Politicising Kirk’s murder, Trump gags freedom of speech

The murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk has now reached far beyond just a tragedy—it is being used as a political weapon.

Two recent incidents—the attempt to designate the Antifa (short for 'Anti-fascist') movement as a 'terrorist organisation', and Jimmy Kimmel's removal from air—expose a disturbing trend that in today's US, free expression is allowed only when it serves those in power.

Posting on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, Trump described Antifa as a "sick, dangerous, radical left disaster", as well as a "major terrorist organisation". But ironically, Antifa is a loosely organised band of activists opposed to right-wing ideology that lacks a distinct leader, structure or membership list, which makes it unclear who or what exactly Trump plans to designate.

However, Trump's plan is not new. During his first term, he also threatened to designate Antifa a terrorist organisation in the wake of widespread protests across the US in response to the killing of unarmed Black man George Floyd in May 2020.

Legal scholars and analysts said at the time that Trump had no legal authority to declare such a designation on a domestic group in the US, the same way Washington does with foreign entities.

Mary McCord, a former senior Department of Justice official, told Al Jazeera during Trump's first term that there was no mechanism for "designating domestic organisations as terrorist organisations" and Trump's attempts to designate Antifa would "raise significant First Amendment concerns".

The idea of branding Antifa as a terrorist entity has been more about optics than actual national security concerns. It provides a ready-made villain to rally supporters around, especially in moments of political tension. In the wake of Kirk's murder, Trump and his allies have revived this rhetoric, insinuating that anti-fascist groups were involved or at least morally responsible.

But this raises an even larger issue. If dissenting groups and ideologies can be criminalised under the banner of 'terrorism', what does that mean for free expression in the US? 

This shows how the label 'terrorist' is being used against political opponents. It's not just about Antifa—it sets a dangerous precedent where any movement that challenges those in power could be called terrorism. Protesting against fascism, or even supporting anti-fascist ideas, can lead to surveillance, harassment, or legal trouble.

Meanwhile, the case of Jimmy Kimmel illustrates how even cultural critique and satire are now under siege. Kimmel, long known for his sharp commentary, was suddenly taken off air after making comments about Kirk that cut too close to the political sensitivities of the moment.

In Monday's opening monologue, Jimmy accused "the MAGA gang" (referring to the Trump administration) of exploiting Kirk's murder to "score political points", noting they rushed to blame the left before the shooter's motives were clear.

"The MAGA gang (is) desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it," Kimmel said on his show. "In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving," he added.

He continued to criticise Trump's reaction to the shooting, "This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish." The comments sparked outrage among conservatives and drew pushback from the Trump administration.

Democrats criticised the decision to suspend his show. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts called it censorship "in action". FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the federal body's only Democratic member, said US free speech laws should prevent the commission from telling broadcasters what they may air. "This administration is increasingly using the weight of government power to suppress lawful expression," she told CNN.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Senator Adam Schiff from California said the Trump administration was "responsible for the most blatant attacks on the free press in American history".

What ties the recent two incidents together is the way Kirk's murder is being politicised to justify restrictions on free speech. The irony is that the United States has long branded itself as a champion of free expression, lecturing other nations about censorship, repression, and the importance of open debate. But at home, when faced with political inconvenience, the same values are eroded. 

Declaring movements as terrorist organisations without evidence, and censoring TV show hosts for their satire, brings the US closer to the very authoritarian playbook it claims to oppose globally.