J.D. Vance presents The Charlie Kirk Show

Charlie Kirk’s assassination was a shock to the conservative movement and a tragedy for those who knew him personally. For Vice President J.D. Vance, Kirk wasn’t just another conservative influencer – he was a close friend, a mentor and an ally who helped introduce him to donors and gave him a platform when he was still an unknown Senate candidate. Hosting The Charlie Kirk Show from the White House was, in many ways, a natural act of loyalty. It was also a rare moment of vulnerability from a politician often cast as calculating: a man honoring his fallen friend.

But even in mourning, there is a temptation in politics that must be resisted – the temptation to turn personal loss into partisan ammunition. And that’s where Vance’s tribute stepped onto shakier ground.

During the broadcast, Vance vowed to “go after” left-wing NGOs he accused of “fomenting and facilitating violence.” One of his guests, former Trump advisor Stephen Miller, sharpened the point, warning against “unfocused anger” while urging conservatives to direct “righteous anger” against political enemies. The message was unmistakable: Kirk’s death would not only be remembered – it would be weaponized.

This is the wrong lesson to draw from such a brutal killing.

No one should minimize the rage conservatives feel at losing a friend and ally to political violence. But the danger lies in making Kirk’s death the justification for sweeping crackdowns on vaguely defined “left-wing NGOs” or in portraying one side of the political spectrum as inherently violent. Such rhetoric may rally the base, but it also feeds the very cycle of polarization that makes political violence more likely, not less.

The truth is uncomfortable for both sides: violence is not the monopoly of the left or the right. The left can point to January 6. The right can point to last week’s shooting in Utah. Neither side escapes blame. If conservatives want to honor Charlie Kirk honestly, we must be willing to admit that political violence is an American problem before it is a partisan one.

That doesn’t mean ignoring ideology. Kirk’s own career was built on identifying ideological excess – especially in higher education – and rallying young conservatives to push back. But it does mean that in the aftermath of his assassination, our first instinct should not be to widen the political battlefield. Vance’s vow to “go after” NGOs raises more questions than it answers. Who decides what qualifies as fomenting violence? Will this drag in any left-leaning nonprofit that criticizes the administration or stages protests? And do conservatives really want to hand the precedent of government crackdowns on nonprofits to future Democratic administrations?

This is the irony: in trying to honor Kirk, we risk betraying one of the principles he himself championed – free speech. Charlie Kirk was combative, sometimes divisive, but he thrived in the realm of debate. His strategy was not to silence his opponents, but to expose them, ridicule them, and out-organize them. For those who often disagreed with his methods, it’s important to note that Kirk himself built his career not by calling for government crackdowns, but by confronting his opponents directly. His approach was consistent: he thrived in the arena of debate, not in silencing dissent.

If the conservative movement takes Kirk’s death as a license to wield the state against its enemies, it will be pursuing power in a way that Kirk himself never had. Worse, it will entrench the very culture of “us versus them” politics that makes tragedies like this more likely.

The better path is harder but more worthy of Kirk’s legacy: to channel grief into discipline, not escalation. That means recommitting to building institutions that last, training the next generation of leaders and modeling the resilience that Kirk himself embodied. It means condemning political violence no matter who the target is, while refusing to let the other side dictate our terms of debate. And it means holding our leaders accountable when they risk turning mourning into opportunism.

To be clear: J.D. Vance’s tribute was not malicious. It was heartfelt, and it reflected real pain. But as conservatives, we must remember that personal grief does not excuse political overreach. The state should not become an instrument of vengeance. The conservative movement should not confuse righteous anger with unchecked power.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination is a wake-up call. It reminds us of the fragility of civil discourse and the dangers of living in a country where political opponents are increasingly seen as enemies to be destroyed rather than fellow citizens to be debated. If conservatives want to carry Kirk’s torch forward, we must not repeat that mistake.

Let the tribute stand as a reminder of his energy, his influence, and his drive. Honoring his life doesn’t require uncritical agreement with his politics. It requires recognizing the movement he built and refusing to let his death be used as justification for more division. But let us also reject the instinct to weaponize his death. That is how we honor his legacy – not by escalating division, but by proving that even in tragedy, our movement can choose principle over vengeance.