Kate Amber, MSc Posted on: September 17, 2025
The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk has sent shockwaves through the nation, not only for the tragic loss of life but also for the disturbing patterns of coercive control that have emerged in the aftermath. As the founder of The Quicksand Model® and a lifelong supporter of ending coercive control (even though I didn't always know what it was called), I am compelled to examine how the administration’s and media’s responses to this event have mirrored the very dynamics of abuse and manipulation that our movement seeks to expose and dismantle. The reactions—marked by double standards, double speak, and the classic DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) maneuver—offer a sobering case study in how coercive control operates far beyond the private sphere, infecting our public discourse and political institutions.
In the immediate aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder, the administration and prominent Republican figures, including President Trump, wasted no time in shaping the narrative. Before any facts about the perpetrator were known, the talking points were clear and coordinated: this was the act of a “leftist lunatic,” a symptom of a supposed epidemic of left-wing violence, and a direct attack on conservative values. The media, in lockstep, amplified these claims, stoking fear and division. This rush to judgment exemplifies a common weapon of coercive control: the imposition of a single, self-serving narrative that silences dissent and precludes critical inquiry, which, within The Quicksand Model® falls under fraud.
Although the investigation is ongoing, as it unfolds it is becoming clear that the motivation for the killing is more complex, and most likely the actions of a single individual who was raised by a Republican Mormon family—and one who was regularly photographed with guns. As this information surfaced, the narrative shifted abruptly. Suddenly, the administration and its media allies pivoted to downplay the political motivations, emphasizing mental health and “lone wolf” explanations. This is a textbook example of double standards and double speak, both central to The Quicksand Model®. When the facts fit the preferred narrative, they are weaponized; when they do not, they are minimized or reframed. The rules change depending on who is implicated, revealing a deep hypocrisy at the heart of the response.
This pattern is not merely rhetorical; it is a form of psychological manipulation that mirrors the tactics of coercive controllers in abusive relationships. Double standards—where one set of rules applies to the in-group and another to the out-group—serve to maintain power and control, while double speak—weaponizing language to obscure, distort, or reverse meaning—confuses and destabilizes the public, making it harder to hold anyone accountable. These are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of coercive control in political discourse, as research has shown.
The president’s assertion that leftists are the primary source of political violence is not only misleading but directly contradicted by a wealth of data from government agencies and independent researchers. In fact, right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of domestic terrorism fatalities in the United States over the past decade, accounting for approximately 75% to 80% of such deaths, while left-wing extremist incidents comprise only about 10–15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities. Most left-wing violence has targeted property rather than people, whereas right-wing attacks have resulted in far more casualties, including high-profile mass shootings. The FBI, DHS, and multiple academic studies have consistently identified racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists—particularly those on the far right—and anti-government extremists as the most persistent and lethal domestic terrorism threats in recent years. By perpetuating the false narrative that left-wing violence is the greater threat, political leaders and media outlets not only distort the facts but also engage in the very coercive control tactics—double standards and double speak—that The Quicksand Model® warns against.
Perhaps most insidious is the use of DARVO, a tactic I have long identified in my work. In the days following the assassination, we saw the administration and its supporters Deny any responsibility for the toxic political climate, Attack those who called for accountability or gun reform, and Reverse Victim and Offender by portraying themselves as the true victims of “media bias” and “leftist attacks.” This maneuver not only deflects blame but also serves to silence and intimidate critics, reinforcing the coercive controller’s grip on the narrative.
The Quicksand Model® teaches us that coercive control is not just about overt violence; it is about the subtle, persistent erosion of truth, trust, and agency. When those in power manipulate narratives, shift blame, and apply double standards, they are engaging in the same dynamics that trap targeted victims in abusive relationships. The public, in this sense, becomes collectively gaslit—unable to trust what they see and hear, and increasingly powerless to demand accountability.
As proponents of ending coercive control, we must call out these patterns wherever they appear. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a tragedy, but the administration’s coercively controlling response is a warning. If we allow double standards, double speak, and DARVO to define our public discourse, we risk sinking ever deeper into the quicksand of coercive control. Our mission at End Coercive Control USA is to shine a light on these dynamics, demand transparency, and empower all people—survivors, citizens, and communities—to resist the pull of coercive control in every sphere of life.
While it is undeniable that Charlie Kirk’s views and actions were often provocative and incendiary—frequently sparking intense debate and controversy—he, like every American, was entitled to the fundamental right of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment. As we honor that right, it is imperative that we also remain vigilant in demanding that political figures, media organizations, and social media platforms do not misrepresent facts or manipulate narratives for partisan gain. Only by upholding both the freedom to speak and the responsibility to tell the truth can we foster a society that is both open and just not by succumbing to the politics of fear and control, but by recommitting ourselves to truth, accountability, and the relentless pursuit of justice for all.
