On Sep. 10, 2025, American podcaster and right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk was killed during a question-and-answer session at Utah Valley University (UVU). Preliminary reports tell us that the individual who allegedly shot him is in custody. American politicians of all stripes have condemned the shooting as a travesty, and President Trump ordered flags to be flown at half-mast until Sep. 15 in his honor.

Mr. Kirk’s killing is certainly disastrous for the American body politic, and I do not take his death lightly. Political assassination has no place in any society that calls itself free. But I do not mourn his death and shed no tears for his loss. The response from the Trump administration—labelling Kirk as an American hero and “free speech warrior”—sanitizes Kirk’s destructive history, and lowering the flag for him is a disgrace to both the American flag and what the country claims to stand for. The precedent the government’s response sets is unjustifiable.

Political violence is clearly on the rise in America. Since Sep. 11, 2001, there have been two hundred and ninety-three lives lost to terror attacks in the United States. Terrorists come in all political stripes, from extreme left to extreme right. New America describes a modern terrorist threat—a label that includes political violence—that “crosses ideologies and is largely disconnected from traditional understandings of terrorist organizations.”

This upward trend in violence occurs among students as well; the increasing population of American students who believe the use of force can be justified against speakers exceeds three in ten. This figure has increased among both self-identified Democrats and Republicans and represents a grave danger to the American project.

Voices in the American right have called Kirk’s shooting the start of a civil war. They perceive Kirk’s killing as part of a “common threat” from leftists—that “The Left,” vaguely defined, poses an existential threat to the conservative movement and its members. Trump said the same, claiming that “[r]adical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.” He cited the assassination attempt against himself to back up his claim.

The data, where we have it, does not back Trump up. The suspect in Trump’s attempted assassination in Butler, PA, was a registered Republican. More broadly, extreme-right violence was the most common of the types New America considered, responsible for 139 of 293 (47%) recorded deaths. (For comparison, extreme-left violence was responsible for 3 [<1%]).

By any and all measures, Kirk was an extremist figure with substantial ideological biases. Here is a brief and definitely non-exhaustive list of problematic things he has called for:

• He called on Taylor Swift to “Reject feminism [and] Submit to your husband,” noting that Ms. Swift “wasn’t serious” about her engagement if she did not change her surname.
• He claimed that Black professionals should be treated with skepticism, before walking it back: “If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like ‘boy, I hope he is qualified.’”
• He labelled the Civil Rights Act “a huge mistake.”
• He believed in a Jewish conspiracy, claiming that “the philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.”
• He said of transgender individuals, “Someone should’ve just taken care [of them] the way we did in the ‘50s and ‘60s.”
• He advanced the debunked “great replacement theory,” which believes that “they [unspecified, but likely non-White immigrants from context] won’t stop until you [White rural America] and your children and your children’s children are eliminated.”

Despite these moral shortcomings, Kirk does not deserve to die. He may deserve harassment charges, but he does not deserve to die.

The government’s response to Kirk’s death is distasteful at best and a national disgrace at worst. In his address to the nation, Trump mentioned attacks against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. He mentioned the attack on his own life. He mentioned a 2017 attack on Rep. Steve Scalise. Yet he did not mention attacks on key Democrats: Trump’s list omits the arson attack against Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro (2025), shooting of Minnesota Dems Melissa Hortman and John Hoffman (2025), “the 2020 attempted kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, [and] the brutal attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband in 2022.” In the last case, Trump publicly mocked Mr. Pelosi.

In response to Mr. Kirk’s death, Trump ordered flags to be flown at half-mast for three days. At first glance this seems consistent, as it was an honor he gave to two children killed while worshipping in August. Yet this administration’s general policy on lowering the flag for political deaths is simple: if he likes you, the flag comes down. He demanded the flag be raised early after Jimmy Carter’s death and kept it raised after Hortman’s death, though she (like Kirk) was assassinated in cold blood.

