Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are grappling with the fallout of Wednesday’s assassination of Charlie Kirk, which stunned the country, sent shock waves through Washington and sparked new discussion — and fears — about congressional security in an age of heightened political animus.
Less than 24 hours after the killing of Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative activist, lawmakers in both parties voiced fresh concerns that the polarization of American politics is radicalizing the fringes and fueling extremism.
Although the motive of the shooter remains unknown, lawmakers in both parties said they are worried an escalation of political violence could follow Kirk’s death.
“People are scared to death in this building. I mean, not many of them will say it publicly, but they’re running to the Speaker talking about security — and that’s a lot of Republicans,” said Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.).
“People are scared, really scared.”
GOP leaders on Thursday quickly opened the door to new funding aimed at protecting House lawmakers. A number of members said the shooting will forever alter how members of Congress appear in public and interact with their constituents.
At least one lawmaker, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), vowed to carry a gun with her at all times.
And members of all stripes urged a national shift in rhetoric — on and off of Capitol Hill — away from the knee-jerk partisan attacks that practically define the country’s political debate.
“It’s horrific. We need to model a new tone of political conversation and citizenship in this country,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). “I’m worried about threats to lawmakers, but [also] to political activists, community leaders.”
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he’s open to exploring an increase in funding for lawmaker security, on top of the boost they got in the last Congress for home security systems and other protections. Personal security details for all 435 members would be too expensive, he suggested, but GOP leaders are “looking at all angles.”
“We’ve got to protect people who run for public office or no one will, and that’s heavy on our hearts and minds,” Johnson said.
The idea is gaining support on both sides of the aisle, as lawmakers warned of an eroding interest in public service that could ensue if steps aren’t taken to stem incidents of violence against public figures.
“It’s obvious that the climate in this country is still toxic for a lot of speech, and I think people need to acknowledge what’s happening,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). “Every precaution that can be made should be afforded members.”
Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.), the head of the GOP conference, said the reason for additional security funding is clear in the numbers. Last year, Congress had 9,000 threats against members. “This year, we already have 14,000,” she said, and that number will likely spike in the wake of Kirk’s death.
For years, it was considered unfeasible to offer protection to rank-and-file members given the mammoth cost. That idea is changing, at least on the Senate side.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) told reporters there is a pilot program underway to determine the cost of having in-state protection for senators.
As of now, only the top four leaders have security details, along with a select few members for various reasons.
“Ultimately, every member needs to be protected,” Mullin said, noting discussions are underway for all members to have security. “With the political environment we find ourselves in, it’s also a sad time that that’s the discussion that has got to happen.”
The shooting has also prompted lawmakers to reconsider their public movements.
Kirk, who was speaking at an outdoor rally at Utah Valley University, was allegedly shot from a rooftop hundreds of feet away. That, along with the assassination attempt on President Trump at an outdoor event in Pennsylvania last year, is causing some to predict that the days of open-forum events might be coming to an end.
“The outdoor political events are probably going to be a thing of the past,” said Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.). “The temperature’s too high in America. Hopefully both sides will tone it down.”
“But I do think security’s more on member’s minds than it’s ever been,” Comer said.
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) — who was shot in 2011 and has become a leading gun control advocate ever since — told reporters he will have to rethink security and how to hold events moving forward. And Moskowitz said House members are having the same hard discussions.
“Members will start thinking about whether people should be wanded before they walk into events,” he said. “I think that’s probably where we’re headed.”
In the aftermath of Kirk’s death, many lawmakers expressed frustration at their colleagues, fearing some have contributed to rising political tensions that can serve as a jumping-off point for acts of violence.
Mace, for one, said Democrats “own” the tragedy, while Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) accused the media of being complicit.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, expressed frustration at an outburst that erupted after a moment of silence for Kirk on the House floor Wednesday evening, lamenting that some lawmakers seem more interested in orchestrating viral moments than policy leadership.
“There’s not a lot a member of Congress can do to stop a determined lunatic. There’s a lot a member of Congress can do to take down the temperature, to act like a freaking leader, to wait till the facts are in, to not assume that you know what the shooter’s motives were, to not scream out on the floor of the House of Representatives,” he said, referencing Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) shouting “silent prayers get silent results” after the moment of silence.
“That’s the way the problem gets worse. And somehow in this country, we’ve lost the link between character and leadership. And that was demonstrated on the floor last night, and my colleagues and I need to do more to take the temperature down.”
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a conservative voice often at odds with his party, pointed to the president as among those who should seek to tamp down their rhetoric.
“I mean, there is a lot of rhetoric. And the president himself engages in it — he called it a hostile act to co-sponsor the Epstein resolution,” said Massie, who is a leading voice in pushing a motion to force the release of files related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “I think that’s ridiculous rhetoric.”
“It’s amusing,” he added. “It doesn’t offend me that he’s over the top with the rhetoric, but some people take it literally, and he should probably tone that down himself.”
Kirk’s death is just the latest in a string of attacks on politicians and other political figures in recent years. Giffords was nearly killed in the 2011 mass shooting as she hosted a public event in her district. In 2017, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) suffered near-fatal injuries at the hands of a shooter who targeted Republicans as they practiced baseball.
Just this year, a shooter targeted the offices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, killing a security guard. And in Minnesota in June, two state lawmakers were shot by a gunman who approached each at their home. While state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife suffered injuries, the shooting proved fatal for former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark.
On Thursday afternoon, a bomb threat was made at the Democratic National Committee headquarters not far from the Capitol. While bomb threats in Washington, D.C., are not uncommon, this one received special attention after Kirk’s death.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) warned against the finger-pointing targeting any side or the other.
“We’ve got to remind ourselves some Democrats were killed in Minnesota, so it’s not one side or the other,” Bacon said. “We’ve got to be careful about demonizing the other side. I think most people are immune to it when they listen to it, but there’s the fringe, and they get radicalized, and they think that they’re doing the world a service by taking drastic action.”
Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, called the shooting a reflection point for a country that needed to weigh the event on a societal level.
“This points to a societal issue. We can talk about ‘what do we do to protect ourselves physically,’ but we haven’t had the conversation about what do we do to protect ourselves from the degradation of the social fabric that has made up this country, and now here we are seeing it come unraveled. That’s what concerns me,” he said.
“If we can’t have civil discourse in this country — that’s supposed to be what sets us apart from every other nation — we’re in serious trouble,” said Crawford.
