From Campus to Command: Charlie Kirk’s Push for Martial Law in U.S. Cities

Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk recently made headlines by calling for a full military occupation of American cities following what he terms the “liberation” of Washington, D.C. Speaking on a national platform, Kirk advocated deploying U.S. military forces to urban centers such as Chicago, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Portland, and San Francisco to restore order amid rising crime and social unrest. He emphasized that a sustained military presence was necessary until these cities were “safe,” drawing comparisons to the low-crime, tightly controlled environments of Tokyo and Singapore.

Kirk’s call is not merely rhetorical; it reflects a growing faction within right-wing politics that endorses the federalization of local law enforcement issues, invoking military force as a tool for domestic order. He also proposed federalizing Washington, D.C., with military oversight — a step he deems essential to restoring law and order in the nation’s capital.

This stance has sparked significant debate over the balance between public safety and civil liberties. Critics warn that deploying military forces in civilian settings risks authoritarian overreach and undermines democratic norms. Supporters, meanwhile, argue that urgent and decisive action is needed in cities they see as suffering from governance failures. The implications of such a military occupation extend beyond crime statistics to the very fabric of American democracy, raising concerns about militarization, racial justice, and the erosion of local governance.

Background on Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA

Charlie Kirk is the founder and president of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a conservative nonprofit organization established in 2012. Founded when Kirk was just 18, TPUSA has grown into a powerful network dedicated to promoting free markets, limited government, and conservative values among youth. Financially backed by donors including the late Foster Friess and Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, TPUSA reported revenues exceeding $55 million in 2022.

The organization’s stated mission is to "identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote freedom." However, its campus activities have drawn criticism for compiling “watchlists” targeting left-leaning faculty and spreading misinformation. The Higher Education Inquirer has closely documented TPUSA’s growth, spotlighting its alliances with conservative student chapters, the appearances of controversial figures on its platforms, and its alignment with Trump administration policies. Beyond campuses, TPUSA has expanded through initiatives like TPUSA Faith, TPUSA Live, and the AmericaFest conference series, which have featured speakers such as Donald Trump Jr., Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Fox News and the Epstein Fallout: Kirk’s Rising Media Profile

Amid Fox News’ ongoing tensions with Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal over the Jeffrey Epstein investigative files, Charlie Kirk has been tapped to guest host Fox & Friends Weekend. His appearances on July 27–28, 2025, alongside Rachel Campos-Duffy and Charlie Hurt, signaled a strategic move by Fox News to bolster its conservative youth appeal and MAGA alignment amid internal pressures.

This development follows the Wall Street Journal’s July 2025 investigative report detailing Donald Trump’s past ties with Jeffrey Epstein, including allegations about a hand-drawn birthday card sent to Epstein. Trump has vehemently denied the claims and sued the Journal and Rupert Murdoch for $10 billion, labeling the report defamatory. Fox News, however, has noticeably limited its coverage of the Epstein files and the lawsuit, unlike other right-leaning outlets such as Newsmax and Real America’s Voice.

Kirk has vocally attacked the Journal’s reporting, calling it “fake” and “a hit job” on Trump. He praised Trump’s lawsuit on his podcast and social media platforms, framing the allegations as baseless attempts to tarnish the former president’s reputation. Despite initial criticism of Attorney General Pam Bondi over a DOJ memo regarding the Epstein investigation, Kirk later shifted his position, urging trust in government officials — a reversal that drew attention to the strategic recalibrations within MAGA circles.

Institutional Expansion and Political Influence

TPUSA’s influence extends well beyond college campuses. Through Turning Point Academy, it reaches high schools, while TPUSA Faith engages religious communities. Its political arm, Turning Point Action, spent over $7 million in the 2022 midterms, reflecting significant investment in electoral politics. TPUSA’s 2023 annual report highlights its presence in more than 2,500 schools and training of over 12,000 student activists.

Kirk’s upcoming role on Fox News underscores the merging of youth-oriented conservative political branding with legacy cable television platforms. This integration comes as Fox News attempts to balance the demands of its MAGA base against legal and reputational challenges linked to its corporate ownership. Kirk’s rising profile represents the normalization and institutionalization of organizations like TPUSA within mainstream conservative media.

Charlie Kirk’s calls for military occupation of American cities, coupled with his increasing prominence within conservative media, highlight the evolving landscape of political influence, youth activism, and media power in the United States. As debates intensify over public safety, civil liberties, and the militarization of law enforcement, it is crucial to scrutinize the intersection of political ideology and institutional authority. The implications extend far beyond partisan disputes — touching the core of democratic governance and social cohesion in a deeply divided nation.

---

Sources:

Axios (July 2025): “Charlie Kirk to co-host Fox & Friends Weekend”
Wall Street Journal (July 2025): “Trump’s Epstein Birthday Card”
IRS Form 990 Filings (TPUSA 2021–2023)
Media Matters: “Fox News Epstein Coverage Analysis”
FEC.gov: Turning Point Action Political Expenditures
Rolling Stone, Puck News (July 2025): Trump’s calls to allies over Epstein story
TPUSA 2023 Annual Report
Higher Education Inquirer Archive (2016–2025): Reports on TPUSA campus activity
Original Article on Charlie Kirk's Military Occupation Call

Fox News Taps Charlie Kirk Amid Epstein Fallout and Murdoch Tensions

Fox News has selected Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), to guest host Fox & Friends Weekend for the first time. A Fox spokesperson confirmed the decision, originally reported by Axios, noting that Kirk will appear alongside co-hosts Rachel Campos-Duffy and Charlie Hurt on July 27–28, 2025.

The move comes as the network faces growing pressure from Trump-aligned media personalities over its coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein files and its relationship with the Wall Street Journal, another Rupert Murdoch-owned outlet. Kirk, who has hosted The Charlie Kirk Show, a podcast and syndicated radio program, is also a close ally of former President Donald Trump and a vocal critic of legacy media organizations, including the Journal.

A Decade of Coverage: TPUSA’s Rise

Kirk founded Turning Point USA in 2012 at age 18 with financial backing from donors such as the late Foster Friess and Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus. The group is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and reported over $55 million in revenue in 2022, according to public IRS filings.

TPUSA’s stated mission is to "identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote freedom." However, its campus organizing efforts have drawn criticism from academics and student groups for compiling watchlists of left-leaning faculty and amplifying misinformation. The Higher Education Inquirer has documented TPUSA’s partnerships with conservative student chapters, appearances by controversial figures, and consistent alignment with Trump administration policies.

In recent years, TPUSA has expanded its media and political operations through spinoffs like TPUSA Faith, TPUSA Live, and the AmericaFest conference series. These initiatives have featured speakers including Donald Trump Jr., Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Epstein Files and the Trump Lawsuit

In early July 2025, The Wall Street Journal published an investigative piece detailing Donald Trump’s past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The story cited sources claiming Trump once sent Epstein a birthday card with a hand-drawn image of a naked woman. Trump denied the report and sued the Journal and Rupert Murdoch for $10 billion, calling the article defamatory.

The report was based on internal communications, FBI notes, and interviews with individuals familiar with Epstein’s social network. While the Journal stands by its reporting, coverage of the lawsuit has been limited on Fox News, which has mentioned it only a few times on air, according to media monitoring data from Media Matters.

