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.

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?

In the last five years, Germany has seen a substantial rise in immigrants and refugees, welcoming 1.5 million Arab refugees since 2015. At the same time as this influx of people, Germany has seen an increase in supporters of the far-right movement. 

Tensions came to a head Feb. 18 when one man went on a shooting rampage, killing nine people and injuring six more in Hanau, Germany, just outside of Frankfurt. 

The shooting began at Midnight Shisha Bar, a hookah bar just past 10 p.m. It then moved to the nearby Arena Bar and Cafe. Both bars were popular with young people of foreign descent, especially Turkish and Middle Eastern immigrants. 

Later the shooter was found dead in his home with his 72-year-old mother, who also died. Both had severe gunshot wounds. 

Though German privacy laws do not allow for the gunman’s name to be released, many reports, including an official gun license, point to Tobias Rathjen. 

Despite the fact that he passed the background check and mental fitness requirements for gun ownership, Rathjen’s internet history points to a dangerous belief system. 

He posted several videos in which he wished for a “rough cleaning” to decrease the global population by half. He cited 12, predominately Muslim, countries which he felt needed to be “exterminated”. 

“We now have ethnic groups, races or cultures in our midst that are destructive in every respect,” the 43-year-old domestic terrorist said. 

In his video he also spoke directly to Americans, urging them to “fight now.”

Many of those who died in the attack were German citizens, the children of Turkish and Kurdish workers who immigrated in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Turkish officials said that five of the victims were Turkish citizens. 

Since the attack last week German authorities have been outspoken in condemning Rathjen’s actions. Chancellor Angela Merkle said the shooter had “right-wing extremists, racist motives” and called racism a “poison.” 

Claus Kaminsky, mayor of Hanau, said it was “the hardest day in our history” and spoke about the usual peaceful nature of the city. 

The far-right attack points to a sobering reality in Germany and in many places around the world – far-right ideology is gaining momentum. Hanau is known for being a diverse and tolerant city, and yet extreme violence still took place. 

Prior to this incident many people assumed that the far-right movement was isolated to the eastern part of the country, which has been hit the hardest by unemployment. This attack proves that the racist ideology has spread. 

In the last city elections the far right group Alternatives for Germany (AfD), won 10 percent of the vote. In the national elections in 2017 the group won 89 seats, making it the third largest political party. 

The AfD has never publicly endorsed violence, but their rise in popularity has coincided in a sharp increase in neo-Nazi attacks in a country that has spend the last seven decades trying to repair the damage committed under Hitler’s regime. Racism-fueled violence increased from 1,200 attacks to 1,664 attacks in 2017. 

“Islam does not belong to Germany,” said their manifesto, which was published in 2017.  

Frauke Petry, leader of the AfD, also called for police to shoot immigrants trying to cross the German border in 2016. 

2019 saw multiple far-right attacks throughout Germany. In June, Walter Lübcke, a politician from Merkle’s own party, was assassinated for his pro-migrant beliefs – the first far-right assassination since World War II. 

In October, one far-right man live-streamed himself storming a synagogue and killing two people on Yom Kippur, a Jewish holy day. He was allegedly inspired by the shooter in the deadly attack in Christchurch, New Zealand. 

Angela Merkle’s successor as chair of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, resigned recently after a scandal in the party involving party officials coordinating with the AfD in order to support a centrist candidate for governor of Thuringia. 

This broke a longstanding tradition of the government not cooperating with the far-right party. With Merkel’s time as Chancellor over in the fall of 2021, and her natural successor out of the running, many in Germany worry the AfD might gain control and shift the country closer to its pre-war days.

A large, inflatable doll of presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro, with the National Social Liberal Party, stands during a rally along Paulista Avenue in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Sept. 30, 2018. Photo courtesy of AP Photo/Andre Penner.

Brazil had its presidential elections Oct. 28 and the whole world was watching to see if Brazilians would elect the candidate compared to Donald Trump or the same political party that has been voted in for the last four elections. This was the second round of the presidential elections, the first round was held Oct. 7.

The political system in Brazil is distinctly different from that in the United States:

Citizens between the ages of 18 and 70 years old are required by law to vote in every election, from municipal to federal elections. At the age of 16, you have the option to vote and after 70 years old it is also optional. If any citizen fails to fulfill their duty they may face consequences, as they can be prevented from obtaining passports, taking out loans from public banks and/or enrolling in a public education institution – which is a significant restriction because the best universities in Brazil are public.  

Workers test electronic ballots in Brasilia, Brazil. Photo courtesy of Ueslei Marcelino/Reuters.