American politics is not a war, not in the traditional sense. Its instruments are words, not weapons; ballots, not bullets; legislation, not legions. Kirk had First Amendment rights to speak for what he believed, just as I do and just as every person in this country does. He can reasonably be described as an activist, a conservative firebrand, or a beacon to young people who saw themselves as conservative. But he was not a national hero, nor should he be treated as one. Kirk’s policy positions and extremist rhetoric caused significant damage to the United States of America and significant distress to those I love. While others may be mourning, I shed no tears for him.

Pop and football fans alike were in for the shock of a lifetime last month when the nation’s sweethearts, Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce, announced that they were officially engaged. The creative caption used to encapsulate this moment was: your English teacher and your gym teacher are getting married, and honestly, everybody was ecstatic. The relationship between the football star and the pop star began in the summer of 2023 and took the world by storm. 

Their romance began, as explained on the Travis’ and his brother, Jason, podcast New Heights, when the football player insisted on seeing Taylor at one of her concerts simply because he wanted to meet her. The original plan was for Travis to pass off a signature friendship bracelet, a tradition that became popular at Swift concerts, but instead he walked away with more than just a bracelet. According to Swift on the New Heights Podcast, the football star was enchanted to meet her and blurted out, “I want to date you,” and the rest was history.

Their relationship immediately after the concert took over social media and NFL coverage alike with Swifties losing their minds every time the two were spotted in public. Fast-forward two years after their first meeting and the fan-based dream came true. The proposal took place in a beautiful garden located in Lee’s Summit, Missouri and looked as dreamy as one of Taylor’s Eras Tour performances. Flowers surrounded the couple as Travis got on one knee and popped the question. 

The antique ring was an elongated cushion-cut diamond and was handcrafted in 18k gold. No official price for the ring has been discussed, but in an article published by author Brides Benjamin Khordipou, at Estate Diamond Jewellery, estimated the piece to be around $550,000. This ring was just the beginning of the world’s speculations about the wedding. The theories for the wedding dresses, bridesmaids and future drama are the hot topic of gossip sites, even though the couple hasn’t even been engaged a full month.

The leading theory is that the couple will participate in an intimate ceremony with the hopes of not drawing attention. However the question remains: will this be possible with the wedding being the most anticipated event of the year? Many are beginning to refer to it as the American version of a royal wedding, and it doesn’t seem too far from the truth. As Swifit’s song is titled, this relationship is truly “So Highschool” in the sense that it’s a classic love story from start to finish, and fans can’t wait to see what happens next. 

France is entering one of the most turbulent phases of its Fifth Republic. President Emmanuel Macron’s second term, beginning in 2022, has been marked by legislative gridlock, spiraling debt and a deep constitutional crisis. In June of 2024, Macron dissolved the National Assembly triggering early elections that left parliament fragmented and nearly ungovernable. Under the French Constitution, the president may dissolve the National Assembly and call new elections. This power is rarely exercised, as effective governance typically requires a stable majority in the Assembly. In 2024, however, Macron’s lack of parliamentary support provided the rationale for dissolution, as he hoped to secure a broader coalition. Instead, the resulting legislative elections plunged France into deeper political turmoil. In less than 15 months, three prime ministers have succeeded one another at the Hôtel de Matignon (The prime minister’s official office) each tasked with maintaining the cohesion of a Macronist project that has long lost its popular and parliamentary success. In such a context, what does France’s immediate political future look like?

Sébastien Lecornu: Chaos as a Political Strategy

A few weeks ago, ex-Prime Minister François Bayrou was ousted from the government after losing a confidence vote. Bayrou called for this confidence vote as a last-ditch act of desperation. Indeed, his budget proposal was deeply unpopular, and Bayrou feared being ousted through a vote of no confidence initiated by the deputies themselves. He chose instead to take the initiative and directly test the Assembly’s support for his proposal. Lacking a majority and with no clear plans to form a coalition, this move proved politically suicidal, and few understood how he expected to benefit from it. Unsurprisingly, Bayrou lost the vote of confidence. 