In the intricate dance of power dynamics, whether in personal relationships or the political arena, the patterns of coercive control often lurk beneath the surface of the quicksand, invisible to the untrained eye. Today, we delve into a pressing issue that exemplifies how the tactics of coercive controllers can manifest in the highest echelons of government: the recent continuing resolution situation. By examining this through the lens of The Quicksand Model®, we aim to shed light on the parallels between coercive control within domestic abuse and political abuses of power, revealing the insidious nature of how coercive control functions in our society.
The Quicksand Model®: A Framework for Understanding Coercive Control
The Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control is a comprehensive educational tool designed to make the often invisible patterns of coercive control visible. It synthesizes 70 years of research and theory across various fields, including domestic abuse, human trafficking, cults, and extremism, to educate professionals on detecting and preventing coercive control. This model is particularly effective in overcoming professional and societal biases that hinder the protection of victims and the accountability of coercive controllers.
In the context of political power dynamics, The Quicksand Model® can be applied to understand how coercive control tactics are used by political entities to deceive, manipulate, and maintain power. The model's focus on making invisible coercive control tactics and strategies visible is crucial in political settings where abuses of power are often exerted through subtle and manipulative means.
The Double Bind of the Continuing Resolution
The recent continuing resolution (CR) situation in U.S. politics provides a stark example of how coercive control tactics can be employed on a grand scale. The House Appropriations Committee released the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, on March 8, 2025, setting in motion a series of events that would culminate in a classic double bind scenario.
The Setup (aka The Double Cross): Creating a No-Win Situation (aka The Double Bind)
The Republican-led House pushed the continuing resolution as a straightforward solution to avoid a government shutdown, emphasizing defense spending increases and maintaining essential services without raising taxes. However, this framing created a double bind for Democrats and the public:
The impossible choice, or as Janja Lalich might call it, the "bounded choice," and what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called a "false choice", presented to democrats was:
- Support the bill and accept its provisions, potentially allowing for misuse of funds, continued constitutional violations, and cuts to non-defense spending.
- Oppose the bill and risk being blamed for a government shutdown, which could have severe consequences for millions of Americans.
This situation mirrors the tactics used by coercive controllers in relationships, where victims are often presented with choices that have negative outcomes regardless of their decision. The Quicksand Model® helps us recognize this pattern, showing how political entities can entrap people in the quicksand of coercive control similar to in abusive relationships.
Double Speak: The Language of Manipulation
Double speak, the weaponization of language and communication that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words, and is a common tool used by coercive controllers in relationships and politics.
In the context of the continuing resolution, we see this tactic employed through:
- Framing the CR as a "clean funding extension": This language obscures the potential consequences of the bill's provisions and the lack of input from opposition parties.
- Emphasizing "government functionality" over specific funding directives: This rhetoric masks the potential for misuse of funds and the sidelining of important social programs.
The use of double speak in this situation aligns with the patterns identified in The Quicksand Model®, where coercive controllers use language to confuse, disorient, and control their targeted victims. By recognizing these linguistic patterns and signs of coercive control, we can better understand and resist coercive control in both personal and political contexts.
DARVO: As a Political Strategy
DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) is a manipulative strategy often used by coercive controllers to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. In the political arena, we see this strategy employed in the following ways:
- Deny: Republican leadership denied any wrongdoing in the process of crafting the CR, despite concerns about lack of bipartisan input.
- Attack: Critics of the bill were attacked and accused of being willing to shut down the government, shifting focus away from the bill's contents.
- Reverse Victim and Offender: By framing Democrats as obstructionists, the Republican leadership positioned themselves as victims of unreasonable opposition, rather than acknowledging the legitimate concerns raised.
This use of DARVO in political contexts mirrors its application in abusive relationships, where it serves to manipulate perceptions and maintain control. The Quicksand Model® helps us identify these strategies and tactics, empowering us to challenge such coercively controlling behaviors effectively.
Breaking Free from the Quicksand
Understanding the parallels between coercive control in relationships and political manipulation is crucial for fostering a healthier democracy. The Quicksand Model® provides a framework for recognizing these patterns and developing strategies to counter them. By educating ourselves and others about these tactics of coercive control, we can work towards systemic change that promotes transparency, accountability, and genuine collaboration in our political processes.
As we navigate the complex landscape of modern politics, let us remain vigilant against the subtle forms of coercive control that can erode our democratic institutions. By shining a light on these tactics, we take the first step towards breaking free from the quicksand of coercive control and building a more equitable and just society.
Remember, recognizing these patterns is not about partisan politics, but about understanding and challenging the abuse of power wherever it occurs. By applying the insights from The Quicksand Model® to our analysis of political events, we can foster a more informed and resilient citizenry, capable of holding our leaders accountable and promoting genuine democratic dialogue.
In the face of coercive control, whether in personal relationships or the political sphere, knowledge and awareness are our most powerful tools. Let us use them wisely to create a world where coercion and control have no place, and where true democracy can flourish.