Kirk responded aggressively to the story, calling it “fake” and “a hit job” on his podcast and social media. He praised Trump’s lawsuit and claimed the article was an attempt to connect the Epstein investigation to the former president without evidence. “Now I quickly, and we quickly, came to the president’s defense,” he said on The Charlie Kirk Show.

Strategic Silence and MAGA Realignment

Fox News, typically quick to echo Trump’s media attacks, has not publicly defended the Journal. The network also reduced its coverage of the Epstein documents released this summer, in contrast to CNN, MSNBC, and other right-leaning outlets like Newsmax and Real America’s Voice, which have continued to highlight the Epstein files.

Trump has reportedly instructed close allies and supporters to downplay the Epstein revelations. According to Rolling Stone and Puck News, Trump personally called Kirk and other surrogates, asking them to redirect attention away from Attorney General Pam Bondi, who had faced MAGA criticism for a DOJ memo stating there was no actionable Epstein “client list.”

Kirk initially supported criticism of Bondi but later reversed course, stating on his podcast that he would “trust [his] friends in the government.” After announcing he would stop discussing Epstein, he backtracked the following day, claiming his comments were taken out of context.

TPUSA's Institutional Influence

Turning Point USA has expanded into high schools (via Turning Point Academy), churches (TPUSA Faith), and electoral politics (Turning Point Action). According to the group's 2023 annual report, it has reached over 2,500 schools and trained more than 12,000 student activists. TPUSA Action spent at least $7 million on political activities in the 2022 midterms, per FEC data.

Kirk’s access to Fox News’s audience, especially during a prime weekend slot, signals further normalization of TPUSA within conservative media infrastructure. It also reflects the ongoing merger between youth-oriented political branding and legacy cable television, especially at a time when Fox News is balancing its MAGA base against legal and reputational risks tied to its parent company.

Sources

• Axios (July 2025): "Charlie Kirk to co-host Fox & Friends Weekend"

• Wall Street Journal (July 2025): “Trump’s Epstein Birthday Card”

• IRS Form 990 filings (TPUSA 2021–2023)

• Media Matters: “Fox News Epstein Coverage Analysis”

• FEC.gov: Turning Point Action Political Expenditures

• Rolling Stone, Puck News (July 2025): Trump’s calls to allies over Epstein story

• TPUSA 2023 Annual Report

• Higher Education Inquirer Archive (2016–2025): Reports on TPUSA campus activity

---

This article is part of the Higher Education Inquirer's long-term investigation into political influence in the credential economy, campus organizing, and the intersection of media, youth movements, and power.

Charlie Kirk's Turning Point Empire Takes Advantage of Failing Federal Agencies As Right-Wing Assault on Division I College Campuses Continues

As CEO of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), Turning Point Endowment, Turning Point Action (TPA), and Students for Trump (SFT), 26-year old Charlie Kirk has established an "alt-lite" non-profit empire, funded by the rich and powerful, and supported by President Donald Trump. Kirk's network includes close ties to Donald Trump Jr. and access to the White House for Turning Point events President Trump has attended.

As progressive celebrities cancel speaking engagements on college campuses this fall, TPUSA and Students for Trump have a clearer path to continue their "aggressive" assault on Division I college campuses in battleground states: Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, with the major purpose of getting President Donald Trump reelected. 

Charlie Kirk's organizations have become well-funded Donald Trump youth groups, supporting unrestrained gun rights, fossil fuels, deregulation, and political cover for whatever Donald Trump needs.

Jane Mayer (New Yorker), Lachlan Markay (Daily Beast), Mike Vasquez (Chronicle of Higher Education), Haley Victory Smith (USA Today), Alex Kotch (Sludge), the Southern Poverty Law Center (Hate Watch) and the Anti-Defamation League have done good work in documenting important and unsettling aspects of Kirk's empire: questionable business practices that evade IRS and federal election rules, acting as a corrupting influence in college elections, promoting disinformation for the National Rifle Association and the fossil fuel industry, lying for President Trump, using surreptitious listening devices on campuses, intimidating professors and minority students who oppose President Trump, and opening the door for hate speech on campus. 

Politico has also documented Turning Point's Arizona headquarters, a beehive of activity for Kirk's non-profits. But Politico failed to ask any tough questions about TPUSA's questionable practices on and off campus. They didn't even bother to ask questions about the potentially illegal intermingling of personnel and resources at Turning Point. While Politico noted the organization's access to the White House, they failed to mention Turning Point's use of Trump's Mar-a-Lago Resort for exclusive, high-priced events.

Turning Point Action was formed in May 2019 and now acts as the parent company of Students For Trump (SFT). SFT previously acted as a non-affiliated political committee, but it was administatively terminated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in April 2018. Their only treasurer, John Lambert, pleaded guilty to wire fraud charges in August 2019. Less than a month later, SFT sponsored a relaunch in Las Vegas at the Palms Hotel, owned by Trump allies, the Fertittas.

Should Turning Point Action be filing with the FEC as a political action committee? It's anyone's guess, and it really doesn't matter during the Trump era. Current rulings and guidelines, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, and lack of a quorum at the FEC make a complaint to the FEC next to useless. The same is true about asking the IRS to look into the intermingling of funds between Turning Point USA, a 501c3 and Turning Point Action, a 501c4 and parent organization of Students For Trump.

An essential part of the story now is how Charlie Kirk has been able to take advantage of weaknesses in federal oversight, making complaints to the FEC and IRS fruitless. Another part is Kirk's close collaboration with the White House, through Donald Trump, Jr. and Turning Point USA events at the White House and Mar-a-Lago. 

With Trump's Executive Order for Free Speech on Campus (which penalizes colleges for preventing "speech" of all sorts, particularly Trumpian speech), Charlie Kirk and his organizations have more openings for hate speech and dirty tricks on campus. Schools that deny this "free speech" could potentially lose their federal funding streams. Perhaps college students should exercise their 1st Amendment rights and employ a Watchlist for Turning Point activists that are breaking federal and state election laws.

Turning Point USA Blurs the Line Between Charity and Pro-Trump Political Group (Alex Kotch, Sludge)

A Conservative Nonprofit That Seeks to Transform College Campuses Faces Allegations of Racial Bias and Illegal Campaign Activity (Jane Mayer, New Yorker)

5 Takeaways From Turning Point’s Plan to ‘Commandeer’ Campus Elections (Michael Vasquez, Chronicle of Higher Education)

Students For Trump Is More Dangerous Than You Think

Pro-Trump Non-Profit Sign of the (Corrupt) Times

Turning Point USA opens door for hate groups and gun violence on campus

Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA incite racial conflict, secret surveillance on campus

The Rise of the Battleground Campus (Kyle Spencer, Politico)

Trump’s Free-Speech Executive Order and the Right’s Fixation on Campus Politics (Osita Nwanevu, New Yorker)

I went inside a rightwing safe space to find out the truth about universities (Cas Mudde, The Guardian)

Extremism, Terrorism, and Bigotry: Turning Point USA (Anti-Defamation League)

Turning Point USA accused of boosting their numbers with racists by long-established conservative student group (Southern Poverty Law Center, Hate Watch)

Charlie Kirk, Milo Yiannopoulos, and the Weaponization of Campus Free Speech

In the last decade, Charlie Kirk and Milo Yiannopoulos emerged as two of the most controversial figures on U.S. campuses. Though different in demeanor, both tapped into a potent formula: using universities as battlegrounds in the culture wars, staging spectacles that blurred the line between political activism, media provocation, and profit.

