A Nation on Edge: How Geopolitics Set the Stage
To understand the implications of Kirk’s death, one must first grasp the volatile political climate into which it struck. In the weeks leading up to the shooting, global events – particularly involving Israel and the Middle East – had deeply polarized U.S. domestic politics. Israel’s ongoing war against Hamas in Gaza had expanded into unprecedented territory, with the Israeli military even launching a controversial airstrike in Doha, Qatar to target Hamas leaders. The Gaza campaign itself had grown brutal: over 60,000 Palestinians were reported killed in what many observers (including some western allies) labeled a “genocidal” assault. At home in the U.S., these events fueled three layers of division among Americans:
- Partisan Division: Progressive Democrats and human rights advocates fiercely condemned Israel’s actions as crimes against humanity, while Republican hardliners and conservative media doubled down on unconditional support for Israel as a vital ally. For example, a Guardian analysis bluntly described Israel under Netanyahu as a “rogue state” waging a “genocidal war on Gaza”, inciting outrage among the global left. In response, GOP leaders insisted that America “stand with Israel” unequivocally, framing any criticism as disloyalty or appeasement of terror. This ideological gulf over the Israel-Palestine conflict mirrored – and intensified – the broader left vs. right tribalism in American politics.
- Ethnic & Community Division: The turmoil abroad also exposed rifts among different communities in the U.S. Jewish-American groups largely rallied in defense of Israel’s security. In contrast, Arab- and Muslim-American communities (along with many youth activists) held rallies condemning Israeli actions and calling for Gaza’s liberation. Each side felt the other’s rhetoric veered into extremism – with accusations of anti-Semitism on one side and Islamophobia on the other. This heightened mistrust created a charged atmosphere on campuses and online, one primed for flashpoints of anger.
- Media & Information Division: Media outlets reflected this split. Conservative networks like Fox News amplified pro-Israel talking points and portrayed criticism of Israel as radical left propaganda, while progressive voices in outlets like The Nation or Democracy Now! decried Israeli strikes as unjust atrocities. Social media was even more polarized: viral posts either defended Israel’s every move or else accused it of war crimes, with little middle ground. The result was an American public inundated with dueling narratives, each side convinced of its moral righteousness and suspicious of the other’s motives.
In this fevered context, Charlie Kirk was not a neutral figure – he was deeply enmeshed in the culture war over these very issues. As an outspoken “anti-woke” conservative influencer and proud supporter of Israel, Kirk had positioned himself as a champion of Judeo-Christian values against what he saw as the twin threats of left-wing radicalism and militant Islam. He frequently railed against Palestinian sympathizers on campus and castigated progressive Democrats for not backing Israel strongly enough. (Notably, just a day before his death, Kirk posted on social media that “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America”, explicitly tying together Islamist extremism and the Western left in a grand conspiracy.) To many on the right, Kirk was “a lion-hearted friend of Israel” – as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu eulogized him – who “fought the lies” of the left and defended America’s allies. To many on the left, however, Kirk was a provocateur who trafficked in bigotry and disinformation (for instance, denying reports of starvation in Gaza as “pure visual warfare”).
Kirk’s assassination instantly became a symbolic Rorschach test for this divided nation. Conservatives immediately saw Kirk as a martyr – proof that their warnings about leftist “terror” were justified. Progressives, while universally condemning the violence, braced for the incident to be used as a bludgeon against them politically. Indeed, the shooting provided an emotive focal point where the rage and fears from international crises (like the Israel-Hamas war) suddenly spilled over into domestic politics. Within hours, the conversation shifted from “What happened at UVU?” to “Who is to blame for the climate that led to this?” – a shift that would be eagerly exploited by those poised to gain from the chaos.
Cui Bono: Who Gains From Kirk’s Death?
