Tyler Robinson Reportedly Has a Trans Roommate

Tyler Robinson, the accused killer of Charlie Kirk, has not confessed to the killing and is not cooperating with authorities at all. However, some people around him are talking. One of them is Robinson's roommate, Lance Twiggs, who lives with Robinson in an apartment in St. George, UT. His family members are all Trump-supporting conservative Christians. It is possible that Twiggs is the person who tipped off the authorities that Robinson was the killer. In any event Twiggs is now fully cooperating with the authorities and has turned over communications he received from Robinson.

There were stories floating around in not-all-that-respectable media outlets Saturday that Twiggs and Robinson were involved in a romantic relationship and Twiggs was in the process of transitioning from male to female. At first, we didn't want to touch this story with a 3.05-meter pole, but yesterday Gov. Spencer Cox (R-UT) confirmed that the suspect's "roommate was indeed a boyfriend who is transitioning from male to female." We hope that Cox got this from a source more reliable than The New York Post. As the governor of the state where the murder happened, he has access to information not available to the public. At the very least, this adds a new wrinkle to the situation. Investigators want to know if Kirk's known hatred of trans people played any role in Robinson's decision to kill him. Cox also said that Robinson's worldview had been influenced by some very dark places of the Internet. (V)

America Is Now Desensitized to High-Profile Killings, Europe Not So Much

Every time there is an incident of political violence, "thoughts and prayers" pop up, then nothing happens and everyone moves on. The unfortunate reality is that political violence is as American as apple pie. Here are some recent examples:

• Jan. 8, 2011: Then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Tucson while talking to constituents.
• June 14, 2017: Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) was shot while practicing for the congressional baseball game.
• June 14, 2025: Two Minnesota state representatives were shot, and one died.
• Sept. 10, 2025: Charlie Kirk was shot and killed.

These are just recent examples, If we go back to the 1960s, we have John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy Sr. and Martin Luther King Jr., too. Further back are William McKinley, James Garfield and Abraham Lincoln. These are only the most prominent ones. In all, 4 presidents, 11 members of Congress, 4 governors, 29 state legislators, 9 mayors, and a whole raft of judges and other officials have been assassinated. It's the American way. If you are skeptical, here is a long list of them. And the list of failed attempts is also long, including an attempt at Ronald Reagan's life, the attempt on Donald Trump's life in Butler, PA (resulting in the death of audience member Corey Comperatore), the golf course shooter who wanted to get Donald Trump, and the arsonist's attempt to burn down the Pennsylvania governor's mansion while Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) was sleeping in it. And school shootings? We're not even going to start on that. American exceptionalism, indeed.

One worrying sign is how these events become normalized and fade into the background. Lincoln's assassination is still important enough that 160 years later, schoolchildren are taught about it. But modern shootings? They usually last a couple of news cycles—if that much—and are then gone with the wind. The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords was on the front page of The New York Times for a week. The arson attempt in Pennsylvania didn't even make the front page of most newspapers. The national attention span can now be measured by looking at Google searches for the topic. Searches surge on the day of the incident, then quickly die off.

The drop off in searches matches the drop off in newspaper articles about the event. It is as if people are saying: "Oh, another one. Nothing new here. Time to move on." People are becoming desensitized quickly now because these events are so common. The Kirk story may go on longer since the search for a motive will dominate the news until the Internet has decided what the shooter was thinking.

In an attempt to see where we may go from here, Politico Magazine talked to 10 experts on political violence to see what they had to say. Here is a brief rundown:

• Pouring Poison in the Public Well (Sean Westwood): The aftermath of a political assassination tests the strength of a democracy. After the attempts on Donald Trump's life, leaders of both parties tried to lower the temperature. Now they are trying to raise it. The core problem is not that everyone wants it. Only 2% of Americans approve of political assassinations. The problem is that each side sees the other as a vast, murderous faction. Leaders exploit this for attention and money. The long-time result is erosion of democratic stability, but some leaders are willing to ignore this for short-term gain.
  
  
• Political Violence Is Not Random (Barbara Walter): Political violence is more common when four conditions are met: (1) democracy is declining; (2) society is divided by race, religion, ethnicity, etc.; (3) leaders encourage or at least tolerate violence and (4) everyone has easy access to guns. The U.S. passes all four tests. The outlook is bleak. Democrats have no power and Republicans have no incentive to change anything since it works for them. Most political killings seem to be due to radicalized young men who feed on all the hate on the Internet. The only lever that might yet be pulled (eventually) is to rein in the tech companies and the pipeline feeding extremism. One way that would not inhibit free speech is to make Internet platforms subject to the same rules as newspapers. If The New York Times publishes libelous hate speech, it can be sued for it. Facebook can't be (due to Sec. 230 of the CDA). If it were repealed, platforms would have to vet their own content, just as the NYT does. Their own lawyers would make them very cautious.
  
