Charlie Kirk and the Surge in Christian Nationalism in the USA

• The USA is witnessing a surge in Christian nationalism, moving from private faith to public political activism, shaping courts, elections, and cultural debates, with Charlie Kirk and TPUSA at the forefront.
• Kirk’s advocacy for free speech challenged progressive “cancel culture,” framing leftist suppression of dissent as a threat to the First Amendment, while critics feared Christian nationalism would itself erode pluralism.
• The growing alignment of left-liberal coalitions with Islamist groups, and the right’s increasing embrace of religion-based politics, reflects deepening polarisation threatening democratic pluralism.
• Charlie Kirk’s assassination is likely to accelerate conservative Christian political mobilisation, potentially pushing America toward greater culture-war clashes over religion, identity, and civil liberties.

James Madison is considered the architect of the Constitution of the United States of America. He once wrote in The Federalist Papers, “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm”, and that while wise leaders may occasionally rise, they cannot be counted on to consistently prevail over the “interested and overbearing majority”. His argument has held throughout the ages; human nature and the corrupting influence of factions will dictate the future of any nation.

Though it cannot be empirically proven that the founding fathers of the United States of America were Deists, what they managed to conjure and create a society, it can be said that the founding fathers were a combination wherein they embraced deism reasoning blended with more traditional Christian faith. But one thing was clear, the state will not have a religion and the consanguinity of the state and the Church will not be permitted. However, after the end of the Second World War, America has seen the rise of “Christian nationalism” or “Christian America” rhetoric that has played an important role in the political alignments, institutions, and political culture. And with the cold-blooded assassination of Charlie Kirk, who created Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the rise of Christian nationalism may have reached terminal velocity.

Kirk’s memorial service felt more like the rebirth of conservative activism combined with religious rhetoric that will have influence on elections, judicial politics, and the culture wars that we have seen on so many campuses. This essay is an attempt to analyse and trace the historical and sociopolitical roots of the movement and how the Republican Party under President Donald Trump has moved away from Compassionate Conservatism to Christian Nationalism that will shape the future of politics and its potential violent clash with leftist progressive coalitions, including alliances with Muslim organisations. But mainly, how it will affect the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech and its limits. 

There has always been an invisible divide in America between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. But as Madison had said, Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. America now faces the spectre of the end of democratic pluralism and civil debate.

America and Religion 

Religion never left American politics, and since 1776, its influence and institutional reach in public life have fluctuated across eras. When America was fighting the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, who never joined a church and was deeply private about his faith, struggled with rationalism and faith. Lincoln was known to be sceptical of organised religion, but the Civil War and the death of hundreds of thousands of people led to a deepening of his religious feelings and a turn away from earlier scepticism. Lincoln repeatedly invoked Christian principles in his public and private statements, even though he always rejected the rigid doctrines of the church.

However, the early 21st century has seen a notable resurgence of explicitly religious political projects that go beyond private faith to propose that the U.S. should be culturally, if not constitutionally, a Christian nation. And now there is an open call for “Christian nationalism,” or Christian America, and it has entered into the marrow of its politics, courts, schools, civic institutions, and voting blocs. Recent surveys show only a minority supports making Christianity the official religion, but a larger share endorses promoting Christian values in public life, an important distinction that helps explain the current politics. 

Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA

Charlie Kirk founded TPUSA as a campus conservative network in 2012 and turned it into an expansive youth organising and media ecosystem. Under his leadership, the group created campus presence, social-media content, donor networks, and affiliated initiatives (including “Turning Point Faith”) to fuse political mobilisation with religious language and organisational networks. TPUSA took full advantage of social media platforms and soon managed to generate viral videos. His most popular activity was the “Prove Me Wrong”, which he conducted on various campuses, which the left-liberals simply could not counter. 

His voice became even more prominent after Joe Biden became President, and how the left-liberal cabal controlled social media platforms like Twitter, now X and how they had the power to de-platform anyone whom they considered subversive or fascist. His platform was the force that mobilised young voters aligned with Trump-era political priorities and conservative religious networks. 

Kirk was brilliant, but he was also controversial with some of his views. To his credit, he never tried to silence anyone’s voice who wanted to debate him and that made it possible to normalise his political, cultural, and religious struggle as an existential, moral and spiritual crisis in America. He used nationalism, traditionalist social policies (on abortion, gender and family), and scepticism of pluralist multicultural frames. 

Christian America

Conservative politicians never clamoured hard when it came to “Christian nationalism”, as it was seen as too extreme. The best example was the Tea Party movement, which caught the attention of the people, but due to its extreme views, the movement and its leaders soon fizzled out because Americans were Centrist by nature and leaned left and right on some issues.

However, under the current social climate in America, religion is now playing an active role in governance, reflecting Christian moral principles. It seems there will be a clash between political dialectics and religious dogma as some political actors will see this as an opportunity to seek a theocracy, arguing that laws and civic culture should favour “Christian values.” 

America could head towards a place where activists will seek to influence judicial appointments, state legislatures, school boards, and administrative agencies that are Christian-friendly. This process has already started after Trump stacked the U.S. Supreme Court with conservative judges. But can the conservative right be blamed for this, because if the democratic party, which has now been taken over by radical left socialists, had done the same, so they can influence legal and policy winds that advance priorities such as zero restrictions on abortion, unreasonable implementation of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion practices, etc. These trends have been observable in multiple recent election cycles and in judicial confirmations. 