The Latin phrase “cui bono” – who benefits? – is a classic lens through which investigators examine high-profile crimes. In the case of Charlie Kirk’s very public assassination, multiple actors in the political arena have found ways to turn the tragedy into personal or strategic advantage. Whether or not any had a direct hand in the violence (to be clear, no evidence has emerged of a broader plot), the outcomes of the event have indisputably played into the agendas of several powerful interests. We examine each in turn.
1. Donald Trump – Law-and-Order Crackdown and Campaign Momentum
Former President Donald Trump was arguably the first to reap political capital from Kirk’s murder – unsurprising given that Kirk was both a close ally and a useful symbol for Trump’s base. Within hours of the shooting, Trump seized the narrative, casting the assassination as the culmination of a “radical left” war on conservatives. Even before the suspect was caught or any motive confirmed, Trump took to social media and the airwaves to blame “the radical left” for Kirk’s death. He delivered an address from the Oval Office that night, declaring that left-wing rhetoric and activism were “directly responsible for the terrorism we’re seeing in our country today”. In a somber yet combative tone, Trump promised a sweeping crackdown: “We will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence,” he vowed, effectively tarring a broad swath of his political opposition as complicit.
Trump’s response went far beyond mere condolences; it was a political offensive. He listed prior incidents of violence that fit his narrative of leftist aggression (such as attacks on ICE agents and the 2017 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise), pointedly omitting any examples of violence by right-wing actors or attacks targeting Democrats. The message was unmistakable: “The problem is on the left,” Trump insisted, and only a heavy-handed law-and-order approach would stop it. Practically, Trump leveraged Kirk’s killing to:
- Bolster his 2025 campaign narrative: Running for re-election, Trump had already been pushing a theme of America under siege by crime and disorder. Kirk’s death became a rallying cry to “restore safety” under Trump’s strong hand. He immediately began referencing the incident at campaign events as evidence that “no conservative is safe from left-wing violence” and that “only I can protect you”. Public fear and outrage always tend to elevate the candidate who promises security; in Kirk, Trump found a martyr to sanctify his platform. One Republican strategist noted that a “dead ally becomes a living symbol” for Trump – Kirk’s image now synonymous with the cause. Indeed, in the days after, Trump’s approval rating among conservative voters ticked upward, as previously apathetic or undecided right-leaning voters rallied around the flag (and around Trump).
- Justify expanding federal power: Trump used the crisis atmosphere to press for extraordinary executive actions. In private and public, he floated plans for new domestic security measures, such as fast-tracking a federal “Anti-Political Violence” bill to broaden definitions of terrorism and empower federal forces to intervene in states. He mused about invoking emergency powers to deploy federal agents to “antifa hotspots” in Democrat-run cities – framing it as preventing the next Kirk-style attack. “Our country is being devoured by violent anarchists,” Trump proclaimed, arguing that drastic steps were needed. While civil libertarians bristled, his base cheered what they saw as long-overdue action. Notably, Trump ordered U.S. flags to half-staff for Kirk and attempted a moment of silence in Congress (which devolved into partisan shouting), theatrically underscoring the notion of a nation under internal attack.
- Purge and unify his political base: The Kirk incident also gave Trump leverage to quell dissent within Republican ranks. Any GOP voices urging caution or bipartisanship could now be slammed as weak in the face of “left-wing terror.” In fact, Trump and his allies explicitly tied loyalty to Trump with loyalty to Kirk’s memory – suggesting that to question Trump’s narrative was akin to disrespecting a fallen hero. The party quickly fell in line. Hardliners like House Speaker Mike Johnson echoed “this is not who we are” platitudes while firmly backing Trump’s crackdown rhetoric. Even Republican moderates who had harbored doubts about Trump’s more authoritarian impulses found themselves muted, lest they appear unsympathetic to Kirk. In short, Kirk’s martyrdom helped Trump further fuse the GOP to Trumpism, rallying conservatives around a shared sense of persecution and “vengeance.” “Support Trump = support Kirk = support law and order” became an implied equation.