However, it took Macron only one day to appoint his new protégé: Sébastien Lecornu. Macron’s new prime minister, described by the French journal Le Nouvel Obs as “ Macron’s favorite” has become Macron’s longest-serving high-level ally, weathering all the government changes since Macron’s first term in 2017. He is a product of Macron’s center right liberal style of governance, and he will most certainly continue to support Macron’s pro-market “supply-side economics.” Lecornu is tasked with protecting the president’s liberal economic reforms—cutting capital taxes, easing labor regulations, and prioritizing competitiveness—while managing an increasingly hostile and fractured parliament.

His appointment highlights the growing divide between the French left and Macron’s market-driven economic agenda. The PS (Socialist Party) , emboldened by its recent electoral successes, advocates for higher taxes on wealth and corporations in order to fund public services and combat income inequality. Lecornu, on the other hand, is expected to protect the status quo and defend the interests of industrial groups. His critics argue that his rhetoric skews heavily to the right and raises concerns about his ability to find compromise on social issues.

Lecornu faces an unenviable balancing act. He must defend Macron’s pro-market reforms, reassure investors worried about France’s rising debt and negotiate with opposition parties on both political extremes to pass even basic legislation. Some analysts expect him to double down on constitutional shortcuts while others predict that he will attempt limited compromises with the left on social protection and public services issues in order to stabilize his government. In any case, the impression that Macron is governing in chaos will likely persist.

A polarized National Assembly

The French National Assembly has not been so divided in decades. As previously noted, Macron’s center-right no longer holds a legislative majority, and the assembly is now divided between a fragmented left that struggles to find compromises with a weakened Macronist bloc, and a rising far right that seems to gain public legitimacy in the face of this political crisis. Legislative gridlock has become commonplace, with budget bills and key reforms regularly blocked or watered down. Instead of forming cross-party coalitions, Macron and his former prime ministers are increasingly resorting to constitutional tools such as Article 49.3, which allows the executive to pass bills without parliamentary consent, reinforcing accusations of abuse of power by the executive.

Who is to blame?

Responsibility for the political crisis in France is the subject of widespread debate. Critics, such as former Prime Minister in the mid 2000s Dominique de Villepin, argue that the problem lies less with the institutions than with Macron’s style of governance. According to them, the president has shifted from the role of impartial arbiter to that of a hyper-presidential “monarch,” centralizing decision-making and sidelining Parliament. This approach, they say, has eroded public trust and strengthened the extremes.

Public opinion

French citizens themselves are divided over the nation’s political future. Polls show widespread frustration with the high cost of living, pension reform, and what many see as the government’s arrogance. In addition, a recent poll by the Odoxa institute showed that 69% of French people believe Sébastien Lecornu is not fit to govern France. The polarization within Parliament is also reflected in public opinion: while left-wing voters are calling for higher taxes on the rich and increased social investment, right-wing voters favor immigration controls and measures to maintain public order.

Conclusion: A Republic in shambles?

The lack of a unifying agenda has created fertile ground for the far right, particularly the National Rally, which has positioned itself as the authentic voice of disillusioned voters and could well become the leading political force in France in the coming years. As Macron’s second term enters its final stretch, the central question remains: Will Sébastien Lecornu succeed in transforming chaos into consensus, or will his term mark the definitive failure of the centrist experiment in France?

The shooting of right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk shocked people on all sides of the political spectrum. Whether one agrees with Kirk’s politics or not, the attack served as a disturbing reminder that violence is becoming an alarmingly common part of our political environment.

But incidents of political violence don’t exist in a vacuum. They’re part of a much larger and more dangerous trend. And while it’s easy to focus only on high-profile moments of violence, this crisis runs deeper than any one person, party, or ideology.