The Clash with the Left, Liberal Coalitions, and Muslim 

Perhaps the most binding factor for Republicans right now is the collusion of the “left-liberal-Islamists” who Kirk saw as an existential threat. In the U.S., how they have managed to influence and take over universities is one good example, and they have always had the media. Progressive/Left movements and liberal institutions had always postured to be committed to pluralism and free speech, but with the inclusion of Islamist political organisations like CAIR, they became strange bedfellows, as both virtue signal each other. Charlie Kirk was able to expose this aspect in America and was called a racist and Islamophobic.

Even in India, unruly behaviour by the Left and Islamists is expected to be tolerated, as it is viewed through the prism of the Left, which is deemed to be defending civil liberties and confronting Islamophobia. But tensions arise where progressive frameworks (like intersectional anti-racism) collide with conservative social mores or where Islamist actors seek to impose religious law or support illiberal practices that are against progressive thinking. But the main issue Kirk confronted was on gender and sexual equality, and the LGBTQ rights and men in women’s sports.

Progressive liberals often emphasised protecting minority communities, but, in the U.S., just as in India, the left has undermined the majority and its traditions, and of tolerating illiberal practices in the name of multiculturalism, which is an issue that has gripped the West. But where the left has failed is in their abdication of liberal defence of pluralist rights that must be accompanied by principled critique of illiberal practices when they arise. The result is an unstable political ecology in which debates about equality, religious liberty, and national identity are intensely contested, often leading to threats and violence. 

Free Speech Under The Garb Of Cancel Culture 

Charlie Kirk also managed to highlight the left-liberal practice of cancel culture that has destroyed public debate, which was the envy of the world. It is a reality that universities, corporations and the media in the West did police speech and punished dissenting viewpoints. This also galvanised support for Kirk, who stood for free speech laws protecting controversial campus speakers or legislation aimed at social media platforms.

There was a time when the liberals in America lived by the word of Voltaire, who said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, but now they are the force majeure when it comes to deplatforming. Many on the Left argue that speech has consequences; hate speech, harassment, and dehumanising rhetoric can cause real harm. Ironically, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) once defended the free-speech rights of a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago with a large Jewish population (including many Holocaust survivors). But that is not the case anymore, and this is threatening the First Amendment – the right to free speech.

However, claims that the United States faces an immediate constitutional end to free speech overstate the case, but it is getting there, and Western Europe, in many ways, already has. Kirk/TPUSA used this as a rally point and highlighted how deplatforming has been selective and argued for free speech, which the Left called hate speech. 

Liberals saw Charlie Kirk’s Christian-nationalist politics as an end to democratic pluralism and the erosion of liberal constitutionalism. They feared that eventually state power would be used to privilege one religious tradition or to impose religiously-informed restrictions on minority rights. But at the same time, the Left was doing the same by muzzling the voices of those who disagreed with them.

From a widely discussed area of First Amendment scholarship, civil-liberties debates, and political theory, free speech claims can be used tactically to shield rhetoric that dehumanises minorities; conversely, calls to “protect” minorities can be weaponised into illiberal restrictions if not carefully constrained by rights-based principles. Nadine Strossen, who is an American legal scholar and civil liberties activist who served as the president of the ACLU, said it best, “History shows that hate-speech laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive, often suppressing the very groups they are designed to protect.”

Religion is not secular, but it does possess the power that can enrich life, ferment civic service, and moral reflection. However, in the modern secular democratic political system, when religious identity becomes the sole lodestar of national belonging and threatens pluralism, it is not good news for any nation. The current climate in America demonstrates this possibility. Charlie Kirk’s brutal murder can be mobilised into exclusionary politics. This resulted in conflicts with progressive coalitions of Muslims and Hindus.

One can argue that the United States of America was founded on Judeo-Christian values, but the founding fathers knew that a theocratic state would only lead to ruin, as there were many sects within Christianity. So, they came up with the idea of the separation of Church and State, which is now in grave danger, and Charlie Kirk’s death will be used for mobilisation.

There is a strange commonality between Christians, Muslims, and Leftists. They all like strong leaders who see them as shepherds to protect them from the wolves. But that is the nature of the Abrahamic/socialist culture. From Prophet Moses to Prophet Mohammad and Stalin, Hitler and Mao. All of them were strong-willed, and Trump is not far behind. When a religion or a political ideology views its people like sheep, they will one day be led to slaughter.

One thing is certain: Charlie Kirk will become the patron saint of Christian America, soon.

References:

1. _{Pew Research Centre. Christianity’s place in politics, and ‘Christian nationalism’. (analysis and surveys on attitudes about Christianity and public life). Pew Research Centre}
2. _{Pew Research Centre. Views of the U.S. as a ‘Christian nation’ and opinions about Christian nationalism (2022 survey data). Pew Research Centre}
3. _{PBS NewsHour. How Charlie Kirk helped shape a conservative force for a new generation. (reporting on Kirk, TPUSA and youth mobilisation). PBS}
4. _{Yale/ISPS briefing and research on Understanding White Christian Nationalism (conference and scholarly assessments). isps.yale.edu}
5. _{Berkeley/Belonging Project. Consequences of Islamophobia on Civil Liberties and Muslim Americans (reports on impacts and surveillance). Othering & Belonging Institute}
6. _{The Guardian. The US right claimed free speech was sacred – until the Charlie Kirk killing (analysis of free-speech rhetoric and its contradictions). The Guardian}
7. _{E-IR / PolicyExchange / Fondapol and other analyses on left-Islamist tensions and strange alliances (for debates about progressive coalitions and Islamist actors).} 
8. _{Nadine Strossen, Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship (2018)}

Balaji Subramanian

_{Balaji is a freelance writer with an MA in History and Political science and has published articles on defence and strategic affairs and book reviews. He tweets @LaxmanShriram78. Views expressed are the author’s own.}