Trump’s actions have not been mere bluster either. In the wake of the assassination, his administration has already taken concrete steps that expand presidential authority in the name of security. For example, the Department of Justice – led by Trump loyalists – announced the reactivation of a special task force on “political extremism” aimed primarily at left-wing groups. The FBI, under a Trump-appointed director, has reallocated resources to focus on domestic dissent: whistleblowers describe a shift toward surveilling anti-establishment activists, on orders “from the top,” since the Kirk shooting. President Trump even posthumously awarded Charlie Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom, highlighting Kirk’s sacrifice and signaling to his supporters that their side now has a martyr-hero recognized by the state.
In summary, no one has capitalized on Kirk’s death more openly than Donald Trump. It has allowed him to supercharge his law-and-order agenda, cast himself and his movement as the victims-turned-avengers, and potentially intimidate opponents by painting them as security threats. All of this feeds directly into Trump’s bid to return to power in 2025. Kirk’s demise, in effect, became political fuel for Trump’s “American Comeback” campaign – a grim irony, given that Kirk lost his life while kicking off a tour by that very name.
2. Far-Right Media and the MAGA Base – A Martyr to Galvanize Supporters
Closely tied to Trump’s benefit is the boost the broader MAGA movement and right-wing media have gained from Kirk’s martyrdom. Kirk was a beloved figure in pro-Trump conservative circles; his sudden death has been used to supercharge grassroots fervor and lock in the narrative of an existential battle against the left. In the hours and days after the shooting, influential far-right commentators turned Kirk into a cause célèbre and mobilizing symbol:
- Inciting a “War” Narrative: Almost immediately, pundits like Steve Bannon, Jesse Watters, and even Elon Musk (who has increasingly aligned with right-wing culture war rhetoric) declared Kirk’s assassination an act of war by the left. “Charlie Kirk is a casualty of war… We are at war in this country,” Bannon thundered on his podcast, explicitly framing every conservative as a potential target. Commentator Matt Walsh tweeted that “we are up against demonic forces from the pit of Hell…a fight for our own existence”. This incendiary messaging – absent any evidence of the killer’s motive at the time – served to ignite outrage among rank-and-file Republicans and MAGA faithful. It fosters a siege mentality: the idea that “they are coming for us, so we must fight back.” Such fear and anger can be powerful motivators for voter turnout, donations, and unquestioning loyalty to movement leaders.
- Calls for Retribution and Hardline Policies: The MAGA media ecosystem did not stop at mourning Kirk; they demanded “vengeance and retribution”. Prominent voices called for aggressive measures ranging from ramped-up prosecutions of leftist protesters to arming conservative students on campuses. On Fox News, host Jesse Watters argued “This can never happen again. It ends now. … Everybody’s accountable – the politicians, the media, all these rats out there”, effectively urging a purge of those deemed hostile to conservatives. The cacophony of “It ends now” and “fight or die” rhetoric creates a public mood that gives political cover for extreme actions by authorities (as initiated by Trump, discussed above). In other words, the base’s clamoring for a crackdown helps normalize the draconian moves that Trump wants to implement. It’s a feedback loop of radicalization: Kirk’s death inflames the base; the enraged base then legitimizes whatever measures are taken in Kirk’s name.
- Deepening the Us-vs-Them Divide: By martyring Kirk, far-right influencers have also managed to drown out moderate voices and nuance in the conversation. Any suggestion of waiting for facts or lowering the temperature has been castigated as weakness or betrayal. Even calls from former presidents Obama and Biden for calm and bipartisan reflection were swept aside. Instead, the dominant right-wing narrative has been one of total polarization: good (patriots like Kirk) versus evil (the “demonic” left). This absolutist framing effectively locks in Trump’s base – if the other side is literally out to kill you and destroy America, how could a true patriot even consider voting for anyone but Trump or deviating from the MAGA line? Thus, Kirk’s martyr status has become a tool to enforce ideological conformity and enthusiasm in Trump’s ranks.