Brazil is Latin America’s largest democracy, and politics can get quite messy – especially when citizens have to elect a new president, 27 governors, 54 senators (two-thirds of the Senate), 513 federal deputies and 1,059 state deputies all on the same Sunday. Brazilians can choose politicians from 32 officially registered parties. But despite this broad number of options, the same group of five parties dominate the national political landscape.

The issue here is that Brazilians have been in disbelief over their  political system for a while. With many corruption scandals, currently with its eighth constitution, two impeachments and too many dirty politicians to count, many feel too discouraged to vote. This led to 10,313,159 blank/null votes on this year’s election, which means that over ten million people decided to not choose a president.

On Oct. 7 Brazilians had 13 options for the presidential position, but in the polls before the election, people mostly focused on eight of those candidates – Alckmin (PSDB), Amoêdo (NOVO), Bolsonaro (PSL), Dias (PODE), Gomes (PDT), Haddad (PT), Meirelles (MDB) and Silva (REDE). After the votes had been tallied, Bolsonaro had 46 percent of the vote, compared to Haddad’s 29 percent which was the second highest.

Things started to get complicated when the two still running candidates were Tropical Trump and a politician affiliated with one of the two political parties involved in the biggest corruption scandal in history. With such polemic candidates, the chance to vote became the responsibility to empower the lesser of two evils.=

The Brazilian population is anxious for change, with nearly 13 million people unemployed, homicides reaching record levels and rapid expansion of the country’s biggest gang, Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) as it battles with rivals over drug routes. To many, the state of the country seems dire.

Such distress is one of the arguments against Haddad, who is a member of the party that has been in power during such problems. Numbers like that made people ignore some of the infamous quotes from Bolsonaro like: “[the] mistake of the dictatorship was torturing and not killing,” “I won’t rape you because you’re not worth it” and “[women] must earn a lower wage because they get pregnant.”

Protesters hold up posters comparing Bolsonaro to Hitler. Photo courtesy of CNN en Español

Even with his questionable morale, Bolsonaro still represented an opportunity for a different and better future for many. On the other hand, Haddad’s affiliation to a party infamous for their corruption and mismanagement prevented many from voting for him.

In the end, the opposition to PT – the workers’ party – and the hope for a change under a new administration led to Bolsonaro winning the second round of elections with 55 percent of the vote.

Response on the Right:

Athos Brocker de Morais, first-year business administration major and Brazilian student, offered his opinion on the positives of the election of Bolsonaro:

I believe that Brazil’s current situation calls for a more honest president – someone with strategies opposite to the ones implemented by PT (Brazil’s workers’ party) over the last 16 years of their government.

Bolsonaro is far from being the ideal candidate – he has no preparation and has basically no temperament to deal with minorities. However, your ordinary Brazilian is beyond done with PT and their false socialist moralism preached.

Bolsonaro’s victory shows how desperate Brazilians are. When it comes down to choosing between and anything else, it doesn’t matter the opponent’s character, their graduation history nor their conduct. The next four years are going to be turbulent, but the Donald Trump affect, the conservative wave, will bear its good fruit.

Response on the Left:

Thiago Braga, first-year business administration major and Brazilian student also offered his opinion on the failures of Bolsonaro’s eleciton:

The 2018 [Brazilian] presidential elections were decided not by the support and dedication of the community to the  candidates, but by the strong opposition a group had for a certain candidate. The infamous Jair Bolsonaro, winner of the 2018 elections, counted on many advantages, but his biggest virtue was the support from a considerable portion of the Brazilian population that was looking for their manumission from the PT’s (workers’ party) government, that had already been in power for more than a decade. However, the recently elected president doesn’t have the most human aspect a person can have: compassion. Jair Bolsonaro does not only lack the respect for minorities, but also is also a threat to those groups.

On the other hand, the candidate from the PT party didn’t have any qualities to well govern Brazil. All he had was a political campaign linked to the former president Lula, a convict with a dirty politician reputation and involved in many corruption scandals. Nonetheless, he [Haddad] supports minorities and human rights. His lack of qualities doesn’t matter when he’s running against someone that lacks respect for others. That’s why it is such a shame that our election was between two terrible candidates. And it’s a even bigger shame that the winner is a maniac who lacks respect for human beings. Brazil would be better off with a president with no governability linked to a failed party than a madman.

Bruna Kuntz, a Brazilian citizen and resident, also said:

Bolsonaro’s participation on the presidential run brought up quite a lot of the hostility buried by Brazil’s ignorance; wounds not healed because of the lack of dialogue. The chauvinism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, transphobia, violence and political, cultural and economical ignorance that he [Bolsonaro] carried on his speeches was used as fuel to feed the hate and prejudice rooted in the Brazilian history. His election legitimized hate speech, what kills millions on Brazil. What the future holds for the minorities can only be guessed by looking into the past. If we bring back outdated concepts, how can we expect a different future?