Yiannopoulos, a former Breitbart editor, built his American notoriety through his 2016–2017 campus speaking tour. His brand was openly flamboyant, camp, and cruel—delighting his fans with ridicule of feminists, Muslims, and LGBTQ activists while enraging opponents. The height of his career came at the University of California, Berkeley, in February 2017, when protests against his scheduled speech escalated into property damage, a police crackdown, and national media coverage. Berkeley—the symbolic birthplace of the 1960s Free Speech Movement—was suddenly cast as the stage for a right-wing provocation about free expression.

But the fallout from Yiannopoulos’s personal life quickly undercut his momentum. Video surfaced of him appearing to condone sexual relationships between older men and boys, remarks he later attempted to reframe as jokes or personal history. The scandal cost him a book deal with Simon & Schuster, led to his resignation from Breitbart, and triggered a cascade of canceled appearances. His sexual provocations, once a source of his appeal, became his undoing in mainstream conservative circles.

Charlie Kirk, meanwhile, chose a steadier path. With Turning Point USA, founded in 2012, he avoided Yiannopoulos’s sexual flamboyance and leaned instead on organization-building, donor cultivation, and a veneer of respectability. TPUSA planted chapters across hundreds of campuses, launched the Professor Watchlist, and turned campus protests into proof of “leftist intolerance.” If Yiannopoulos was the shock jock of campus conservatism, Kirk became its institution-builder.

Yet the connection between them remains. Both recognized the utility of outrage—that protests and cancellations could be reframed as censorship, and that universities could be cast as ideological enemies. Berkeley provided the prototype: a riot in defense of inclusivity was spun into evidence of liberal suppression, fueling conservative mobilization and fundraising.

---

Donors, Dark Money, and the Business of Outrage

Neither Yiannopoulos nor Kirk could have sustained their visibility without deep-pocketed benefactors and ideological patrons.

Yiannopoulos’s rise was closely tied to the Mercer family, the billionaire backers of Breitbart News who also helped fund Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. Their patronage gave him a platform at Breitbart and the resources to stage his “Dangerous Faggot Tour.” When the pedophilia scandal erupted, the Mercers swiftly cut ties, leaving him adrift without institutional protection.

Kirk’s Turning Point USA followed a different trajectory, courting a wide network of wealthy conservative donors. According to IRS filings and investigative reports, TPUSA has received millions from the Koch network, Illinois Republican governor Bruce Rauner’s family, and donors linked to the DeVos family. By 2020, TPUSA’s budget topped $30 million annually, making it a financial juggernaut in the campus culture wars. The group’s lavish conferences, slick marketing, and constant media presence depended heavily on this donor pipeline.

These financial networks reveal that both Kirk and Yiannopoulos were never simply “grassroots” activists. They were, in fact, products of elite funding streams, crafted and sustained by billionaire patrons seeking cultural leverage. For universities, that means student protests were never just about clashing ideologies—they were also responses to well-financed operations designed to destabilize higher education as an institution and mobilize a generation of voters.

---

Kirk’s later alignment with Christian nationalism and the MAGA movement extended his influence far beyond campus politics. His assassination in September 2025 has already created a martyrdom narrative for the right, just as Yiannopoulos’s clashes at Berkeley created symbolic victories, even as his personal scandals consumed him.

For higher education, the legacies of Kirk and Yiannopoulos are instructive. Universities remain prime targets for political entrepreneurs who thrive on outrage, whether their methods are flamboyant and sexualized or organizational and ideological. The question for higher education is not whether these figures will return—others surely will—but whether institutions can resist being drawn, again and again, into spectacles that erode the very idea of the university as a space for learning and dialogue.

---

Sources

• Wikipedia contributors. “Charlie Kirk.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk

• Wikipedia contributors. “Milo Yiannopoulos.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos

• Reuters. “What to know about the case against Tyler Robinson, accused of killing Charlie Kirk.” September 16, 2025. Link

• The Guardian. “Milo Yiannopoulos: the shallow actor with a bad guy act.” February 21, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/21/milo-yiannopoulos-rise-and-fall-shallow-actor-bad-guy-hate-speech

• CNN. “Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart after comments on pedophilia.” February 21, 2017. https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-breitbart

• NPR. “Violent Protests Shut Down Milo Yiannopoulos Event At UC Berkeley.” February 2, 2017. https://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/512956833/violent-protests-shut-down-milo-yiannopoulos-event-at-uc-berkeley

• OpenSecrets. “Turning Point USA.” https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/turning-point-usa/summary?id=D000064422

• New York Times. “The Mercers and the Rise of the Alt-Right.” March 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/us/politics/mercers.html

Higher Education Inquirer covered Charlie Kirk and Turning Point for nearly a decade

For almost a decade, the Higher Education Inquirer investigated right wing influencer Charlie Kirk and his Turning Point Empire.  Kirk was groomed by Bill Montgomery (a surrogate for Richard Nixon in Florida for Nixon's Reelection Campaign) and Steve Bannon when Bannon was at Breitbart. Kirk quickly learned the dirty tricks of the Nixon-Reagan era and the dog whistles of white supremacy and misogyny. He also quickly gained funding from right wing billionaire Foster Freiss. 

In mid-2016, we communicated our concerns with Michael Vasquez at Politico, who later moved on to the Chronicle of Higher Education (CHE).  CHE later reported that Kirk created a plan to win student elections using outside (illegal) money. We also contacted the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League who both listed TPUSA as a hate group. 

For nearly a decade and a half, Kirk and Turning Point USA incited violence on campus and on social media through its playbook of dirty tricks, racist and sexist agitation, and surveillance.  That's why we warned folks not to engage with TPUSA before this semester started. 

As we reported in 2018:

Charlie Kirk, with no evidence whatsoever, alleged that a less qualified woman of color took his slot at West Point.

Turning Point USA allegedly stole records from the Young Americans for Liberty.

Kirk's news blog, Turning Point USA News (previously known as Hypeline) mentioned Black Lives Matter more than 100 times, and stated that BLM was a domestic terror group.

A writer in the Hypeline blog also referred to the classic Why the Caged Bird Sings as pornography.

Turning Point USA used "affirmative action bake sales" on campus to show the injustice of privileges given to black and brown people.

Kirk opposed "safe spaces" on campus for people of color and the LQBTQ community.

TPUSA scheduled a "conservative coming out day" at the same time as the National Coming Out day.

TPUSA invited alt-right white supremacist Ivan Throne to speak at their regional conference in Denver.

Charlie Kirk publicly claimed that white privilege was "a myth and a lie."

TPUSA members in Illinois, North Carolina, and possibly Nebraska were linked to the Western chauvinist, anti-feminist group, Proud Boys.

