A-Infos (en) New-Zeland, AWSM: Trump's Promise to Crack Down on the "Radical Left" Post-Charlie Kirk Shooting (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

On 10 September 2025, the political landscape of the United States was 
shaken when conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during 
an event at Utah Valley University. The public reaction was swift and 
intense. President Donald Trump delivered a formal statement, decrying 
the violence as a "dark moment for America," blaming what he termed the 
"radical left" for fostering an environment of incendiary rhetoric, and 
pledging measures to crack down on those he holds responsible. Trump's 
words and actions in the wake of the tragedy have raised alarm bells 
among many, especially on the left. Trump's promise is not merely about 
bringing a shooter to justice, it represents a broader shift towards 
authoritarian suppression of dissent, a red-baiting of progressive 
movements, and a tightening of state power that anarchists have long 
warned against.

Trump's immediate reaction followed a familiar script of public grief, 
heroic framing, and blame. He said he was "filled with grief and anger," 
that Kirk was a "tremendous person," and called his killing "heinous" 
and "dark." But while mourning publicly, he also issued pointed blame. 
The "radical left," according to Trump, had created an atmosphere in 
which violence is normalised towards those on the right. In his words, 
"radical left" actors were comparing "wonderful Americans like Charlie 
to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals," which he 
suggested contributed to political violence.

Beyond rhetoric, Trump did not stop at words. He has restated his 
intention to build on earlier measures designed to suppress what his 
administration calls subversive ideologies. Already in 2025, early in 
his second term, Trump signed Executive Order 14190, titled Ending 
Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling, which bans educational 
material deemed "anti-American or subversive," especially teachings 
related to critical race theory and "gender ideology." In August 2025, 
he declared a crime emergency in Washington, D.C., federalising law 
enforcement there and deploying National Guard units, actions which the 
administration justified as an attempt to restore "safety" amid rising 
violent crime. The pieces were already in place. The Kirk tragedy has 
simply become the catalyst for promises of even more sweeping crackdowns.

To anarcho-communists, who advocate a society free from hierarchical, 
authoritarian structures, and in which people govern themselves 
democratically, a Trump crackdown against the "radical left" is deeply 
ominous. What might it look like?

1. Criminalisation of Dissent

   The history of modern American politics is replete with precedents. 
Black activists, anarchists, anti-war protestors, and labour organisers 
have been surveilled, infiltrated, and prosecuted, not for violence, but 
for dissent. Under such a crackdown, legal, and even extra-legal, tools 
could be used to define certain ideas, protests or organisations as 
"subversive." Speech could be policed, universities censored, organisers 
arrested. The Executive Order on indoctrination already signals that 
schools and teachers may face legal consequences for teaching certain ideas.

2.Surveillance State Expansion

   In order to suppress what is labelled as "radical left," the state 
must monitor it through social media monitoring, intelligence gathering, 
data mining of activist networks, infiltrating groups suspected of 
"extremist" leanings. Already, debates over what constitutes domestic 
extremism have created broad tools that can encompass many progressive 
or leftist actions.

3. Policing and Militarisation

   Deploying federal agents and the National Guard for political ends, 
often under the guise of crime control, can result in the militarisation 
of civil life. Police raids, mass arrests, checkpoint-style law 
enforcement, and heavier penalties for protest actions could become 
normalised. The conversion of political conflict into policing conflict 
is a set piece in the authoritarian playbook.

4. Targeted Suppression

   Not all "radical left" actors are the same - anarcho-communists, 
ecological activists, labour radicals, anti-imperialists. Trump's 
framing tends to lump together all left-wing dissent in a way that makes 
specificity irrelevant. But practically, suppression might target groups 
that are militant, overtly revolutionary, or highly visible. Media 
outlets, collectives, unions, mutual aid networks, any visible 
organisation that does not conform, could come under official suspicion.

