In a whirlwind of controversy and speculation, the conservative political world has been rocked by revelations surrounding the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA. Just days before his untimely death at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, Kirk sent a series of text messages that have now been confirmed as authentic, exposing a bitter fallout with major Jewish donors and a dramatic shift in his political allegiances.
The saga began to unravel publicly when conservative commentator Candace Owens released screenshots of Kirk’s private group chats during an October 6 YouTube broadcast. The messages, sent just two days before Kirk was killed, detailed the intense pressure he faced from donors who objected to his refusal to disinvite Tucker Carlson—a frequent critic of Israel—from an upcoming Turning Point event. “Just lost another huge Jewish donor,” Kirk wrote. “$2 million a year because we won’t cancel Tucker. I’m thinking of inviting Candace.” He went on, “Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause.”
Owens’ decision to publicize the texts ignited a firestorm. According to The Daily Mail, Turning Point spokesman Andrew Kolvet swiftly confirmed the authenticity of the screenshot on October 7, stating, “It is authentic.” Kolvet explained that he had originally shared the messages only with “a few people in government” after Kirk’s death to ensure “no stone [was] unturned” in the investigation. “Charlie was adamantly free speech, and I am not personally going to impugn anybody’s character who is asking questions and looking for answers,” Kolvet said during an episode of The Charlie Kirk Show. “And, I will say that that text chain is consistent with frustrations that he voiced many times.”
The texts have become a lightning rod for debate. As reported by The Economic Times, Owens claims that Kirk’s organization is actively discouraging a thorough investigation into his murder, suggesting that there is an effort to “conceal the facts.” She has gone so far as to allege that Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old arrested for Kirk’s killing, may have been falsely framed. “What kind of a widow would not want the truths of her husband's murder to come out?” Owens asked pointedly, raising concerns about unanswered questions in Robinson’s case.
Turning Point, for its part, has pushed back against Owens’ insinuations. Kolvet insisted that the organization has been transparent and that the sharing of the private texts with government officials was meant to aid the investigation, not hinder it. He also bristled at the suggestion that Turning Point lacked interest in the truth behind Kirk’s death, emphasizing, as The Daily Mail noted, that Kirk “was wonderfully defiant. He was wonderfully independent, and he believed in the freedom of speech, and he felt like he deserved, as a friend of Israel over many years, the right to speak out and have criticisms.”
The controversy has also drawn in Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host at the center of the donor dispute. Carlson told his audience that, just days before his death, Kirk had confided in him about the donor withdrawal and his growing disillusionment with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “He did not like Bibi Netanyahu and he said that to me many times and he said to people around him many times. He felt that Bibi Netanyahu was a very destructive force,” Carlson said, as cited by The Daily Mail. Carlson claimed Kirk believed the United States was being used to fight wars on behalf of Israel and that “there was a small, very intense group who tormented Charlie Kirk until the day he died.”
The fallout from these revelations has been swift and severe. Owens has faced criticism from some quarters for turning Kirk’s murder into a viral talking point, but she remains adamant that she is seeking the truth about her friend’s assassination. “Charlie Kirk was done with Israel bullying him, and everyone knew it. Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause,” she reiterated, quoting Kirk’s own words.
Amid the political and financial drama, a more personal transformation was also underway in Kirk’s life. According to Owens, Kirk—originally an Evangelical Protestant—was contemplating a conversion to Catholicism in the months before his death. “He was praying with a rosary and he was attending masses,” she said, adding that Kirk had written to her, “Catholicism is looking better and better.” Owens contends that her comments about Kirk’s religious considerations led to coordinated attacks against her, but she stands by her assertion that Kirk was indeed moving toward Catholicism.
The complex relationship between Kirk and Israel is underscored by his history as a leading evangelical supporter of the country. He often traveled to Israel for religious and political events and even met his wife, Erika, there shortly before their romance began. Despite these deep ties, the texts and subsequent statements reveal that Kirk’s support had become conditional and fraught with tension in the months leading up to his death. According to The Daily Mail, Kirk even wrote a letter to Netanyahu warning that he was “losing the public battle in the US.”
The case against Tyler Robinson, the man arrested for Kirk’s murder, remains ongoing. If found guilty, Robinson could face the death penalty in Utah. Meanwhile, the debate over Kirk’s legacy and the circumstances of his death continues to divide the conservative movement, with some accusing Owens of exploiting the tragedy and others praising her for refusing to be silenced.
What’s clear is that Charlie Kirk’s final days were marked by profound personal and political upheaval. His candid texts, now confirmed as genuine, have peeled back the curtain on the fierce pressures and ideological battles that can rage behind the scenes of America’s conservative power brokers. As the investigation continues and the movement he helped build grapples with his loss, the questions raised by Kirk’s words—and the forces that shaped his final decisions—are unlikely to fade from public view any time soon.