  
• The Norms Inhibiting Such Violence Are Becoming Increasingly Weak (Joel Busher): The danger here is that the government will call for a crackdown on "the radical left" and that will lead to more violence. To break the cycle, leaders from all parties and sectors have to strongly condemn all violence, even when it benefits their side. Also, everyone has to come to realize that the problem is that many people are very unhappy with how things are and see no way to change them. This will not be easy.
  
  
• Individual Attacks Without a Partisan Motivation or Trend (Clionadh Raleigh): The trend in the U.S. is the lone-actor violence without a partisan trend. Actually, it has been that way for a long time. John Wilkes Booth was not operating on behalf of some organized group. Neither were Charles Julius Guiteau, Lee Harvey Oswald or James Earl Ray. The hopeful sign here is that the U.S. is not on the brink of civil war. The only way to stop lone actors is to make access to guns much more difficult (as is the case in Europe) and provide better mental health treatment for those in need of it.
  
  
• Political Violence Often Begets More Political Violence (Erica Frantz): The killing of Charlie Kirk shouldn't be seen in isolation. It is part of a broader pattern going back to the Jan. 6 rioters and the people who egged them on. A key problem is the personalization of politics, where the leader is in it for himself rather than in it as a representative of what millions of people want. We see that all over the world now. Ending the cycle of violence begetting violence requires top-down leadership and a shared understanding of the value of democracy.
  
  
• More People Will Conclude That Political Violence Can Be Justified (Solveig Hillesund): No society can insulate itself entirely from crazy people who get some weapon and attack a politician. When a large group of people come to believe that the political system does not care about their grievances, they are more likely to opt for violence as the only solution. The cycle of violence will only be broken when aggrieved people believe the political system can be used to address their issues. If peaceful avenues are seen to be pointless, violence can be justified. [Ed: The current cycle of midterm gerrymandering so as to get the people out of the loop is just about the worst way to get people to think that there is hope for the system.]
  
  
• We Do Not Have to Accept This Climate as Our New Normal (Shannon Hiller): Her group at Princeton has tracked 250 threats against politicians in 40 states in the first half of 2025 alone. These threats have led to politicians hiding and being unwilling to take unpopular stands, without which the problem can't be dealt with. If the environment doesn't change, the problem won't go away. We don't have to accept this as a given though. There have to be cross-partisan efforts to reject political violence and especially to avoid playing the blame game and fanning the flames by blaming whole segments of society for the acts of loners.
  
  
• Glorifying These Attacks Threatens to Normalize Them (Dalya Berkowitz): We could be headed for a cycle of tit-for-tat violence we haven't seen for decades. Violence against people usually comes from the far right. Violence against property usually comes from the far left. If the left begins to rejoice in Kirk's killing (depending on what facts come out), then the norm of nonviolence may be gone for decades. Research shows that incendiary rhetoric directed against certain groups threatens to normalize violence and allows people to justify their actions. The only way to tamp it down is for political leaders of all stripes to get together to try to lower the temperature and not use it to attack their favorite enemies. Otherwise, no one will be safe.
  
  
• This Is Now the Watershed Moment (Robert Pape): The Kirk killing was not unpredictable. Pape wrote an op-ed in the NYT in June saying that the country was on the brink of political violence. What is needed is for every political leader from the president down to local dogcatchers to give a full-on condemnation of political violence and urge restraint. They must do this on video and make it as convincing as their political ads. And they need to do it heavily on social media, especially TikTok, and address it to their own bases, which may be out for more blood.
  
  
• Political Leaders Must Condemn Violence Across Party Lines (Eduardo Moncada): In Latin America, political violence often blends with organized crime. That is not true in the U.S. (yet). But one factor that is common is the normalization of violence, with people saying it is justified if the "system" doesn't work. Can the cycle be broken? In the aftermath of Kirk's killing, it has already broken down into the familiar partisan narratives. That has to stop. Leaders have to be held accountable when they use dehumanizing or menacing rhetoric. We need to correct the view that the "other side" wants violence so "our side" has to do it, too. That simply reinforces the cycle.

