ideology

The suspect in the assassination of the conservative American activist Charlie Kirk espoused left-wing views, Utah’s governor has said, amid heightened tensions and recriminations over surging political violence in the United States.

In an interview with NBC News’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Utah Governor Spencer Cox said the arrested suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, had a “leftist ideology” despite growing up in a conservative family.

“We can confirm that, again, according to family and people that we’re interviewing, he does come from a conservative family. But his ideology was very different than his family, and so that’s part of it,” Cox said.

Cox, a Republican, did not elaborate on Robinson’s suspected motive, but said the suspect had spent time in “dark places” online.

“We do know, and again, this has been well publicised, that this was a very normal young man, a very smart young man,” Cox said.

According to public records, Robinson registered as a nonpartisan voter in Utah, while his parents are registered Republicans.

In a separate interview with CNN’s State of the Union, Cox said the information about Robinson’s left-wing views had come from interviews with family members and friends.

“I really don’t have a dog in this fight. If this was MAGA, and a radicalised MAGA person, I would be saying that as well,” Cox said, referring to US President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again movement.

“That’s not what they’re sharing.”

Cox also confirmed reports that Robinson had a romantic relationship with his transgender roommate, who was transitioning from male to female.

“This partner has been incredibly cooperative, had no idea that this was happening, and is working with investigators right now,” he said.

Cox said he was not aware if Robinson’s relationship had any relevance to the assassination, but that authorities were investigating.

“We’re trying to figure it out. I know everybody wants to know exactly why, and point the finger, and I totally get that. I do too,” he said.

Kirk, the leader and cofounder of youth activist group Turning Post USA and a close ally of Trump, was shot dead on Wednesday during a speaking appearance at Utah Valley University.

A key figure on the political right, Kirk was described in media profiles as a “rock star” among young conservatives, and played a pivotal role in driving the youth vote in Trump’s November re-election.

A polarising figure, Kirk was lionised by conservatives as a defender of traditional values and a champion of free speech, but seen by liberals as an incendiary figure who stoked hatred towards racial minorities and members of the LGBTQ community.

While both Republican and Democratic leaders have condemned Kirk’s murder, the killing has drawn attention to the extreme political polarisation pitting everyday Americans against one another.

In the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, some left-leaning Americans took to social media to celebrate, prompting outrage from conservatives and the launch of online campaigns to get people deemed disrespectful of Kirk’s memory fired from their jobs.

On the right, some figures invoked the rhetoric of retribution and war.

“If they won’t leave us in peace, then our choice is to fight or die,” tech billionaire Elon Musk said on X.

Trump, who swiftly denounced the rhetoric of the “radical left” after Kirk’s killing, has declined opportunities to stress the need for unity and avoid partisan blame since the assassination.

Speaking on Fox News’s Fox & Friends on Friday, Trump sought to paint left-wing extremism as worse than extremism on the right.

“The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime,” Trump said.

“The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible, and they’re politically savvy.”

In an interview with NBC News on Saturday, Trump said that while he would like to see the country heal, “we’re dealing with a radical left group of lunatics, and they don’t play fair and they never did”.

Kirk’s assassination has prompted fears of further violence amid a documented increase in politically motivated attacks.

According to a tally by the Reuters news agency, the US experienced at least 300 instances of political violence between the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol and the 2024 presidential election, marking it out as the worst period for such violence since the 1970s.

WASHINGTON — Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said Sunday that investigators are not ready to discuss the motive behind the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. But he said the 22-year-old suspect had left-leaning political beliefs and disliked the conservative influencer.

“Clearly a leftist ideology,” Cox told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” On CNN’s “State of the Union,” he said, “That information comes from the people around him, his family members and friends.”

Cox said that Tyler Robinson, who was arrested last week, is “not cooperating” and that friends paint a picture of someone radicalized in the dark corners of the internet. “Clearly there was a lot of gaming going on,” Cox said on NBC. “Friends have confirmed that there was kind of that deep, dark internet, the Reddit culture, and these other dark places of the internet where this person was going deep.”

Cox, a Republican who has urged all partisans to tone down their rhetoric following the attack, added: “I really don’t have a dog in this fight. If this was a radicalized MAGA person, I’d be saying that as well.”