5. Chilling Political Culture

   Even without outright laws or arrests, the promise of repression 
chills speech. Teachers may self-censor, protestors may avoid engaging, 
organisers may be more cautious. Solidarity becomes risky. Activists 
might face social or legal ostracisation just for being affiliated with 
controversial causes.

From an anarcho-communist perspective, which seeks the abolition of 
hierarchy, capitalism, and coercive state power, Trump's crackdown is 
not just another instance of political repression; it is a legitimation 
of deeper systemic violence.

  Anarcho-communism holds that the state is a tool of class power. 
Laws, police, and courts function to defend property rights and capital 
accumulation, not equitable justice. Under a crackdown, these tools 
disproportionately harm the working class, marginalised communities, and 
political dissidents. Trump's promise furthers this inherent 
authoritarian impulse by expanding repressive apparatuses, legal, 
police, ideological, in the name of "law and order."

  Trump blames left-wing rhetoric for violence after Kirk's death, yet 
has previously supported rhetoric that demonises political opponents as 
existential enemies, dehumanising rhetoric that can serve as moral 
groundwork for repression. Trump's blaming of alleged leftist rhetoric 
for violence, and simultaneous political mobilisation against the left, 
equates dissent with danger. This slippery slope often leads to 
punishment without proof. Who defines "radical left" anyway? Already 
Trump's definitions, indoctrination, anti-American, subversive, are 
dangerously broad. Ideological labels are wielded to erase nuance and 
dissent. What begins as targeting "extremists" can rapidly expand to 
cover civil libertarians, anti-capitalists, radical ecologists, or 
anyone questioning the status quo.

  Anarcho-communism depends on horizontal structures: mutual aid, 
communal self-organisation, autonomous spaces independent of state or 
capitalist control. All these are vulnerable in a crackdown. 
Organisations rooted in community care, radical ecology, or direct 
action may be labelled extremist or subversive, and suppressed via legal 
harassment, funding cut-offs, or policing.

If the promises intensify into policy, as often happens, the 
ramifications are profound. Executive Orders like Ending Radical 
Indoctrination are already  in place and could be used as precedents to 
broaden definitions of subversion. Legal doctrines around "dangerous 
speech," "national security," or "public order" can be stretched.

  Once suppressive measures are introduced, they tend to outlast their 
initial pretext. Laws enacted under crisis often survive by bureaucratic 
inertia. Then surveillance, ideological policing, and militarised 
enforcement become normalised features of everyday life.

Trump's promise to crack down on the "radical left" in response to the 
shooting of Charlie Kirk is more than a conventional political 
manoeuvre. It amplifies a discourse that conflates dissent with threat, 
ideology with violence, and invites state power to suppress voices it 
fears. For anarcho-communists, invested in a vision of society free from 
coercion and hierarchy, this moment should not merely be one of 
analysis, but of fierce mobilisation.

Why We Should Care Here

Some will say: "That's America's problem. It won't happen here." But we 
know better. Global capitalism is networked. Authoritarianism spreads. 
And our ruling class is always eager to import tools of repression from 
abroad. Anti-terror laws, protest bans, surveillance systems, they 
circulate between the US, the UK, Australia, and Aotearoa like products 
on the same supply chain.

Already, New Zealand politicians echo Trumpian rhetoric. They attack 
"radical activists," "extremist protestors." They frame anyone who 
questions capitalism or colonisation as a threat to "social order." If 
Trump normalises a new Red Scare in the US, rest assured it will wash up 
on our shores.

The nightmare scenario is not inevitable. Resistance can push back, not 
only through protest, but by building alternative social relations, 
demystifying the language of repression, and refusing to internalise the 
frame that the state defines what is radical. When the ruling class 
centralises power under the guise of security, it is up to social 
movements to decentralise power, reaffirm autonomy, and confirm that 
dissent is not violence, but democracy refusing its chains.

Posted in Anarchism, The StateTagged Charlie Kirk, Trump

https://awsm.nz/trumps-promise-to-crack-down-on-the-radical-left-post-charlie-kirk-shooting/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en