Indeed, early indications suggest a surge of grassroots activity following Kirk’s death. Turning Point USA and affiliated conservative student groups have reported a flood of new sign-ups and donations, with young conservatives invoking Kirk’s name as a reason to “get involved” and “fight back.” Across right-wing online forums, Kirk is being hallowed as a symbol of “free speech under fire” and “the price paid for patriotism.” Memes and hashtags like #JusticeForKirk and #CultureWarCasualty trended among conservative users, keeping public attention fixed on the narrative that Kirk’s fate could befall any Trump supporter. This narrative of shared victimhood and defiance could prove crucial in energizing turnout in the upcoming election. As one far-right blog bluntly put it: “They killed Charlie to silence us. Instead, we’ll roar for Charlie at the ballot box.”
In summary, the MAGA movement and its media amplifiers have gained a rallying icon and a potent emotional rallying cry from Kirk’s assassination. The tragedy has been harnessed to galvanize the base, justify hardline policies, and silence internal dissent – all of which ultimately accrue to the benefit of Donald Trump’s political fortunes, reinforcing the synergy between Trump and his most fervent supporters.
3. Israeli Hardliners – Leverage for Unconditional U.S. Support
Beyond U.S. domestic politics, an arguably unexpected beneficiary of Kirk’s killing can be found overseas: the right-wing Israeli leadership under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies. Charlie Kirk was one of the most prominent pro-Israel voices in American conservatism; his death at the hands of an apparent leftist assassin (the suspect Robinson’s social media reportedly included anti-fascist and pro-LGBT content, fueling assumptions about his ideology) played directly into the Israeli right’s narrative and interests. Here’s how:
Instant Martyrdom for Israel’s Cause: Israeli officials wasted no time in appropriating Kirk’s memory as a symbol for their struggle. Mere minutes after news broke of the shooting, Netanyahu posted on X (Twitter) mourning Kirk as a “lion-hearted friend of Israel” who “stood tall for Judeo-Christian civilization”. Other Israeli leaders echoed this adulation. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar hailed Kirk as an “incredible friend” and claimed, “He was murdered for [defending truth and freedom].” In Israel’s telling, Kirk died because he supported Israel and Western values – implying his killer was motivated by hatred of those values. The most extreme statement came from Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s ultranationalist National Security Minister, who explicitly tied Kirk’s death to the grand clash Israel frames itself part of: “The collusion between the global Left and radical Islam is the greatest danger to humanity today,” Ben-Gvir wrote, adding, “Charlie Kirk saw the danger and warned about it. But the bullets of the despicable murderer struck him.”. This remarkable statement essentially casts Kirk’s assassination as proof of a global left-Islamist conspiracy – exactly the narrative line that Netanyahu’s hard-right government pushes to justify its policies.
By elevating Kirk as a martyr “slain by the global left”, Israeli hardliners achieve two things. First, they rally their domestic base and Jewish-American supporters by reinforcing the idea that critics of Israel (whom they lump with the “global left”) are dangerous and antisemitic. Second, they put moral pressure on the U.S. establishment: how can Washington leaders not side wholeheartedly with Israel when even prominent Americans are (supposedly) being killed by the same “forces” that oppose Israel? Netanyahu and his allies have effectively used Kirk’s blood to bind the American right even closer to Israel. The narrative is that “we are in the same fight” – whether in Jerusalem or Orem, Utah, the enemies (leftists, Islamists) are one and the same.
Influence on U.S. Policy and Aid: This narrative boost comes at a critical time. Netanyahu’s government has faced growing criticism, even from some U.S. Republicans, over the scale of civilian casualties in Gaza and an airstrike on Qatar. But now, sympathy generated by Kirk’s death provides a convenient distraction and justification. Already, pro-Israel lobbying groups in the U.S. have cited Kirk’s assassination in calls for tougher action against anti-Israel sentiment on American soil. There are reports that some GOP lawmakers, after consulting with Israeli contacts, plan to introduce a resolution linking Kirk’s murder to a rise in “antisemitic violence” fueled by criticism of Israel – a stretch, given no evidence of the shooter’s views on Israel, but politically potent.