Cox stressed on several Sunday morning news shows, however, that investigators are still trying to pin down a motive for the attack on Kirk, a father of two and confidant of President Trump who was killed Wednesday while on one of his signature college speaking tours at Utah Valley University in Orem. The governor said more information may come out once Robinson appears in court Tuesday.

The governor said Robinson’s partner is transgender, which some politicians have pointed to as a sign the suspect was targeting Kirk for his anti-trans views. But authorities have not said whether it is relevant as they investigate Robinson’s motive.

“The roommate was a romantic partner, a male transitioning to female,” Cox said. “I can say that he has been incredibly cooperative, this partner has been very cooperative, had no idea that this was happening.”

Investigators have spoken to Robinson’s relatives and carried out a search warrant at his family’s home in Washington, Utah, about 240 miles southwest of Utah Valley University.

State records show Robinson is registered to vote but not affiliated with a political party and is listed as inactive, meaning he did not vote in the two most recent general elections. His parents are registered Republicans.

Ammunition found with the weapon used to kill Kirk was engraved with taunting, antifascist and meme-culture messages. Court records show that one bullet casing had the message, “Hey, fascist! Catch!”

Robinson grew up around St. George, in the southwestern corner of Utah between Las Vegas and natural landmarks including Bryce Canyon and Zion national parks.

He became a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known widely as the Mormon church, at a young age, church spokesperson Doug Andersen said.

Robinson has two younger brothers, and his parents have been married for about 25 years, according to social media posts. Online activity by Robinson’s mother reflects an active family that took vacations to Disneyland, Hawaii, the Caribbean and Alaska.

Like many in that part of Utah, they frequently spent time outdoors — boating, fishing, riding ATVs, zip-lining and target shooting. A 2017 post shows the family visiting a military facility and posing with assault rifles. A young Robinson is seen smiling as he grips the handles of a .50-caliber heavy machine gun.

A high school honor roll student who scored in the 99th percentile nationally on standardized tests, he was admitted to Utah State University in 2021 on a prestigious academic scholarship, according to a video of him reading his acceptance letter that was posted to a family member’s social media account.

But he attended for only one semester, according to the university. He is currently enrolled as a third-year student in the electrical apprenticeship program at Dixie Technical College in St. George.

Riccardi and Boak write for the Associated Press and reported from Denver and Washington, respectively.

The Trump administration has canceled a sexual education grant to California worth about $12.3 million on the grounds that it included “radical gender ideology” after state officials refused to revise the materials.

The funding helps pay for sex education programs in juvenile justice facilities, homeless shelters and foster care group homes, as well as some schools, reaching an estimated 13,000 youths per year through 20 agencies.

State officials did not have an immediate response Thursday morning to the federal announcement, which was linked to a 60-day compliance deadline.

“California’s refusal to comply with federal law and remove egregious gender ideology from federally funded sex-ed materials is unacceptable,” said Acting Assistant Secretary Andrew Gradison, of the Administration for Children and Families. “The Trump Administration will not allow taxpayer dollars to be used to indoctrinate children. Accountability is coming for every state that uses federal funds to teach children delusional gender ideology.”

State officials had taken the position that its materials are accurate and did not violate the terms of the federal grant.

California is not being accused of failing to carry out the abstinence and contraception instruction funded by the grant. Rather, the state has included additional content that the Trump administration defines as objectionable and “outside the scope” of the grant’s purpose.

A June 20 letter to a senior California official cited, as one of several examples, sample wording from a middle school lesson:

“We’ve been talking during class about messages people get on how they should act as boys and girls — but as many of you know, there are also people who don’t identify as boys or girls, but rather as transgender or gender queer. This means that even if they were called a boy or a girl at birth and may have body parts that are typically associated with being a boy or a girl, on the inside, they feel differently.”

The California Department of Public Health responded in an Aug. 19 letter that it “will not make any such modifications at this time” because its materials already had been approved by the same agency that is now demanding change. In addition, officials described the materials as “medically accurate” and relevant to the instructional goals. California also challenged whether the Trump administration had authority to cancel the grant in this manner.

