Is This the Rights’ Fight? Wrong Turn on Right 4: Charlie Kirk Case, Fuentes, and the Far-Right’s Legacy Struggle
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/21
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discuss the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder, the conservative movement’s internal divisions, and the broader implications for American politics. Tsukerman examines the role of figures like Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, and Turning Point USA, highlighting tensions between traditional conservatives and rising populist factions. The discussion expands to the Tyler James Robinson case, misinformation, and media responsibility. Tsukerman questions the lack of motive analysis, the failure to pursue a mental health defense, and the surprising quiet from both prosecution and defense.
Interview conducted on November 7, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any updates on the Charlie Kirk case?
Irina Tsukerman: There is not much new in terms of legal proceedings or political impact. Much of the attention has shifted away from the murder and toward the legacy-planning stage. That appears to be slipping away from Croc’s original vision and moving into territory dominated by more aggressively populist, neo-con mega-influencers.
We are seeing newer online figures trying to turn controversy into leadership claims. This looks like an attempt to cement a legacy and position as a 2028 front-runner. If that does not work, a platform that sustains ongoing political activity—branding oneself as a leader of a national movement—would serve as a fallback.
It is clear that Erika Kirk, while trying to preserve what she sees as the spirit of Charlie Kirk’s legacy, is not necessarily the sole decision-maker. Donors and allied personalities who supported the organization financially are publicly contesting their influence over its direction.
It is also clear that, despite uproar over Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist and leader of the Groyper movement, key figures on the populist right continue to appear on lineups and share stages. The Heritage Foundation’s internal backlash after its president Kevin Roberts initially defended Carlson’s interview, followed by his apology, shows division over platforming Fuentes.
I am not convinced the critics inside these institutions will prevail quickly. A split seems likely. Turning Point USA (TPUSA) has historically clashed with Fuentes and the Groypers—most visibly during the 2019 “Groyper War,” when Fuentes’s followers disrupted TPUSA events and Donald Trump Jr.’s UCLA book tour. While “Tucker-aligned” personalities are prominent across the movement, TPUSA’s record suggests friction rather than alignment with Fuentes’s faction.
The broader fight is less about preserving older institutions than about whether new ones built on older principles have a future—or whether they will be captured by Fuentes or “Fuentes-lite” younger, angrier activists.
Jacobsen: Has Fuentes met Trump? Has Groyper met Groper?
Tsukerman: Yes. Nick Fuentes met Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago during a dinner with Ye (Kanye West) in November 2022, confirmed by multiple outlets.
Trump later claimed that Kanye brought an unknown guest he had never heard of—which seems doubtful, because by then Fuentes already had a scandalous reputation involving politicians who had been criticized or distanced after attending his rallies and events. I’m skeptical that Trump had no idea who he was.
Jacobsen: One of the key updates concerns the Tyler James Robinson case. Many media outlets avoid naming killers, which is generally appropriate and responsible, especially in coverage of school or mass shootings. Research shows adolescents—particularly males around age 17—are the most likely to commit copycat acts. In U.S. data, these perpetrators are often classified as white males, with very few, if any, identified as transgender.
The copycat effect adds further complexity, since similar data patterns emerge repeatedly. Regardless, the suspect is in custody without bail, charged with aggravated murder and related counts. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. The preliminary hearing was postponed to January 16, 2026, with arraignment set for January 30. Judge Johnny Graff allowed the defendant to appear in civilian clothing and imposed limited camera access given the “extraordinary” detention circumstances. A 14-outlet coalition led by the Salt Lake Tribune has petitioned to preserve access and be notified of any closure motions.
The judge has imposed additional limits. The charges include obstruction, witness tampering, a “presence of a child” enhancement, and a “victim target” enhancement. The defense cites “voluminous discovery.” Authorities may increase security, as the FBI has reported AI-boosted false claims circulating after the killing. This has created serious problems not only for professional media but also for social media, where misinformation spreads fastest.
As for Erika Kirk, I’ll leave her part of the commentary aside for now. Any further thoughts?
Tsukerman: What stands out is how quickly conservative activist circles that initially expressed grief after Charlie Kirk’s death have lost interest in the legal process. Within two weeks, his name virtually disappeared from search trends. Despite all the speculation about motive, no one has addressed the fundamental question: why did he do it?
There’s been endless projection about his motives, but no clear effort to establish them. Perhaps his lawyer barred him from discussing the issue, which would be legitimate, but even so, no one seems to have tried. Many assume the motive was political—some kind of radical leftist reaction—rather than anything else. It also appears he acted alone, without a network of associates. Yet investigators and online commentators have chased conspiratorial leads instead of examining the real ecosystem in which he operated—his social-media circles, for instance. Was he encouraged or provoked by troll groups?
There has been discussion of his activity on Discord. He allegedly bragged there about committing the act, but no one knows whom he was speaking to or how they reacted. Did anyone report it to police? Did they celebrate it? Did they dismiss him or think he was bluffing? That’s surprising. There is as much a role for serious media investigation here as for law enforcement. I’m surprised journalists aren’t digging into this, given the potential for understanding a complex and disturbing crime.
One early speculation was an attempt to revive the “trans shooter” narrative—the idea that the partner was transgender and Tyler took the blame—ignoring clear evidence, including a close DNA match. It’s conspiratorial nonsense.
I also wonder whether there will be a mental health evaluation at some point, because so far neither his family nor he himself has requested one. He isn’t claiming mental illness, even though that would be an obvious defense in a potential death penalty case. I’m curious about that, since the defense doesn’t seem particularly aggressive.
For such a high-profile case, both the prosecution and defense are taking a surprisingly low-profile approach, while third-party interests seem to be managing the public narrative.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 