The Emotional Energy of Martyrdom: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Through the Lens of Collins and Hoffer (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis)

The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, offers a stark illustration of how violent acts against movement leaders can reconfigure political energy on U.S. campuses. Kirk was the leader of Turning Point USA, Turning Point Action (formerly Students for Trump), and Turning Point Faith. He was also the creator of the Professor Watchlist and the School Board Watchlist. 

Far from diminishing conservative student mobilization, Kirk’s death appears to have amplified it—at least in the short term. Randall Collins’ sociology of interaction ritual chains and Eric Hoffer’s classic analysis of mass movements provide a useful lens for understanding both the surge and the likely limits of this moment.

Collins’ Emotional Energy Framework Applied to Kirk’s Death

Collins identifies four outcomes of successful ritual gatherings: group solidarity, emotional energy, sacred symbols, and moral righteousness. In the wake of Kirk’s assassination, conservative students and evangelical leaders have experienced all four in compressed, amplified form.

Pastors quickly declared Kirk a “Christian martyr.” Rob McCoy invoked biblical precedent, while Jackson Lahmeyer described the murder as “spiritual in nature and an attack on the very institution of the church.” This religious framing elevates Kirk from activist to sacred symbol.

The immediate response has been extraordinary. Turning Point USA claims more than 32,000 requests for new chapters in the 48 hours following his death. Collins would interpret this as emotional energy seeking new ritual outlets. In this sense, Kirk’s martyrdom has become not just a grievance but a generator of collective action.

The memorial scheduled for September 21 at State Farm Stadium—with capacity for more than 60,000 and featuring Donald Trump—is set to be the largest ritual gathering in the history of conservative student politics. Collins would predict this to be a high-intensity moment of “collective effervescence,” the kind of event that extends emotional energy for months if not years.

Hoffer’s Mass Movement Dynamics and Conservative Student Mobilization

Hoffer’s The True Believer provides a complementary angle. He argued that mass movements thrive on frustration, doctrine, and the presence of either a leader or a transcendent cause. Kirk’s assassination intensified frustration while transforming him into a more powerful symbolic figure than he was in life.

Student conservatives now have all three: grievance (left-wing violence), a sacred cause (free speech framed as religious duty), and a heroic narrative (following a martyred leader). In Hoffer’s words, martyrdom provides both “grievance and transcendent meaning.”

The shift from Kirk as a living leader to Kirk as martyr reflects Hoffer’s principle of substitutability. Loyalty has already migrated from the man himself to the mythology of his sacrifice. College Republicans chairman William Donahue compared the killing to Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, framing it as a watershed for the movement.

Sustainability and the Ritual Problem

The paradox is that Kirk’s most important contribution—the high-energy confrontational rituals of his “Prove Me Wrong” campus debates—cannot be replicated without him. These events generated viral spectacle, solidified conservative identity, and created sacred moments of confrontation. They were, in Collins’ terms, engines of emotional energy.

The September 21 memorial may provide a one-time boost, but Collins emphasizes that emotional energy must be renewed through repeated rituals. Without Kirk’s charisma and willingness to create confrontational spaces, conservative students risk energy dissipation. Already some students report greater enthusiasm for activism, while others express fear of being targeted themselves.

The dilemma is clear: the rituals that generated the most energy (public confrontations) are the very ones most likely to invite violence. This tension may limit the sustainability of the movement’s current surge.

The Profit Motive: Martyrdom as Marketplace

Beyond the sociology of solidarity lies a material reality: martyrdom is also a business model. Conservative organizations are already converting Kirk’s death into a revenue stream. Within hours of the assassination, Turning Point USA launched fundraising appeals invoking Kirk’s “sacrifice,” while conservative merchandisers began selling commemorative t-shirts, hats, and wristbands emblazoned with slogans like “Martyr for Freedom” and “Charlie Lives.”

Publishing houses are reportedly fast-tracking hagiographic biographies, while streaming platforms are negotiating for documentaries. Memorial events, livestreams, and “Martyrdom Tours” are being packaged as both spiritual rituals and ticketed spectacles. Kirk’s death, in other words, is generating not only emotional energy but also financial capital.

This profit motive raises questions about the sincerity of the rhetoric surrounding Kirk’s martyrdom. While Collins and Hoffer help explain the emotional pull, the commodification of grief ensures that the “sacred symbol” is also a lucrative brand. Conservative student organizing may thus be sustained less by spontaneous devotion than by a well-financed industry of grievance, merchandise, and media spectacle.

Indicators to Watch

Several markers will reveal whether Kirk’s martyrdom produces lasting transformation or burns out in ritual dissipation:

• Memorial impact: Attendance and intensity at the September 21 gathering will test whether Kirk’s death can generate lasting solidarity.

• Chapter formation: The real test of Turning Point USA’s 32,000 claims will be functioning chapters in six months.

• Leadership succession: Hoffer reminds us that movements need charismatic leaders. At present, Trump appears to be monopolizing the emotional energy, raising doubts about the rise of new student leaders.

• Counter-mobilization: Collins’ conflict theory suggests left-wing backlash could shape whether conservative students double down or retreat.

The Probable Trajectory

For the next 6–18 months, conservative student mobilization is likely to grow. The movement now has the grievance, sacred symbolism, and transcendent narrative that both Collins and Hoffer identify as powerful motivators.

But sustaining this surge will be difficult without Kirk’s unique talent for generating high-energy campus rituals. Unless new leaders emerge who can replicate or reimagine those ritual forms, the emotional energy of martyrdom may eventually dissipate.

At the same time, the financial infrastructure now growing around Kirk’s death suggests the movement has a fallback strategy: keep the martyrdom alive as long as it remains profitable. In this way, Kirk’s assassination may prove to be not just a sociological event but also a business opportunity—one that reveals the convergence of politics, religion, and profit in contemporary conservative student life.

“Wypipo” and Higher Education: Unpacking Race, Privilege, and Power in U.S. Colleges

What Does “Wypipo” Mean?

“Wypipo” mimics the pronunciation of “white people” but carries critical connotations. It is often used to call out behaviors associated with whiteness, including racial entitlement, cultural tone-deafness, and systemic blindness to inequities. The term serves as both a cultural critique and an assertion of resistance against normalized white dominance.

Higher Education and “Wypipo”: The Landscape

U.S. colleges and universities remain sites where whiteness shapes admissions, curriculum, governance, and culture. Predominantly white institutions (PWIs) continue to reinforce racial disparities despite diversity initiatives (Espenshade & Radford, 2009; Alon, 2015). Curricula center Eurocentric perspectives, while faculty and administrative leadership remain disproportionately white (Turner, González, & Wong, 2011).

Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA, and Liberty University: Conservative “Wypipo” Powerhouses

Among the most prominent embodiments of “Wypipo” influence in higher education are conservative activist Charlie Kirk and his organization, Turning Point USA (TPUSA). Founded in 2012, TPUSA has become a major force in conservative campus organizing, advancing a right-wing political agenda centered on opposition to what it terms “woke” ideology and critical race theory.