The murder of Charlie Kirk is also reverberating around the world. Within minutes of the shot heard round the world (2025 edition), some world leaders condemned the assassination. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said: "An atrocious murder, a deep wound for democracy and for those who believe in freedom." The French foreign ministry tweeted: "France expresses its deep emotion following the assassination of Charlie Kirk." Despite Kirk once calling the U.K. a totalitarian third-world hellhole, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said it was "heartbreaking that a young family has been robbed of a father and a husband."

However, these weren't the only reactions. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said: "Charlie Kirk's death is the result of the international hate campaign waged by the progressive-liberal left." Jordan Bardella, the leader of the far-right National Rally in France, condemned the "dehumanizing rhetoric of the left and its intolerance." Vigils for Kirk popped up in London, Berlin, and Rome.

There was also action. On Saturday, a march of over 100,000 people in London led by far-right activist Tommy Robinson (the stage name of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) led to clashes with the 1,000+ police dispatched there to keep order. Twenty-five people were arrested and 26 officers were injured. The rival "March against Fascism" drew about 5,000 people. Robinson is the founder of the anti-Islam English Defense League and a very influential figure on the far right in Britain. Supporters held banners saying "stop the boats," "send them home," and "enough is enough, save our children."

Populist parties all over Europe are making hay out of Kirk's murder. They are opposed to mass immigration, skeptical of international institutions, averse to globalism and unabashedly patriotic. They also loathe elites and the expert class for having made a mess for the past 35 or so years. They are adopting MEGA (Make Europe Great Again) as a motto.

It has been a long time since the American right and European right were so united on their goals. The last time was before the Berlin Wall fell and they were united by anti-communism. That was before globalism had set in. Also, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were practically in love. It is a bit of a paradox that the trans-Atlantic political groups cooperating most are the groups that viscerally hate trans-Atlantic cooperation.

So how is Donald Trump taking this all in? He was talking to the architects of his grand new ballroom when he got the news of Kirk being shot. His reaction was shock, anger, and disbelief because he knew Kirk very well and considered him a key ally and personal friend (as much as he has friends). He was genuinely upset and sent J.D. Vance to go fetch Kirk's casket on Air Force Two. Trump also honored Kirk posthumously with the Presidential Medal of Freedom and said he would attend Kirk's funeral.

Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said that Kirk was the highest profile MAGA person other than those working in the White House. She also said: "So, I think it shook everybody to their core, and for many of us, it brought back the memories of last July 13th in Butler with the president."

But Kirk was more than an ally to Trump. Donald Trump Jr. said that Kirk was like another son to his father. He was also close to Vance and others in the White House, especially young staffers who became conservatives as a result of being part of Turning Point USA.

Many of the experts on political violence above said that at moments like this, leaders need to come together and condemn all violence and not call for revenge. How is that playing with Trump? When Ainsley Earhardt asked Trump on Fox how the country can come together, Trump said: "I'll tell you something that's going to get me in trouble, but I couldn't care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don't want to see crime. They don't want to see crime. They're saying we don't want these people coming in, we don't want you burning our shopping centers, we don't want you shooting our people in the middle of the street. The radicals on the left are the problem. And they're vicious, and they're horrible, and they're politically savvy." This is not exactly what Berkowitz, Paper, Hiller, and the others said is needed at this moment. (V)

Russia Hawks Have a Plan

Some members of Congress still hate the godless pinko commies in Russia and want to punish Russia for continuing to kill people in Ukraine. Their problem is that many Republicans are scared witless of Donald Trump and don't want to cross him. But the hawks have a plan. The idea is to add a provision to the upcoming must-pass bill to fund the government that will impose punitive sanctions on Russia.

The leaders of this plan are Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA). They are already lobbying their colleagues in both chambers of Congress. If the actual funding bill fizzles, as it so often does, there will be a continuing resolution. The sanctions could be attached to that as well.

Trump is somewhat lukewarm on sanctions, so that is a problem. A stand-alone bill would generate too much attention and he might not like that. Sticking the sanctions in the middle of some other bill where he won't find it might work, though.

Another reason for doing this is that some Democrats want to shut the government down. But if the sanctions are added to the funding bill, Democratic hawks might be willing to go for it.

Graham claims to have 85 co-sponsors so far. However, experience shows that once the call from Trump comes in, sponsors magically turn into opponents of any bill. Still, Trump is somewhat miffed with Russian President Vladimir Putin because he was not willing to listen to Trump when they were in Alaska together. (V)

Should Democrats Campaign on the Culture of Corruption?

