative ecosphere that I am a part of. As such, I heard him speak often, either indirectly through video clips on the shows I do listen to, or directly, when he was a guest on their shows. I am a bit older than most of my fellow students, so where my expertise falters, I can always rely on my experience. And what an experience living through this era was. Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, was one of many that took off at a time when I was going through my own political reawakening. It was also at a time when a new bench of conservative voices was arriving just when they were needed most, at the waning years of Rush Limbaugh’s life (admittedly, another person I did not ever listen to), to take the mantle. It was not just the change of technology, the proliferation of YouTube and podcasts as a new medium, that marked a difference from an earlier conservative era; it was a change in tone and approach, from serious academic, top-down conservatism, to a more grassroots level form of communication. Let us remember that Charlie Kirk was speaking on college campuses without a college degree, and when I became more politically self-aware, I was not even that- I was a high school dropout with a GED.
Yet, it was on a college campus, where debates are supposed to continue throughout the night, that he was gunned down, and the setting feels very ominous. There are tragedies taking place in this world that you are very distant from, but only a few can instantly feel the reverberation. Charlie Kirk’s assassination was one of those moments, and I believe it will leave a sea change in its wake, in a way that two assassination attempts on President Trump did not. Maybe it is because, for all the demonizing and fear-mongering, Kirk could never be considered the same sort of polarizing figure that Trump has become on the political landscape. And that is what makes all this feel different, and fingers crossed, out of this tragedy comes a new period of renewed hope. Bringing people together would be the best way to continue his legacy. He talked with those he did not agree with, from Governor Gavin Newsom of California to the lowly college student who is trying to figure out what they are going to do in this world. And he went out doing just that, as Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, “… to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways”.
Enzo Baldanza ‘29:
Floored, bewildered, gutted – paint it any way you want, but I was heartbroken by the assassination of Charlie Kirk. As a 19-year-old with right-leaning viewpoints, I see eye-to-eye with many of his viewpoints, but also disagree fundamentally on some as well. None of that, in fact, matters; Kirk doggedly exercised his right to free speech, encouraging civil dialogue, particularly with the youth of America. When a public figure is assassinated on the basis of controversial speech, it produces an opportunity for liberals and conservatives to bond as Americans and recommit ourselves to human rights. I was incredibly disheartened to see many use their personal platforms to either praise the assassin, expose Kirk’s prima facie ironic statements regarding guns (to clarify: Kirk’s sentiment surrounding the protection of gun rights was not in support of its civil weaponization; he merely acknowledged the fact that when we protect gun rights, there will be some gun deaths, even though they are bane to society, and should be condemned and prevented to the furthest extent of the law), or post a fragment of Kirk’s empathy quote. While I emphatically disagree with those who posted one of those three – or something alike – it is paramount that we as a nation must merely condemn it with more speech, and not attempt to strip their platforms or right to free speech. This is the high road, and even the road that Kirk would have wanted the nation to take. Many have also wondered why Kirk’s assassination evokes a more visceral reaction than school shootings or other similar acts of barbarity. When I heard that Kirk had been shot, I was afraid. The attack on Kirk was an attack not just for the sake of violence, but an attack on belief. A belief that a human exercising his unalienable rights is a “fascist”, stemming partially (not wholly) from the perversion of public figures in the media. It was an attempt to revoke these unalienable rights violently, which subsequently disparages our Constitution. In short, this attack struck the heart of our American republic. This is currently not that shining city on a hill. This is not the America I know and love.
Luke Romere (‘27):
After Charlie Kirk’s tragic murder, I had a conversation with two left-wing friends of mine. I’m a conservative, so they knew I found his death horrific and they respected my opinion; the elephant in the room was how the two of them had reacted to his death. I asked them bluntly and neither expressed personal sympathy. In fact, the both of them shrugged their shoulders. One stated that he disagreed with Charlie’s murder because it did nothing tangible to further left-wing causes; the other said that though his murder was unacceptable, Charlie had just reaped what he sowed with his rhetoric. The two agreed with one another that Charlie Kirk had caused harm to millions of people with his beliefs, and so they couldn’t sympathize with him. “It’s hard to feel bad for someone when they get killed if they’re a member of your political opposition.”
I’m sure they didn’t intend it, but their clear subtext is that there’s no room in their sympathies for a murdered conservative if that person was outspoken enough about their beliefs. Speech is not violence. And to any readers with the wrong impression, Charlie wasn’t radical, white supremacist, or a fascist; us on the right wing saw him as a grounded conservative figure. Charlie held no office, he was just a speaker and organizer. He created dialogue for a living; because he was too vocal about the wrong beliefs, though, his death doesn’t warrant my friends’ mourning. I believe my friends are both good people, but their unconscious implication is that if I were to become a strong enough advocate for my vision of the country, a bullet tearing through my neck is something to be condemned but quickly dismissed. I invite any moderates or liberals reading this to pause and reflect on whether we can maintain a democracy where the murder of those without advocate for different beliefs can be treated this way, where the murder of a conservative who did nothing but speak is seen as a net societal good. If the taboo of violence in politics is broken in this country, history teaches us this spiral won’t stop without massive bloodshed. We avoided it by less than a centimeter last year when a bullet grazed President Trump, and I prayed that would be the end. Did you honestly feel a tinge of satisfaction when you heard the news of Charlie Kirk’s death? Your conservative friends and family felt horror. They have many of the same beliefs he did, and they can see themselves taking that bullet.
Image Credit: “Charlie Kirk speaking with attendees at the 2022 AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona” – Wikimedia Commons
Copyright © 2026 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.