Charlie Kirk’s activism includes extensive social media campaigns, campus chapters, and large-scale conferences that mobilize predominantly white student bases. His rhetoric often frames racial justice efforts as threats to free speech and traditional values, casting “wokeness” as a form of indoctrination (Cowan, 2020). Kirk’s influence extends into shaping public policy and funding flows, leveraging connections with major donors and political figures.

Liberty University, founded by evangelical leader Jerry Falwell Sr., is a key institutional partner in this conservative higher education ecosystem. Liberty positions itself as an alternative to mainstream universities, promoting Christian conservative values with significant political and financial resources. Its student body and leadership largely reflect a white evangelical demographic that aligns with Kirk’s messaging. Together, TPUSA and Liberty University represent a coordinated cultural and political push that sustains whiteness as a dominant force in higher education debates (Harriot, 2021).

Michael Harriot’s Insights on “Wypipo” and Power

Journalist and cultural critic Michael Harriot has explored how whiteness functions not only as racial identity but as a system of social control. In his work, Harriot emphasizes the performative and often self-interested nature of white activism and the ways white power adapts to preserve itself, including in educational settings (Harriot, 2017).

Harriot’s analyses illuminate how figures like Kirk and institutions like Liberty University deploy cultural narratives that obscure systemic racism while mobilizing racial resentment. This dynamic reinforces “Wypipo” dominance under the guise of protecting free expression or traditional values, often at the expense of marginalized students and faculty.

How “Wypipo” Reveals Structural Inequities

The use of “Wypipo” challenges higher education stakeholders to recognize whiteness as an active, often unmarked, structure of privilege. Critical race theory frames whiteness as a form of property and power that shapes institutional policies, resource distribution, and cultural norms (Harris, 1993; Lipsitz, 1998).

This perspective calls on predominantly white faculty, administrators, and students to examine their roles in perpetuating inequities, even unconsciously (DiAngelo, 2018). It also critiques diversity efforts that focus on surface inclusion without addressing deeper power imbalances (Ahmed, 2012).

Controversy and Necessity of the Term

While “Wypipo” can be provocative and controversial, it forces a confrontation with realities often softened or ignored in polite discourse. Scholars argue that such language is essential for disrupting entrenched whiteness and fostering honest conversations about race and power (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017).

Toward Equity Beyond “Wypipo”

True progress requires dismantling systemic racism in admissions, curriculum, governance, and campus climate. This means elevating marginalized voices, redistributing power, and holding institutions accountable (Gasman, Kim, & Nguyen, 2011; Harper, 2012). Programs rooted in critical race pedagogy and institutional change show promise for fostering inclusive educational spaces (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002).

---

References

• Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Duke University Press.

• Alon, S. (2015). Race, gender, and the stratification of college science majors. Sociology of Education, 88(3), 259–280.

• Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Princeton University Press.

• Cowan, T. (2020). The culture war on campus: Turning Point USA and conservative student activism. Journal of Higher Education Politics and Policy, 22(1), 45–62.

• Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (3rd ed.). NYU Press.

• DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Beacon Press.

• Espenshade, T. J., & Radford, A. W. (2009). No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton University Press.

• Gasman, M., Kim, J., & Nguyen, T.-H. (2011). Engaging faculty of color in the academy: Lessons from multiple perspectives. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), 152–182.

• Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9–29.

• Harriot, M. (2017). The Case for Reparations—and Why White America’s Resistance Is About Power. The Root.

• Harris, C. I. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106(8), 1707–1791.

• hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge.

• Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.

• Leonardo, Z. (2004). The Color of Supremacy: Beyond the Discourse of 'White Privilege'. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(2), 137–152.

• Lipsitz, G. (1998). The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics. Temple University Press.

• Sander, R. (2012). Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It. Basic Books.

• Smith, W. A., Allen, W. R., & Danley, L. L. (2007). “Assume the position…you fit the description”: Psychosocial experiences and racial battle fatigue among African American male college students. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(4), 551–578.

• Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.

• Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286.

• Turner, C. S. V., González, J. C., & Wong, K. (2011). Faculty women of color: The critical nexus of race and gender. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 199–211.

Selling Armageddon

In an age defined by manufactured crises, weaponized ignorance, and the commodification of fear, a disturbing coalition has emerged—one that profits not from progress, but from collapse. This coalition spans billionaires and bomb makers, Ivy League technocrats and evangelical foot soldiers, data miners and doomsday preachers. They aren't just predicting the end of the world. They're selling it.

The title Selling Armageddon captures a disturbing trend within American society—and particularly within the intersection of higher education, technology, and political ideology—where fear, fatalism, and anti-intellectualism have become not just cultural phenomena but profit centers.

The Profiteers of the Apocalypse

Billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel, a vocal critic of democracy and champion of techno-libertarianism, is emblematic of this ethos. Thiel's investments in surveillance, biotech, and defense contractors like Palantir are not just financial bets—they are ideological declarations. He has publicly said that he no longer believes freedom and democracy are compatible. Instead, Thiel supports strongmen, deregulated markets, and technological sovereignty for elites.

Thiel has also funneled money into right-wing institutions and figures that sow distrust in public institutions, especially higher education. Simultaneously, he and other members of the "techno-elite" invest in private learning incubators, surveillance infrastructure, and seasteading projects that imagine life after democracy—or after the planet.

These billionaires are preparing for Armageddon not by preventing it, but by monetizing it: funding bunkers in New Zealand, buying private islands, or investing in orbital real estate. As The Guardian once asked, “What happens when the people who make our futures no longer believe in the future?”

Enter Elon Musk, who brings to the Armageddon marketplace a particularly seductive brand of techno-messianism. Musk has built an empire not just on electric cars and space rockets, but on a narrative that humanity is doomed unless it follows his vision: Mars colonization, AI supremacy, and deregulated everything. His companies depend on government contracts, foreign labor, non-unionized workplaces, and public subsidies—all while he rails against the very institutions that enabled his rise.

Musk’s appeal lies in his ability to market collapse as innovation. Colonizing Mars is framed not as escapism for the rich, but as salvation for the species. Neuralink’s experiments on animals and humans are marketed as “progress.” Buying and gutting Twitter—now X—is portrayed as “free speech absolutism,” even as it becomes a haven for far-right propaganda and anti-intellectual conspiracy theories. Musk does not offer solutions for Earth. He sells a lifeboat for elites—and a live stream of the ship sinking for the rest.

The War on Higher Education: Enter Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, is one of the most visible faces of the new anti-intellectual populism. Kirk, who has no college degree himself, built a political empire by demonizing higher education and promoting a gospel of grievance. Funded in part by the same billionaire class that bankrolls tech libertarians like Thiel and lionizes Elon Musk, Kirk has launched aggressive campaigns to surveil, blacklist, and harass professors and students who challenge conservative orthodoxy.

His Turning Point “Professor Watchlist” is not just an attack on individuals—it is an assault on the very notion of critical inquiry. In Kirk’s universe, universities are not flawed institutions to be reformed but radical breeding grounds to be destroyed. He promotes a worldview in which faith is pure, facts are suspect, and feelings of persecution are monetized.

While Kirk claims to be fighting “Marxism” and “wokeness,” what he is actually selling is obedience—particularly to corporate power, Christian nationalism, and militarized borders. His audience is taught that the future is a war, and they must choose sides: us vs. them, believers vs. traitors, patriots vs. professors.