Democrats are adrift and don't know which way to go. They are getting plenty of advice, though, from all sides. Two Democratic strategists, Ashley Etienne and Jesse Lee, have written a memo arguing that experience shows focusing on the culture of corruption and abuse of power is something voters can relate to. They want Democrats to call out this corruption and propose antidotes to each abuse. Here are some of the areas where Trump is especially corrupt and can be called out:

• Getting the DoJ to cover up Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and dangling a pardon in front of Ghislaine Maxwell.
• Firing agency heads (e.g., BLS) who were doing their job because he didn't want to hear the truth.
• Trying to rig the 2026 election with gerrymandering so your vote won't count.
• Killing clean energy while your electricity bill goes up, all as payback to oil company donors.
• Allowing his crypto business to become a way for rich donors to bribe him to do things for them and not for you.
• His corrupt power grab in L.A., D.C., and elsewhere to sideline your elected officials there.
• Weaponizing law enforcement to ignore real crime and focus on punishing his political enemies.

Alone, each of these is small, but together they make the point that Trump is totally corrupt and serves only his wealthy donors and not you. The approach is to tap into the public's feeling that "the system is rigged." Agree with that. Emphasize that. Say that your feeling that it is rigged is absolutely right. Then show how Trump is the one rigging it for him and against you. An approach like this against Trump in 2018 worked well with the Democrats picking up 41 House seats.

This is only half of it. The other half is proposing reforms to fix things. Some things could be:

• Ban the president, veep, and Congresscritters from owning stock except publicly traded ETFs like the S&P 500.
• End gerrymandering permanently.
• Apply binding ethics rules to the president, veep, Congress, and the courts with real penalties for violations.

We think their list is very meager. We would add:

• Require emergencies to be approved by the Senate and then for only 30 days.
• Ban acting appointments for all executive vacancies; let the #2 act until there is a Senate-confirmed appointee.
• Repeal all the laws that give the president emergency powers; if it is a true emergency, Congress will act.
• Make it a named impeachable offense for the president to impound any funding appropriated by Congress.
• Make it an impeachable offense for the president to spend funds in a way not intended by Congress.
• Reform the courts, especially the Supreme Court.
• Pass H.R. 1 and other election reforms.
• Get the big money out of politics, for example
  • Strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction on legislation about campaign funding.
  • Require all donations and donors to super PACs be posted on their website within 48 hours.
  • Have all donations under $500 for president and Congress be matched by public money 5:1.
  • Have all donations > $10,000 to any candidate be matched by equal public funds for the opponent.

By tapping into the public's feeling that the system is rigged and showing how that works and proposing reforms, the Democrats could have a strong case. (V)

Obama: I Was Wrong

In 2004, Barack Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. There he said: "There is no red America and no blue America, only the United States of America." He has now decided that he was wrong. There is only red America and blue America and he has endorsed the plan of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) to make California even more blue than it already is. Unity is so passé.

Donald Trump is making it abundantly clear that he is not the president of the United States of America. He is president of the Red States of America. He doesn't give a rat's a** about the blue states. They are the internal enemy to be crushed like a bug. No previous president, of either party, has acted this way in a moment of crisis. Even Lincoln, while he was waging war against the Confederate states, regarded himself as president of them, and wanted to bring them back into the fold. All previous presidents have tried to bring the country together when there was a crisis. Trump sees this as a weakness. He sees the country as divided into two camps: his supporters and his enemies.

Trump is not the only one. Steve Bannon tweeted: "Trump is a wartime president now focused on eradicating domestic terrorists like ANTIFA." Back in 2016, Bannon said that unity was not a goal at all. He said: "We didn't win an election to bring the country together." OMB Director Russell Vought has complained that the appropriations process is too bipartisan. He doesn't want the minority party to have any role in it at all.

Few things expose the bugs in the Constitution more than the provision letting the partisan state legislatures determine how their representatives will be chosen. Not surprisingly, they have largely chosen to maximize how many seats the majority party in the legislature will get in Congress. Even a political genius like James Madison missed this.