More tangibly, the incident may help unlock additional U.S. aid or military support for Israel. President Trump, ever eager to please his pro-Israel evangelical base and Israeli donors, responded to the outpouring of grief by fast-tracking certain defense initiatives. Within days, the administration signaled support for an “Emergency Security Package” for Israel, ostensibly to bolster security amid concerns of Iran or Hezbollah exploiting the chaos. This package includes expedited delivery of advanced U.S. weaponry. While not directly linked to Kirk in rationale, the political capital to push it through was certainly bolstered by the pro-Israel fervor his death sparked. (It wouldn’t be the first time – earlier in 2025 Trump approved $7.4 billion in arms sales to Israel despite Congressional concerns, and such moves are now even easier to defend publicly.)
It’s also worth noting the financial-political loop at play: Kirk’s staunch pro-Israel stance had earned him connections to wealthy Jewish-American donors and Israeli figures. Those same interests now have every incentive to promote Kirk’s legacy (and, by extension, keep Trump in power). There are hints of a tacit quid pro quo in operation. Israeli leaders leveraging Kirk’s martyrdom help Trump rally his base and justify policies; in return, a Trump-led U.S. would continue granting Netanyahu’s government carte blanche support. In essence, Kirk’s death becomes a bargaining chip strengthening the alliance: Israel’s government gets a U.S. blank check to “fight the global left and Islam,” and Trump fortifies his position as Israel’s greatest champion in U.S. politics, which pays dividends with certain voter blocs and donors.
In conclusion, the Israeli far-right and Netanyahu’s circle have derived clear propaganda and strategic benefits from Kirk’s assassination. It has given them a high-profile martyr to wield in the battle for American hearts and minds, potentially ensuring even less U.S. tolerance for criticism of Israeli actions. “Who benefits?” In this case, those who want an ever tighter U.S.-Israel alignment – and the silencing of pro-Palestinian sentiment – have found a useful (if ghoulish) tool in Charlie Kirk’s tragic demise.
4. The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex – Profiting from Fear and Conflict
When instability and fear grip a nation, there is often a material beneficiary lurking in the background: the defense industry. The assassination of Charlie Kirk – and the consequent ratcheting up of domestic and international tensions – has not gone unnoticed by America’s military contractors and strategic power brokers. While less visibly involved, this “military-industrial complex” (to borrow President Eisenhower’s famous term) stands to gain in several ways:
- Surging Demand for Security and Arms: In the wake of Kirk’s killing, the political narrative (as described above) has emphasized an atmosphere of threats – both domestic “radical” threats and international dangers (like emboldened terrorists or hostile regimes). This narrative provides justification for increased spending on security infrastructure. Already, there are calls to fortify venues for political events, beef up campus security, and expand federal protective details for controversial figures. Who supplies the technology, equipment, and arms for such measures? Defense and security contractors do. From surveillance systems to body scanners to riot control gear, companies in the security sector are likely anticipating new contracts as the “war on political violence” ramps up.
- Weaponizing Foreign Policy Tensions: Simultaneously, the Israel-related turmoil and talk of “global war” against enemies have spurred moves to bolster U.S. military aid abroad. As noted, Trump’s administration is forwarding an expedited arms sale and aid package to Israel (worth billions). Such deals directly enrich major U.S. defense firms like Boeing and Lockheed Martin – in fact, a $6.75 billion munitions package approved in February included Boeing-made JDAM guidance kits and a separate $660 million Hellfire missile sale benefited Lockheed. These figures could climb higher now. The more America is convinced that we are under siege (whether from “leftist terrorists” at home or Iran-backed militants abroad), the more politically palatable it becomes to funnel money into weapons and military hardware. Fear is good for the arms business.