Naomi Klein and the Shock Doctrine of Now

Naomi Klein’s work, especially The Shock Doctrine, offers a crucial lens for understanding how crises—real or manufactured—are used to erode public institutions and consolidate wealth. The COVID-19 pandemic, mass shootings, climate catastrophes, and political chaos have each served as moments of opportunity for privatizers, war profiteers, and ideological extremists.

In her more recent writings, Klein explores how conspiracy culture and fascist-adjacent movements have merged with wellness grifts and anti-science ideologies to create a new reactionary consumer base. Higher education has been both target and tool in this ecosystem—either accused of being too “woke,” or silently complicit in the march toward corporate authoritarianism.

Musk, like Thiel and Kirk, has leveraged this blend of libertarianism and grievance politics—tapping into populist rage while making his wealth on the back of public resources. Together, they represent a new ruling class that doesn’t just tolerate ignorance—they capitalize on it.

“Freedom Cities”: Privatized Utopia, Public Disaster

A key component of the Armageddon economy is the “Freedom City” project—a concept championed by Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and now embraced by Trump Republicans. On the surface, these cities promise deregulation, innovation, and technological advancement. But beneath the buzzwords is a vision of society in which public governance is replaced by corporate fiefdoms.

In Freedom Cities, there are no public universities—only credential mills optimized for employer branding. There are no town halls—only shareholder meetings. Laws are written by venture capitalists, not legislatures. These cities are not democratic experiments—they are controlled environments designed to ensure elite survival and labor discipline. Education is not about knowledge; it’s about code bootcamps, ideological training, and loyalty to corporate overlords.

Some Freedom City backers go so far as to frame these cities as escapes from the “decay” of American democracy. In this vision, the United States itself becomes disposable—its lands and labor extracted, its public institutions hollowed out, its higher education system replaced with behavioral conditioning and biometric surveillance.

Freedom Cities are the spatial manifestation of fatalistic capitalism—a place to survive the collapse that capitalism itself caused.

The Israel Factor

Nowhere is this more visible than in the militarization of university discourse around Israel and Palestine. Pro-Israel lobbying groups, sometimes in collaboration with groups like Turning Point USA and tech influencers on X, have used massive funding and public pressure to silence academic dissent, criminalize protest, and reshape curricula. Many elite universities have openly collaborated with defense contractors, some of whom profit from technologies tested on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

This is not merely about Israel—it is about the normalization of permanent war as a condition of life. It is about desensitizing the public to state violence, turning morality into a partisan debate, and monetizing surveillance and repression. These policies, developed in the name of “security,” are later imported back into the United States—on campuses, in classrooms, and across the border.

Selling the End of Knowledge

The university was once imagined as a refuge from the chaos of the world—a place to build better futures. But in this dystopian moment, education is being stripped for parts. Faculty are adjunctified and silenced. Student debt is an albatross. Basic humanities departments are being gutted, while programs in cybersecurity, defense studies, and corporate law are growing.

We are educating people to manage collapse, not prevent it.

Instead of cultivating critical thinkers, institutions churn out bureaucrats for empire and engineers for oligarchs. The architects of Armageddon do not fear higher education—they co-opt it, fund it, rebrand it, and turn it against its original purpose.

Preventing Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

To resist the forces selling Armageddon, we must reclaim higher education as a public good—one grounded in ethics, truth-seeking, and planetary survival. We must refuse the logic of fatalism and reject the grifters who profit from despair. And we must name the forces—Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, the boosters of Freedom Cities, defense contractors, and neoliberal university presidents—that see crisis not as a call for solidarity, but as a sales pitch.

Because if we don’t, the end of the world won’t come with fire or flood.
It will come with a branded dome, a loyalty app, biometric gates—and a tuition bill.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer is committed to investigative journalism that challenges elite narratives and exposes structural injustices in academia and beyond.

Climate Denial and Conservative Amnesia: A Letter to Charlie Kirk and TPUSA

Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA have built an empire of outrage—rallying young conservatives on college campuses, feeding them culture war talking points, and mocking science in the name of “free thinking.” At the top of their hit list? Climate change. According to TPUSA, man-made global warming is a hoax, a leftist ploy to expand government, or simply not worth worrying about. But this isn’t rebellion—it’s willful ignorance. And worse, it’s a betrayal of the conservative legacy of environmental stewardship.

Let’s be clear: man-made climate change is real. It is measurable, observable, and already having devastating consequences across the planet. The science is not debatable. According to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth’s average surface temperature has risen more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 19th century—largely driven by carbon emissions from human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which aggregates peer-reviewed science from around the world, states unequivocally that “human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.”

If Charlie Kirk and TPUSA were interested in truth, they wouldn’t be spreading climate denial. They’d be listening to the 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists who confirm that this warming is caused by humans. They’d look to the Department of Defense, which recognizes climate change as a national security threat. They’d pay attention to farmers losing crops to drought, families displaced by floods and wildfires, and millions of people suffering through record-breaking heat.

In 2023, Phoenix experienced 31 straight days above 110°F. In 2024, ocean temperatures reached the highest levels ever recorded, accelerating coral bleaching and threatening global fisheries. Canadian wildfires covered U.S. cities in toxic smoke. Coastal towns face rising seas. These are not “natural cycles.” They are the direct result of burning coal, oil, and gas at unsustainable levels—driven by short-term greed and fossil fuel lobbyists.

And that brings us to a painful irony. TPUSA claims to speak for the working class, for rural Americans, and for future generations. But these are exactly the people being hit first and hardest by climate change. Farmers in Texas and Kansas are watching their yields collapse. Gulf Coast communities are being battered by stronger hurricanes. Urban neighborhoods with little tree cover and poor infrastructure are turning into deadly heat islands. Denying climate change doesn’t protect these people—it abandons them.

But perhaps the worst betrayal is ideological. TPUSA calls itself conservative. Yet real conservatism means conserving what matters—our land, our water, our air, and our future. And in this regard, the Republican Party once led the way.

It was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who pioneered American conservation. He created national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. He didn’t call environmental protection socialism—he called it patriotism.

It was Republican Richard Nixon who signed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. He founded the Environmental Protection Agency, understanding that pollution was not just bad for nature—it was bad for people and for capitalism itself.

Even Ronald Reagan, whose presidency is often associated with deregulation, signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. The result? The ozone layer began to heal—one of the greatest environmental successes in human history.

More recently, conservative leaders like Bob Inglis, Carlos Curbelo, Larry Hogan, and Susan Collins have advocated for carbon pricing, clean energy investments, and bipartisan climate action. Groups like RepublicEn, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, and the American Conservation Coalition are working to reintroduce common-sense environmentalism to the Republican movement. These are not radicals. They are conservatives who understand that freedom means nothing without a livable planet.

Young Republicans increasingly agree. Polls show that Gen Z conservatives are far more likely than older Republicans to support climate action. They’ve grown up in a world of extreme weather, mass extinction, and economic uncertainty. They know the cost of inaction. They see through the oil-funded lies.