In fact, we are about to enter an era in which the House becomes like the Electoral College. In the Electoral College, whichever candidate gets the most votes gets all the electoral votes (except in Maine and Nebraska). Soon, whichever party controls the state legislature, will get all the House seats in its state. Think of it as an electoral high school. The Supreme Court has already punted on it and said House districts are up to the political branches and there is nothing the Court can do about it—unless it changes its mind, which it does regularly. (V)

Health Insurance Premiums May Soon Go Up a Lot

Voters are very sensitive to inflation. It doesn't matter what causes it, the president always gets blamed. There is some bad news for Donald Trump on this front. Health insurance is about to cost much more. Voters won't like this and Democrats should harp on the fact that it is the Republicans' fault.

One reason costs are going to go up is that heavy subsidies for health insurance were put in place in 2021, during the pandemic. They are set to expire on Dec. 31, 2025. All the Democrats have to do is nothing. Then the subsidies will go away and they can blame Trump. Some Democrats are fighting to save them, but that will take away a powerful Democratic weapon. This is the nature of asymmetric warfare. Democrats care what happens to actual people. MAGA Republicans care only about what helps them stay in power, their constituents be damned. Democrats need to learn how to play the game if they want to win.

Other reasons for higher premiums include possible tariffs on imported drugs and the uptake in the use of expensive GLP-1 drugs. Currently the tariff on imported drugs is 0%, but Trump wants to raise it to as much as 250%. Health insurance companies know this and have to plan accordingly, even if the tariffs aren't in place yet. Even drugs made in America will be affected, because 30% of the active ingredients come from China. In legal filings, insurance companies have already said they are factoring the proposed tariffs in because they don't want to be caught flat-footed. Democrats can certainly ride the tariff horse as far as it will go.

Since, under current law, the subsidies will expire in December, many health insurance companies are already sending out letters telling customers that premiums will rise next year, in some cases as much as 50%. The lack of subsidies triggers another problem that also works to raise premiums. Without subsidies, many young, healthy people will drop their insurance, making the pool full of older, sicker people. Insurance doesn't work well like that. Republicans don't want to subsidize health insurance for poor people, so all the Democrats have to do is let the Republicans dig their own graves—or even hand them shovels. Encourage people like Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) in his quest to get rid of the subsidies that he says are costing the government billions. (V)

Missouri Legislature Passes New Gerrymandered Map

Republicans are playing Follow the Leader, and in Republican circles, Texas is often the leader. It recently re-gerrymandered its map to try to flip five Democratic seats. Missouri is going second. The legislature has already passed a bill changing the boundaries of MO-05 (was D+12) to make it impossible for Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) to get reelected. Gov. Mike Kehoe (R-MO) has said he will sign it.

However, there is a rub. The map was drawn under an emergency clause in the state Constitution that allows a ballot initiative to overturn it if the vote was not a two-thirds majority in both chambers, which it was not. This could mean that the voters—who hate this kind of stunt—may get to weigh in on it, although the timing is not clear.

Ohio may be up next in the gerrymandering contest. It was actually going to do it anyway because the state Constitution says that if there is not enough bipartisan support for the map (and there wasn't in 2022), then the map lasts for only two cycles. The legislators are expected to try to kick Democratic Reps. Marcy Kaptur and Emilia Sykes out of their jobs. If there is not enough bipartisan support, then the process goes to the Ohio Redistricting Commission. If the Commission can't agree on a map, then the legislature gets to do it in the end. In the end, the Republicans will win this. (V)

Former Colorado Representative Ends Campaign to Regain Her Seat

Dr. Yadira Caraveo, a Democrat and the first Latina to represent Colorado in Congress, won her CO-08 seat in 2022. Then she lost it in 2024. She was already campaigning to get it back in 2026. Then suddenly she dropped out, complicating the Democrats' plans to take back the House, especially with all the gerrymandering going on.

Her problem is mental health issues—hers. She apparently twice tried to commit suicide and staffers saw her. She said that there is such a stigma associated with mental health that she couldn't take the flak she was getting anymore.

The district has a PVI of EVEN, so it is not lost to the blue team, but a former representative is generally a stronger candidate than a random state senator. Now the Democratic primary will become a real barnburner with no front-runner. There are likely to be half a dozen candidates or more before long.

In other House election news, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX), who has years of experience in national security on account of House committee assignments, has decided not to run for reelection next year. Instead, he will look for a private-sector job that will pay better than the measly $174,000 he is making now. His district, TX-10 in the middle of Texas, is R+12, so whoever wins the Republican primary gets to go to D.C. For the sake of the people in TX-10, we hope there is a Republican who is willing to make the sacrifice and accept a job that pays so poorly. (V)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger