September 11, 2025

As I sat down to write this piece, I found myself wrestling with the weight of marking two tragedies separated by 24 years but connected by their assault on the America we hold dear…

Twenty-four years ago today, America experienced unimaginable horror. It’s a day I will never forget. The events of that day remain etched in memory: the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon on fire, and a field in Pennsylvania where ordinary citizens became heroes in their final moments. These were not merely tragic incidents; they were defining moments that exposed our nation’s vulnerability and simultaneously its remarkable resilience. In that aftermath, we promised then, through our tears and rage, that we would never forget.

Yet today, the promise to “never forget” feels fragile and uncertain. Yesterday, September 10^th, we witnessed another act of senseless violence. Charlie Kirk—a 31-year-old co-founder of Turning Point USA—was assassinated while addressing an audience at Utah Valley University. (Assassinated! In Utah!) A single gunshot silenced a voice that had reached millions of young Americans with a message of free expression and the principles of civil discourse.

Charlie Kirk is gone, leaving behind a wife, two young children, and a movement that believed deeply in the power of free speech. This tragedy underscores the fragility of public engagement in a climate where violence can so easily eclipse dialogue.

The Enduring Importance of September 11

Each anniversary of September 11 is an opportunity to reflect not only on the close to 3,000 lives lost, but also on the enduring characteristics that define the American spirit: courage in adversity, compassion for others, and a determination to transcend divisions. In the wake of the attacks, people set aside their differences. First responders demonstrated extraordinary bravery, and individuals from diverse backgrounds came together in solidarity.

The perpetrators of the September 11 attacks intended to inflict more than material destruction; their objective was also to destabilize the nation’s values and way of life. Yet, their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful precisely because Americans refused to allow fear or hatred to dictate the country’s identity.

The Consequences When Violence Dominates Discourse

Two decades have passed, and it seems as though American democracy now faces an internal threat, quite distinct from the challenges of the past. The individual responsible for Charlie Kirk’s death was not some external adversary, but one from within our own society—someone who abandoned discussion and dissent in favor of violence, disregarding the very tenets Kirk stood for: open debate and the free exchange of ideas.

Kirk was, without question, a controversial figure for some. His conservative stances engendered protests, criticism, and fervent debate, particularly across college campuses. Yet, such contention is intrinsic to the American tradition; the nation’s strength has always rested on its willingness to dispute—to argue, not to surrender to violence.

To choose violence is, in fact, to relinquish the foundational principles that place discourse at the heart of democracy.

The assassination of Kirk extends far beyond the tragic loss of a single life. It constitutes a profound assault on the social contract that undergirds the United States. Every eruption of political violence, regardless of the target’s ideology, represents a breakdown of the democratic commitment we collectively uphold.

Governor Spencer Cox of Utah, in his acknowledgment of Kirk’s death, articulated a stark truth: “Nothing I say can unite us as a country. Nothing I can say right now can fix what is broken.” This admission reveals a candid reckoning with the nation’s current state. The unresolved question is whether American society retains the resolve necessary to heal these divisions.

Even amidst the contentious atmosphere that surrounded his public appearances, Kirk remained convinced that engagement and reasoned persuasion, rather than intimidation or force, could reach younger generations. His “Prove Me Wrong” events were designed not to silence dissent but to encourage it. Kirk believed that democracy withers not only in secrecy but, more powerfully, in the absence of the belief that words matter more than violence.

How, then, should a society respond? If Kirk’s death is to be meaningful, it must prompt Americans to repudiate the path that led to his assassination. Political violence does not signify passion or frustration that has been propelled to action; rather, it marks the desperation of those who have abandoned faith in democratic possibilities.

Historically, American resilience has not depended on unanimity of belief but rather on the conviction that conflicts could be mediated through institutions—and through an enduring belief in the humanity of one’s opponents. Moments of collective crisis—war, social upheaval, even tragedy—have been met with a tenacious adherence to these principles.

At present, that shared faith is under unmistakable strain. Threats against public officials, eruptions of violence, and the drift toward intimidation over civil discourse collectively undermine the bedrock of the republic.

As the nation commemorates September 11th, it is not enough merely to remember past losses. Whether or not you agree with Kirk’s conservative views is not what matters here. Honoring the legacy of Charlie Kirk requires a renewed commitment to the values he publicly defended: the importance of ideas, the sanctity of speech, and the principle that American disagreements are resolved at the ballot box, not by force.

Enemies of democracy—whether external or domestic—prevail only if the American people forfeit their dedication to peaceful debate. They triumph when violence replaces the vote, when silence replaces persuasion. Ultimately, the enduring strength of the United States rests not in hostility, but in the persistent, sometimes arduous work of transforming adversaries into fellow citizens.