So what exactly is TPUSA conserving? Not the environment. Not scientific integrity. Not the truth. They are conserving ignorance—and protecting the profits of ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and the very fossil fuel billionaires who knew the risks of climate change in the 1970s and chose to deceive the public anyway. (See: Harvard University’s 2023 study on Exxon’s internal climate models.)

If TPUSA is serious about freedom, they must realize that freedom cannot exist without responsibility. There is no free market on a burning planet. There is no liberty when wildfires choke your air, when hurricanes destroy your home, or when heatwaves kill your grandparents.

We challenge Charlie Kirk and TPUSA not to “own the libs,” but to own the truth. Talk to climate scientists. Visit frontline communities. Debate conservatives like Bob Inglis who actually care about the world they’re leaving behind. Break the echo chamber. Lead with courage instead of trolling for clicks.

The earth does not care about your ideology. It cares about physics. And physics is winning.

Sources:

NASA – Climate Change Evidence and Causes: https://climate.nasa.gov
NOAA – Global Climate Reports: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov
IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, 2023: https://www.ipcc.ch
Harvard – Exxon’s Early Climate Models, Science, Jan 2023
U.S. Department of Defense – Climate Risk Analysis, 2022: https://www.defense.gov
Pew Research – Gen Z Republicans and Climate Change, 2023
RepublicEn – https://www.republicEn.org
American Conservation Coalition – https://www.acc.eco
Montreal Protocol overview – United Nations Environment Programme

The truth is not left or right. It is grounded in science, history, and conscience. Conservatives once led on environmental protection. They still can—if they’re brave enough to face the facts.

Tech Titans, Ideologues, and the Future of American Higher Education

American higher education is under pressure from within and without—squeezed by financial strain, declining enrollment, political hostility, and technological disruption. But the greatest challenge may be coming from a group of powerful outsiders—figures with deep influence in politics, technology, and media—who are actively reshaping how education is perceived, delivered, and valued. Among them: Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, Alex Karp, and Charlie Kirk. Each brings a different ideology and strategy, but their combined influence represents an existential threat to traditional colleges and universities.

Donald Trump’s second rise to power has included a full-spectrum attack on elite and public institutions of higher learning. From threats to strip funding from schools that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, to freezing billions in research grants at elite institutions like Harvard, Trump has positioned universities as enemies in a broader cultural and political war. His proposed education policy emphasizes trade schools and short-term credentials over liberal arts and research, while his administration has floated revoking accreditation from institutions that resist his agenda. Rather than investing in public education, the Trump agenda calls for punishment, privatization, and obedience. And for institutions that don’t comply, there are growing threats of taxation, defunding, and public humiliation.

Elon Musk is undermining higher education in a different way. Musk has openly mocked the need for college degrees, suggesting that “you can learn anything online for free.” While that’s partly rhetoric, it’s also a blueprint for disruption. His experimental school Astra Nova already offers a glimpse into a post-institutional future—one that favors creative, independent thinking over traditional credentialing. Now, with plans to launch the Texas Institute of Technology & Science, Musk is betting that elite training can happen outside the bounds of accreditation and federal oversight. Musk’s future is technocratic and libertarian, with universities seen as bloated, slow-moving, and culturally out of touch.

Peter Thiel’s vision is even more radical. Thiel has compared American higher education to the Catholic Church before the Reformation—rich, corrupt, and intellectually bankrupt. His Thiel Fellowship pays young people to skip college entirely, offering $100,000 to start companies instead of accumulating debt. He argues that universities reward conformity and delay adulthood. For Thiel, colleges don’t just fail to prepare students—they actively mislead them. His endgame is a decentralized, market-driven system in which talent rises through initiative and capital, not credentials.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, presents yet another threat—this time from artificial intelligence. Altman doesn’t reject learning, but he does question the institutions that monopolize it. With tools like ChatGPT and future AI tutors, Altman envisions personalized, real-time learning for everyone, everywhere. In this model, universities risk becoming obsolete—not because they are wrong, but because they are too slow and too expensive. Altman has also pushed universities to take a more active role in shaping AI policy; if they don’t, the tech industry will do it for them. The message is clear: adapt or be replaced.

Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir, is building a new kind of corporate university. Through programs like the Palantir Meritocracy Fellowship and “Semester at Palantir,” Karp is recruiting students directly out of elite schools—particularly those disillusioned by what he sees as anti-Israel sentiment or campus censorship. These programs offer practical, high-paid experience that bypasses traditional academic pathways. Karp’s vision doesn’t require the elimination of universities—it just renders them unnecessary for the most competitive jobs in tech and intelligence. His model suggests a future in which corporations, not universities, decide who is qualified.

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, has weaponized the culture war to delegitimize higher education entirely. Kirk’s brand of activism portrays universities as corrupt, anti-American indoctrination centers. Through social media campaigns, donor networks, and student chapters, he has built an infrastructure of resistance against academic institutions. His goal isn’t reform—it’s replacement. Through efforts like the Freedom College Alliance, Kirk is helping to build a parallel educational system rooted in conservative Christian values, classical curricula, and ideological purity. In Kirk’s world, higher education isn’t broken—it’s the enemy.

Together, these six men are shaping a new, fragmented future for American education. Some want to burn it down. Some want to replace it. Some want to privatize it or profit from its collapse. What they share is a conviction that traditional universities no longer serve their intended purpose—and that a new model, rooted in tech, politics, or religion, must take its place.

This isn’t a theoretical debate. Universities are already responding—cutting liberal arts programs, racing to implement AI tools, rebranding themselves as career accelerators, and seeking favor with donors who increasingly resemble these disruptive outsiders. For those who resist, the future may include not just funding cuts, but political investigations, lawsuits, and public smear campaigns.

Higher education faces a stark choice. It can double down on its public mission—defending critical thinking, civic engagement, and social mobility—or it can retreat into elite credentialing and survival mode. What it cannot do is ignore the forces gathering at its gates. These forces are rich, powerful, ideologically driven—and they are not waiting for permission to remake the system.

When Democrats Talk "War": Reckoning with Escalating Political Rhetoric

In recent months, some Democrats, including Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of Texas, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and Oklahoma State Representative Chuck Hoskin Jr., have used language invoking “war” or “battle” to describe their political struggle. This development follows years of similar rhetoric on the right, with conservative commentators like Charlie Kirk openly discussing the possibility of civil war in America.

While the frustration expressed by many Democrats stems from legitimate concerns about the Trump administration’s impact on democratic norms and civil rights, escalating language on both sides of the political divide risks deepening national polarization.

Jasmine Crockett has spoken passionately about the need to resist authoritarian tendencies and protect voting rights, sometimes using combat metaphors to emphasize urgency. Governor Hochul has also used strong language framing political fights as critical battles for democracy. Similarly, Hoskin has described political conflicts in terms that evoke struggle. These expressions reflect the intensity of the current political moment and the anger felt by many who see democracy under threat. However, this kind of rhetoric can contribute to an atmosphere where political opponents are seen not just as rivals but as enemies. When elected officials use warlike language, it can legitimize hostility and increase the risk of violence.

Conservative voices like Charlie Kirk have for years warned of civil war should their political goals be blocked, normalizing extreme and violent discourse. Such language has been weaponized to mobilize supporters and delegitimize opposing viewpoints. The adoption of similarly combative language by Democrats risks amplifying division rather than fostering democratic debate.