- Lobbying and Political Influence: The defense industry’s lobbyists are adept at seizing moments like this. They are likely in Congressmembers’ ears, arguing that Kirk’s assassination and the ongoing instability overseas mean we must “keep America strong and prepared.” Already, Congress was considering budget increases for the Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon in response to rising political violence. Those budgets often include funding for everything from advanced drones to cybersecurity to counterterrorism task forces – all lucrative contracts. By pushing the angle that Kirk’s murder is part of a larger pattern of chaos, lobbyists bolster the case for not cutting defense spending (despite some isolationist sentiment in both parties) and perhaps even for emergency authorizations that bypass typical oversight (much as Trump declared a national emergency in 2019 to rush arms to Middle East allies).
It’s telling that on Wall Street, defense stocks rose modestly in the days after the shooting, even as the broader market wavered. Investors likely sense that the political response will involve heightened security commitments. If one follows the money, one finds that the chaos of the moment aligns with the interests of defense manufacturers who thrive in times of conflict and fear. While they would never publicly cheer an assassination, the reality is that a country on edge is great for business if your business is selling weapons or security tech.
In sum, the military-industrial complex benefits by quietly riding the wave of alarm and mobilization triggered by Kirk’s death. The incident indirectly fuels defense spending and entrenches the narrative of a dangerous world that demands high readiness (and thus high procurement). Thus, in the cynical accounting of “cui bono,” one must include those who profit when America arms itself to the teeth – even if their gain is counted in dollars, not votes.
5. Law Enforcement and the “Deep State” – Expanded Powers and Legitimacy
Finally, we turn to a more nuanced beneficiary: elements of the law enforcement and security apparatus – sometimes colloquially dubbed the “deep state” – that have found their remit and authority expanded in the name of combating political violence. This might seem ironic, given that the “deep state” (federal agencies like the FBI, DOJ, intelligence community) is often vilified in MAGA lore. Yet, in a twist, Trump’s handling of the Kirk fallout has actually allowed him to co-opt parts of the security establishment to serve his agenda, thereby aligning their interests with his.
Consider the FBI’s role: After Kirk’s shooting, the FBI took charge of the investigation alongside Utah authorities, eventually capturing the suspect in just over a day. FBI Director Kash Patel, a controversial Trump-appointed figure, hailed the case as a triumph of law enforcement partnership. Patel – who had previously been under fire for purging several senior FBI officials viewed as insufficiently loyal to Trump – got a much-needed win and public relations boost. He stood beside Governor Cox announcing the arrest and lavishing praise on Trump for having the FBI’s back with resources. In essence, the Bureau’s leadership was able to wrap itself in Kirk’s mantle as well, using the moment to push back against critics and justify recent internal upheavals. An AP report noted that Patel was heading into congressional hearings facing questions about politicization of the FBI, but the Kirk case offered him a heroic narrative to present instead.
More broadly, federal agencies have seized on Kirk’s assassination as evidence that they need broader powers to monitor and prevent domestic extremism. The Department of Justice quickly announced it would redouble efforts against “politically motivated violence” and hinted at seeking new legal tools – which could include loosened restrictions on surveillance or harsher penalties for politically related offenses. Such measures often raise civil liberties concerns, but in the current climate there is bipartisan lip service to “doing something” to stop political violence. This grants law enforcement a green light to push the envelope. Already, there are reports of FBI agents more aggressively interviewing activists on both far left and far right (though critics note an imbalance in focus). The key point is: the security agencies can argue, “See, we told you political extremism is a serious threat. Give us the resources and latitude to tackle it.” And they are receiving them.
For the elements within these agencies that prioritize order and stability (even at the cost of overreach), Kirk’s murder has been something of a rallying event to justify their missions. Even some who might privately chafe at Trump’s politicization of their work find public support when they crack down on “violent radicals.” It’s a symbiotic dynamic: Trump demands a crackdown that happens to align with many law-and-order types’ of instincts, and in carrying it out, they rehabilitate themselves from the “deep state villain” label because now they’re serving Trump’s goals. It’s an astonishing turnaround from a couple years ago when Trump railed against the FBI; now his administration touts the FBI’s “historic” fast work in the Kirk case.