The amount of money at stake is small compared with other issues that are being litigated between California and the Trump administration, but the dispute embodies now-familiar legal parameters that have resulted in more than three dozen lawsuits.

The grant cancellation also represents another front in the conflict between the Trump administration and California related to LGBTQ+ issues. These culture war-fueled disputes date back substantially to Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order that recognized two sexes, male and female, a dictum that has moved across all departments under his jurisdiction.

In youth sports, this divide has unfolded with Trump threatening to withhold vast sums of federal funding unless California bars transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports.

California has responded by creating dual-award categories for women’s sporting events, so that the success of a trans athlete, in a track-and-field competition for example, would not prevent another athlete from winning an award. The compromise does not address the issue of trans athletes in women’s team sports, such as volleyball.

The Trump administration does not accept these steps taken by California as compliance with its directives.

Within the classroom, the Trump policy opposes curriculum that allows for more than a binary — male or female — expression of gender. Historically, federal authority over local curriculum has been limited, but Trump has been quick to use federal funding as leverage.

In this case, it’s the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that has been applying pressure.

The children and families department administers a grant program that annually distributes $75 million nationally “to educate adolescents on … both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS,” according to federal statute.

For a three-year period, through the next fiscal year, California has been allotted funding worth more than $18.2 million, according to Health and Human Services. Under the federal decision, the state is expected to lose $12.3 million that it has not yet received, covering multiple years.

The federal grant supports the California Personal Responsibility Education Program, or CA PREP, which provides “comprehensive sexual health education to adolescents via effective, evidence-based or evidence-informed program models,” according to a statement from the state.

“Data show that participants who completed CA PREP had a better understanding of sexual and reproductive health topics and improved health outcomes,” the health department stated.

The Trump administration does not deny that the federal government had previously approved the California materials, but said the Biden administration “erred in allowing PREP grants to be used to teach students gender ideology.”

California law requires school districts to provide students with comprehensive sexual health education, along with information about HIV prevention, at least once in high school and once in middle school.

The Trump administration has asserted complete authority over federal grants, including those in progress. Many of its grant cancellations are being challenged in court. Some have been allowed to take effect; others have been blocked. In some instances, Congress has narrowly approved grant cancellations, including for foreign aid and to support the public broadcasting network.

WASHINGTON — As Republicans gather this week in Houston, we hear much talk of conservatives and conservatism. Is George Bush a true conservative? Will conservatives support the President, or stay home? Is the movement intellectually exhausted? Who will emerge to lead conservatives in 1996?

But these discussions all overlook one significant point: The Republicans are not really a conservative party. Indeed, we might say of American conservatism, as Mohandas K. Gandhi said of Western civilization–”It would be a good idea.”

True conservatism is a philosophy committed to conserving– conserving families, communities and nation in the face of change. Committed to preserving fundamental values, such as accountability, civic duty and the rule of law. And committed to a strong government to realize these ends. What passes for conservatism in America today bears only a passing resemblance to this true conservatism. It worships at the twin altars of free enterprise and weak government–two decidedly unconservative notions.

Real conservatism values security and stability over the unfettered free market. In Germany, for example, it was the conservative Otto von Bismark–not socialists–who developed social insurance and built the world’s first welfare state. Today conservatives throughout the world–but not here–endorse government-provided national health care, because they recognize public needs are not always met by the private sector. And they see a role for government in encouraging national economic development.

A true conservative movement would not ignore the decay of our great cities, or see the disorder of the Los Angeles riots only as a political opportunity. Nor would they pay homage to “free trade” while the nation’s manufacturing base withered. Nor would a conservative President veto pro-family legislation requiring companies to provide leave to new mothers, in deference to business prerogatives.

Traditional conservatives champion community and nation over the individual. They esteem public service, and promote civic obligation. They reject the “invisible hand” argument, that everyone’s pursuit of individual self-interest will magically yield the best public outcome, believing instead in deliberately cultivating virtue. Authentic conservatives do not assail 55 m.p.h. speed limits and seat-belt laws as encroaching totalitarianism.