It is understandable that Democrats feel frustrated and threatened after years of political attacks and institutional undermining. Still, all political leaders must be mindful of how their words can escalate tensions. Words matter. When public figures invoke “war,” it risks crossing from metaphor into justification for real conflict. Given recent episodes of political violence, rhetoric that inflames should be avoided by leaders on both sides.

The political climate in the United States is highly volatile. Frustration is widespread and justified in many quarters, but elected officials must consider the consequences of their rhetoric. The use of war-related language by Democrats, mirroring longstanding conservative warnings, underscores the urgency of returning to measured, responsible discourse that prioritizes democratic engagement over confrontation.

Sources for this article include public statements and speeches by Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and Oklahoma State Representative Chuck Hoskin Jr., as well as commentary by Charlie Kirk, whose civil war rhetoric has been documented in interviews and social media from 2019 to 2023. Further context is drawn from political rhetoric analyses such as Kathleen Hall Jamieson's Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President (Oxford University Press, 2018), reporting on political violence from outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post between 2021 and 2025, and studies on political language’s impact on polarization from the Pew Research Center (2022).

Right Wing Influencer Charlie Kirk Killed at Utah Valley University

Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at Utah Valley University today.  The killer was not immediately caught. The Higher Education Inquirer has been covering Kirk and his organization, Turning Point USA, since 2016.  Kirk has been a polarizing force in the United States, particularly on US college campuses. HEI hopes this event will not lead to further violence. Since its inception, we have urged for peace and nonviolence.   

A Critical Look at Charlie Kirk’s Hypothesis on Male Happiness

Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk has repeatedly asserted that men are most fulfilled when they marry and have children. This idea, rooted in a traditionalist worldview, has gained traction among some segments of the population, particularly those seeking a return to what they perceive as the moral and social stability of the past. But does the scientific evidence support this claim? A closer look at research from sociology, psychology, and economics suggests a more complex and less ideologically convenient reality.

Marriage and Happiness: The Nuanced Evidence

It is true that some studies show a correlation between marriage and higher reported levels of happiness and well-being. For example, a 2002 study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that married individuals reported higher happiness levels than their unmarried counterparts. However, the effect size was relatively modest, and subsequent research has nuanced these findings.

A 2012 meta-analysis by Lucas and Dyrenforth in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin suggested that the happiness boost associated with marriage is temporary. On average, individuals experience a honeymoon period after marriage, followed by a return to baseline happiness levels within a few years. This phenomenon, known as hedonic adaptation, undermines the idea that marriage itself produces sustained happiness.

Moreover, the benefits of marriage appear to be highly contingent on the quality of the relationship. A study published in Journal of Family Psychology (Carr et al., 2014) found that people in high-conflict marriages reported significantly lower well-being than unmarried individuals. Men in unhappy marriages often experience increased psychological distress, which may lead to health problems, substance abuse, and even premature death (Whisman et al., 2006).

Children and Male Well-being: A Complicated Relationship

Kirk’s view also hinges on the assumption that fatherhood enhances male happiness. While parenthood is often meaningful and rewarding, the scientific literature offers mixed findings regarding its impact on overall well-being.

A major study by Nelson et al. (2014) in Psychological Bulletin found that the association between parenthood and well-being is neither universally positive nor negative. The effects depend heavily on contextual factors like marital status, socioeconomic resources, and the age of the children. Fathers in stable, supportive relationships often report satisfaction from parenting, but those facing financial stress, lack of social support, or conflict with a co-parent frequently experience declines in mental health.

Another longitudinal study by Herbst and Ifcher (2016) found that fathers experience both gains and losses in subjective well-being. While they may report a greater sense of purpose and life meaning, they also experience declines in leisure time, sleep quality, and perceived freedom—all factors associated with lower happiness levels. Notably, single fathers and those in contentious co-parenting arrangements report lower life satisfaction than child-free men.

The Importance of Autonomy and Purpose

Perhaps most revealing are studies showing that autonomy and life purpose are stronger predictors of long-term happiness than marital or parental status alone. Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory, which has been widely validated across cultures, suggests that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are the key psychological needs for well-being. Marriage and children can contribute to these needs, but they can also undermine them, especially if the roles are imposed or filled with conflict.

Research from the Pew Research Center and Gallup also shows that life satisfaction is more closely tied to financial security, meaningful work, physical health, and strong social networks than to marital or parental status alone. Men who are engaged in purposeful careers, maintain close friendships, and have control over their time report higher levels of happiness—even if they are single or child-free.

The Rise of Alternative Lifestyles

Recent demographic trends reflect changing attitudes about what constitutes a fulfilling life. Census data show that marriage rates among men have declined steadily over the past 50 years. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of men are choosing to remain child-free or delay fatherhood. A 2021 Pew Research Center report found that 44% of men under 50 without children expected to remain child-free, a marked increase from previous decades.

While some conservatives view these changes as signs of cultural decline, others interpret them as evidence that men are exercising greater personal agency in crafting their lives outside traditional expectations. Men who reject marriage and fatherhood are not necessarily unhappy or aimless. For many, this path allows greater freedom to travel, pursue creative or intellectual goals, contribute to their communities, or engage in activism and caregiving in non-familial forms.

What About Mental Health?

Importantly, mental health outcomes among men do not uniformly improve with marriage and children. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, men in high-conflict or financially strained marriages report elevated rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. Fatherhood under conditions of instability or poverty can exacerbate stress levels. Conversely, single men who cultivate strong support systems and engage in regular exercise, therapy, or meaningful social activities often show comparable or better mental health outcomes than married peers.

Beyond Simplistic Narratives

Charlie Kirk’s assertion that men are “happiest” when married with children oversimplifies a set of deeply personal and variable life experiences. While marriage and fatherhood can be sources of joy, meaning, and fulfillment, they are not universal prescriptions for happiness. The scientific consensus indicates that well-being is shaped by a complex interplay of autonomy, relationship quality, health, socioeconomic status, and personal values.

Higher education—particularly in the social sciences—has a role to play in challenging ideological assumptions with empirical research. In a pluralistic society, young men deserve the freedom to critically examine diverse paths to meaning and well-being, without being pressured into a one-size-fits-all model of masculinity. If anything, the data reveal that the happiest men are not necessarily husbands and fathers, but those who are allowed to define their own lives on their own terms.

Sources:

• Lucas, R. E., & Dyrenforth, P. S. (2012). Does the honeymoon last? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

• Carr, D., Freedman, V. A., Cornman, J. C., & Schwarz, N. (2014). Happy marriage, happy life? Journal of Family Psychology.

• Nelson, S. K., Kushlev, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2014). Is parenthood associated with well-being? Psychological Bulletin.

• Whisman, M. A., Uebelacker, L. A., & Weinstock, L. M. (2006). Marital distress and mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry.

• Pew Research Center. (2021). More Americans say they are unlikely to have children.

• Herbst, C. M., & Ifcher, J. (2016). The increasing happiness of U.S. parents. Review of Economics of the Household.

• National Institute of Mental Health. (2023). Mental Health and Marriage.

• Gallup (2022). Global Emotions Report.