Of course, not all within the federal security structure are comfortable with this alignment. Some FBI veterans worry about excesses and politicization, as highlighted by internal turmoil and lawsuits over Patel’s purges. But publicly, for now, the security establishment’s stature is on the rise. There’s talk on Capitol Hill of giving the FBI more funding for domestic counterterrorism and even revisiting laws to make “incitement of political violence” an explicit federal crime. These are powers the government has long wanted but struggled to justify – until events like this tilt public opinion.
In short, the domestic security apparatus – from federal agents to intelligence analysts – has benefited in terms of authority, resources, and public legitimacy. Charlie Kirk’s assassin may have sought to strike a blow against a political enemy, but the outcome has been a strengthening of the very security forces that, under Trump’s influence, are being marshaled against left-wing activism. It is a sobering paradox: a “deep state” allegedly hostile to Trump is now effectively empowered and partially domesticated by Trump to go after his foes. For those career officials whose priority is expanded jurisdiction and budgets, that is a rewarding outcome indeed.
Conclusion: The Dark Calculus of “Who Benefits”
In the aftermath of an assassination, especially one as politically charged as that of Charlie Kirk, it’s natural to search for meaning and motive. Sometimes that search veers into conspiracy theories, other times into hard-nosed analysis of real-world power dynamics. By examining “who benefits,” we do not claim to unveil a hidden mastermind behind Kirk’s murder – the evidence at hand still points to a lone gunman with idiosyncratic grievances. However, the consequences of this act of violence have undeniably been harnessed by various players to advance their own ends.
At first glance, it may appear that Donald Trump has emerged as the chief beneficiary. Indeed, he has expertly wielded the incident to fortify his campaign narrative, rally his followers, and intimidate opponents under the guise of restoring order. Kirk’s death gave Trump exactly the kind of polarizing, emotional issue that galvanizes his movement; one ally’s blood has fueled another ally’s bid for power. If one were inclined to cynicism, one might say Kirk has proven more useful to Trump in martyrdom than he even was in life.
Yet, as our analysis shows, the circle of beneficiaries widens out from Trump. It encompasses surrogates and media agitators who thrive on cultural strife, foreign hardliners like Netanyahu who welcomed a martyr in their crusade against the “global left,” industries that profit from conflict, and security institutions that feed on expanded authority. In a way, what we observe is an alignment of interests between ostensibly disparate groups. Trump the anti-establishment firebrand, the Israeli right, the Pentagon suppliers, the federal law-and-order machinery – all find common cause in the narrative and outcomes spurred by this assassination. Each gain something: power, money, legitimacy, or leverage.
This points to a deeper, more unsettling truth about American politics in 2025. Beneath the surface of partisan battling, there is a kind of feedback loop between the “establishment” and the “anti-establishment.” A radical act (like an assassination) sends shockwaves that establishment forces (military, security, foreign allies) respond to with more crackdowns and control – which the anti-establishment leader (Trump) in turn uses to stitch together a coalition of those forces in his favor. It’s an almost paradoxical collusion: both insiders and outsiders of the system benefitting from chaos, even as they publicly blame each other for it.
At the center of this storm lies Charlie Kirk – or rather, the memory of him. In death, Kirk has become a symbol onto which each faction projects its needs: a martyr for free speech; a victim of leftist hate; a hero for Israel; a reason to beef up security. The true tragedy is that a young father and provocateur lost his life. The danger is that his death is now being used to stoke a narrative of inevitable conflict that can justify almost anything.
“Cui bono?” is a question that rarely yields comfortable answers. In this case, it reveals an array of beneficiaries that collectively form a dark alliance of convenience – one that thrives on division and fear. It is a reminder that in our modern political climate, even heinous acts of violence become commodities to be exploited. As the nation moves forward, one hopes that truth and justice – rather than expedience and manipulation – ultimately guide our responses. Otherwise, we risk a future where the answer to “who benefits?” will increasingly be those who feed on our worst instincts.