Finally, a genuine conservatism values the future over the present. It is a movement of elites to be sure, but of elites who feel that their privilege entails special obligations. The old word for this was “stewardship”–the obligation to care for the nation’s human and natural resources, and to look out for future generations’ interests.

Such conservatives would not open up public lands for private commercial exploitation, or undermine environmental regulations for short-term economic growth. They would not cut funding for childrens’ vaccinations, knowing that the cost of treating illness is far greater. And a conservative political party would never preside over a quadrupling of the national debt.

In America, then, what we call conservatism is really classical liberalism: a love of the market, and hatred of government. Adam Smith, after all, was a liberal, not a conservative. As the economist Gunnar Myrdal once noted: “America is conservative . . . but the principles conserved are liberal.”

American conservatives have often celebrated the country’s historically “exceptional” character: the acceptance of capitalism and the absence of any significant socialist movement. Curiously, though, they often miss their half of the story: the absence of a real Tory conservatism. What Louis Hartz called America’s “liberal consensus” excluded both of the great communitarian traditions–ain’t nobody here but us liberals.

True conservatism’s weakness as a political tradition in America is thus an old story. When values confront the market here, the market usually wins. In recent years, though, conservative social values seem to have been eclipsed. Many of today’s conservatives are really libertarians–proponents of a radical individualism that has little in common with conservatism. Consider some very non-conservative messages that conservatives have delivered in the past two weeks.

Conservative GOP leaders called on the President to propose massive new tax cuts as the centerpiece for a possible second term. Fiscal responsibility, apparently, is no longer part of conservative doctrine–if it gets in the way of a nice capital gains tax cut.

The Wall Street Journal assailed Maryland for introducing a new 75-hour community-service requirement for high school students. What about teaching values in school? Or putting nation before self?

When it comes to good conservative values, today’s conservatives talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk. Look at Dan Quayle, the elected official who supposedly most speaks to real conservatives. Every day, the vice president is out there talking about traditional values, and slaying liberal dragons like Murphy Brown. His agenda: tax dollars for parochial schools, banning abortion, allowing school prayer. This is the 1980 Moral Majority program. Yet, after 12 years in power, the Republican Party has delivered nothing to social conservatives–the closest thing we have in this country to authentic conservatives. Republicans’ business allies, on the other hand, have reaped tremendous gains in such areas as taxation, regulation and labor relations. There are many social-issue conservatives in the GOP, but when it comes to governing, they are clearly the junior partners.

These social issues are trotted out every four years, but it’s just a ritual, like hanging Christmas lights on the front porch. The rest of the time, they sit in the Republican basement. For them, it’s simply a matter of electoral opportunism–a way to attract working-class voters whose economic interests drew them to the Democrats. Now Barry M. Goldwater, the grand old man of American conservatism, has called on the party to abandon its anti-abortion commitment. The political calculus has changed, and so must the platform. Individual liberty is the important point now. It would appear that the ban on abortion was only in there to win votes in the first place–if it doesn’t do that, what’s the point?

The future seems to lie with the libertarians. We should expect more Republicans like Gov. Pete Wilson, who prides himself on savaging the social safety net. Personal freedom is the message: free to have an abortion, also free to go hungry.

However, this does not bode well for conservatives’ long-term electoral fortunes. Economic liberalism is a weak political force in countries with conservative and social-democratic alternatives. Historically, lower-class voters have been mobilized by appeals to class solidarity on the one hand, or religion and nationalism on the other. Liberalism is the credo of the upper middle class.

The historical failure of American elites to embrace authentic conservatism is a loss for the nation. Even liberals–in the American sense–should regret this void. In fact, they should be most concerned. Conservatives would resist the relentless privatization of our social and economic life, and help rein in the nation’s free-market excesses. If real conservatives had been in charge in the 1980s, we might have been spared the orgy of speculation, takeover and deregulation that so weakened our economy.

The free market, after all, is a powerful force for change. It creates and destroys communities, sunders families and undermines traditional values. People desire protection from it for sound conservative reasons–they want security and stability. A genuine conservatism would provide a kind of social ballast for a nation constantly buffeted by change.

America is too liberal for its own good. Our brand of conservatism is too American for its own good. Maybe it’s time to let conservatives be conservatives.