To fully understand what’s happening, we need to take a step back and ask: What is political violence, really? Where is it coming from? And why has it become such a prominent force in American life?

What Is Political Violence?

Political violence is the deliberate use of force or harm to achieve political objectives. It occurs when individuals or groups use physical aggression, intimidation or destruction to influence power structures, policies or social order. This can includes armed uprisings, terrorism, assassinations, voting intimidation or violent protests. What sets political violence apart from ordinary violence is its intentions; it is motivated by political aims rather than personal gain or individual disputes. Because it seeks to shape or maintain systems of power through fear and force political violence often destabilizes societies and deepens political conflict. 

A Sharp Increase Since 2016

The problem of political violence in the U.S. didn’t begin in 2016, but that year marked a turning point as the presidential campaign and success of President Trump marked a change to the America public; the political climate became more divided, more angry, and more hostile. As extremist rhetoric gained ground in mainstream politics, acts of political violence began to rise.

The events speak for themselves:

In 2017, a white supremacist drove his car into a crowd of anti-racist protesters in Charlottesville, killing Heather Heyer. In addition, Steve Scalise, the then Republican Minority House Whip, was shot during practice for the Congressional baseball game.

In 2018, 11 people were murdered in a mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, the deadliest attack on Jews on American soil.

In 2019, a gunman targeting immigrants killed more than 20 people in a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, after posting a white nationalist manifesto online.

On January 6, 2021, rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of a fair, democratic election. At least seven people lost their lives in connection with the attack.

In 2022, a white supremacist killed 10 Black people at a Buffalo, New York supermarket, motivated by racist conspiracy theories.

In 2023, Paul Pelosi, husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was brutally attacked in his home by an intruder seeking to harm the Speaker, citing political grievances.

In 2024, Donald Trump was the target of an attempted assassination at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. 

As Louis Jacobson and Amy Sherman point out in the article, How recent political violence in the U.S. fits into ‘a long, dark history’:

“In 2025 alone, Minnesota Democratic state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were fatally shot; an arsonist set fire to the Pennsylvania governor’s residence with Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family inside; an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer was shot and injured outside a detention facility in Texas; the New Mexico Republican Party headquarters was set on fire; and a shooter attacked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters.” 

These were not random acts of violence; they were political acts, driven by ideology and fueled by misinformation, hate and fear. And they’re not isolated either. In recent years, political threats against elected officials have skyrocketed. Armed groups have shown up at protests and polling stations. Voter intimidation is back in the headlines.

What we’re seeing is a shift in political norms. The american public is more likely to supporting the breaking the “rules” of democracy and political violence is increasingly viewed as a legitimate tool in political conflicts.

Guns Make It All More Dangerous

In no other wealthy country is this trend of political violence more deadly than in the United States, and that’s because of one defining factor: gun. While it is true that there are many factors leading to a rise in political violence, the number of fatalities is unique to America.

America’s deep-rooted gun culture means that political violence here isn’t just loud—it’s lethal. In an already polarized climate, widespread access to firearms turns heated disagreements into potential battlefields.When armed groups show up to polling places or rallies, it’s no longer just speech, it’s intimidation. And when people with extreme views believe they have both a cause and the firepower to fight for it, innocent lives are often caught in the crossfire.

The United States has far greater access to firearms than any other country.  In fact, the United States is the only country where civilian guns outnumber people. This creates a unique cultural of gun violence, “In 2023, 46,728 people died by firearms in the United States — an average of one death every 11 minutes.”  The connection is simple: the easier it is to access guns, the deadlier political violence becomes.

Why It Matters and What We Can Do

It’s easy to feel overwhelmed or helpless in the face of rising political violence. But apathy will solve nothing. We, as American citizens, have an obligation to protect the democratic norms that keep people safe. This means questioning what we see in the media, holding leaders accountable for their words and actions, and rejecting ideologies that dehumanize others. It means understanding that democracy cannot survive if people believe violence is the only way to be heard.