In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s death, right-wing media and political figures have wasted no time assigning blame, not based on evidence, but on ideology. Vice President JD Vance has opportunistically used the moment to accuse “leftist NGOs” of fomenting political violence and called for sweeping government crackdowns.
“We’re going to go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence,” Vance said on a recent podcast, doubling down on a promise to unleash the DOJ, DHS, and other arms of government on civil society groups he deems dangerous. — Politico, Sept. 15, 2025
Let’s be clear: these claims are not just false, they are calculated. They are part of a broader authoritarian strategy to criminalize dissent, dismantle social safety nets, and consolidate state power. Suggesting NGOs are responsible for Kirk’s death is not only dishonest, but dangerous.
To date, no credible evidence connects any NGO or nonprofit, leftist or otherwise, to the murder of Charlie Kirk. Vance’s accusations rest entirely on inference and ideological framing, not facts. This is scapegoating. It’s also a way to shift attention away from the documented rise in right-wing political violence by manufacturing a phantom threat from the left.
From the Proud Boys’ attacks on social justice protesters to the January 6th insurrection, to the long list of shootings committed by far-right extremists, the overwhelming pattern of political violence by non-state actors in the U.S. is not leftist. It’s right-wing. Meanwhile, groups labeled as “leftist NGOs” are far more often targets of violence than perpetrators. Kirk himself helped popularize ideas that fueled a culture of dehumanization, one that has galvanized increased support for attacks on LGBTQ+ communities, the demonization of immigrants, and the organizations that work to defend them and other marginalized populations.
This context doesn’t justify violence. But it does clarify who has been sowing fear, hatred, and division.
NGOs are not underground cells. They’re often bureaucratic, many are even conservative, let alone not being radical nor clandestine. They operate legally, transparently, and at their best, they serve the most vulnerable, from housing justice organizations to immigrant support networks, to charities that simply feed and house people in need.
However, most nonprofits help reproduce the status quo rather than challenge it. Many “leftists” are very critical of the NGO model, as was articulated in the 2007 book by the organization, Incite!, “The Revolution will Not be Funded: Beyond the Non-profit Industrial Complex”. The idea that there’s a sprawling network of shadowy “leftist NGOs” pushing violent revolution is not only baseless, it’s absurd.
Historically and today, authoritarian regimes always target civil society. Vance’s call to “go after” NGOs is ripped straight from the playbook of authoritarian regimes. In Russia, Hungary, and Turkey, targeting civil society under the guise of national security has been a reliable tool for crushing dissent. These attacks usually start with vague accusations of “foreign influence” or “destabilization” and expand to environmental groups, press freedom orgs, and human rights defenders. This is not patriotism. It’s political repression. And it sets a dangerous precedent.
Labeling dissent as “violence” is a well-worn tactic used to justify crackdowns on protest, organizing, and political expression. But protest is not violence. Organizing is not violence. Disagreement with the state or controlling political parties is not violence.
If this administration were serious about addressing and ending political violence, there are many places to start: the expansion of ICE, the prison system, and U.S. funding of the genocide in Gaza are all worthy of scrutiny, to start. But that’s not what this is about.
The administration’s calls for crackdowns on NGOs does not demonstrate concern over who killed Kirk or why it was done. What appears to matter to them is how his murder can be exploited, not to seek real justice, but to consolidate power and suppress dissent.
By manufacturing a moral panic about “leftist NGOs,” they aim to control the narrative in whatever way allows them to shield the institutions and people that uphold capitalism, carceral power, and imperial war. These are the biggest proponents of political violence in our world.
The administration is not acting out of concern about safety, not even the safety of their own followers, like Kirk. Its concern and motivation is state control. It’s about ensuring that only one kind of power, state power, gets to decide whose lives are valued, whose voices are heard, and whose actions are criminalized.
No, “Leftist NGOs” Don’t Foment Political Violence
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s death, right-wing media and political figures have wasted no time assigning blame, not based on evidence, but on ideology. Vice President JD Vance has opportunistically used the moment to accuse “leftist NGOs” of fomenting political violence and called for sweeping government crackdowns.
Let’s be clear: these claims are not just false, they are calculated. They are part of a broader authoritarian strategy to criminalize dissent, dismantle social safety nets, and consolidate state power. Suggesting NGOs are responsible for Kirk’s death is not only dishonest, but dangerous.
To date, no credible evidence connects any NGO or nonprofit, leftist or otherwise, to the murder of Charlie Kirk. Vance’s accusations rest entirely on inference and ideological framing, not facts. This is scapegoating. It’s also a way to shift attention away from the documented rise in right-wing political violence by manufacturing a phantom threat from the left.
From the Proud Boys’ attacks on social justice protesters to the January 6th insurrection, to the long list of shootings committed by far-right extremists, the overwhelming pattern of political violence by non-state actors in the U.S. is not leftist. It’s right-wing. Meanwhile, groups labeled as “leftist NGOs” are far more often targets of violence than perpetrators. Kirk himself helped popularize ideas that fueled a culture of dehumanization, one that has galvanized increased support for attacks on LGBTQ+ communities, the demonization of immigrants, and the organizations that work to defend them and other marginalized populations.
This context doesn’t justify violence. But it does clarify who has been sowing fear, hatred, and division.
NGOs are not underground cells. They’re often bureaucratic, many are even conservative, let alone not being radical nor clandestine. They operate legally, transparently, and at their best, they serve the most vulnerable, from housing justice organizations to immigrant support networks, to charities that simply feed and house people in need.
However, most nonprofits help reproduce the status quo rather than challenge it. Many “leftists” are very critical of the NGO model, as was articulated in the 2007 book by the organization, Incite!, “The Revolution will Not be Funded: Beyond the Non-profit Industrial Complex”. The idea that there’s a sprawling network of shadowy “leftist NGOs” pushing violent revolution is not only baseless, it’s absurd.
Historically and today, authoritarian regimes always target civil society. Vance’s call to “go after” NGOs is ripped straight from the playbook of authoritarian regimes. In Russia, Hungary, and Turkey, targeting civil society under the guise of national security has been a reliable tool for crushing dissent. These attacks usually start with vague accusations of “foreign influence” or “destabilization” and expand to environmental groups, press freedom orgs, and human rights defenders. This is not patriotism. It’s political repression. And it sets a dangerous precedent.
Labeling dissent as “violence” is a well-worn tactic used to justify crackdowns on protest, organizing, and political expression. But protest is not violence. Organizing is not violence. Disagreement with the state or controlling political parties is not violence.
If this administration were serious about addressing and ending political violence, there are many places to start: the expansion of ICE, the prison system, and U.S. funding of the genocide in Gaza are all worthy of scrutiny, to start. But that’s not what this is about.
The administration’s calls for crackdowns on NGOs does not demonstrate concern over who killed Kirk or why it was done. What appears to matter to them is how his murder can be exploited, not to seek real justice, but to consolidate power and suppress dissent.
By manufacturing a moral panic about “leftist NGOs,” they aim to control the narrative in whatever way allows them to shield the institutions and people that uphold capitalism, carceral power, and imperial war. These are the biggest proponents of political violence in our world.
The administration is not acting out of concern about safety, not even the safety of their own followers, like Kirk. Its concern and motivation is state control. It’s about ensuring that only one kind of power, state power, gets to decide whose lives are valued, whose voices are heard, and whose actions are criminalized.
Author
View all posts