It has been nearly a month since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the influential founder of Turning Point USA, yet the controversy surrounding his final days continues to intensify. The latest twist comes from conservative commentator Candace Owens, who on October 7, 2025, released screenshots purportedly showing Kirk’s private text messages expressing deep frustration with donor pressure and a dramatic change in his stance on Israel—just days before he was shot dead while speaking at Utah Valley University.
Owens, a close friend and former colleague of Kirk, dropped what many in the conservative movement are calling a bombshell. On her podcast and across social media, she claimed that Kirk had messaged several associates—at least three people, she said—warning that he feared for his life in the 24 hours before his murder on September 10, 2025. According to Owens, these warnings included both verbal and written messages, one of which was sent to a Turning Point USA donor. She asserted, “Charlie messaged several people saying he thought he was going to be killed.” While Owens declined to name her sources publicly, she insisted that the evidence was documented and real.
But that was only the beginning. Owens also unveiled screenshots from what she described as a private group chat involving Kirk and several prominent conservative figures. In these texts, Kirk lamented the loss of a $2 million annual donation after refusing to cancel Tucker Carlson as a speaker at Turning Point’s flagship “AmericaFest” event. In one message, Kirk allegedly wrote, “Just lost another huge Jewish donor. $2 million a year because we won’t cancel Tucker.” In another, he vented, “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.”
These revelations have set off a firestorm of speculation—and not just among right-wing circles. According to reporting by IBTimes and The Hindustan Times, Owens argued that the growing conflict over Israel and donor influence could have been a motive behind Kirk’s killing. She pointed to the texts as evidence that Kirk was under “immense pressure from major donors who wanted him to drop Tucker Carlson from a TPUSA event.” Owens has further suggested that the government is covering up key evidence, including details about the missing bullet and autopsy reports, and continues to insist that the accused shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, is not the real culprit.
The public reaction has been predictably polarized. Many users on X (formerly Twitter) and other platforms questioned the authenticity of the screenshots Owens shared, with some accusing her of fabricating or editing the evidence for attention. “Obviously fake. You forgot to tag your sponsor,” one critic posted, while another quipped, “That ‘group chat’ looks poorly photoshopped.” Still, others have defended Owens, urging that “the texts might hold the truth about Kirk’s assassination” and calling for her protection.
Despite the online skepticism, Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet and Kirk’s associate Blake Neff have verified the authenticity of the group chat screenshots. In a 23-minute segment titled “The Leaked Text Messages” on the Charlie Kirk Show’s YouTube channel, Kolvet explained that he shared the messages with government contacts in the chaotic aftermath of the assassination, saying, “33 hours to nab the suspect meant leaving no lead unexplored.” Kolvet emphasized that Kirk’s stance on Israel was “complicated and nuanced,” and that the texts reflected donor pressure rather than imminent physical danger. Neff added that the messages captured Kirk in a vulnerable moment, not as a harbinger of his death.
The texts also reveal a side of Kirk that few in the conservative movement had seen before. Once a tireless advocate for Israel, Kirk reportedly wrote, “I have no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause,” a position that sharply contradicted his public persona. According to The Grayzone, Kirk had previously spoken at pro-Israel rallies, traveled to Israel frequently, and even met his wife in Jerusalem. Yet, in the days leading up to his assassination, he appeared increasingly alienated from what he described as donor “bullying” and financial “blackmail” from major pro-Israel donors.
Tucker Carlson, the embattled conservative commentator at the center of the dispute, confirmed that Kirk had discussed his frustrations with him directly. Carlson told the Daily Mail that Kirk had become critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling him a “very destructive force” who manipulated U.S. policy for his own ends. “He said it to me many times—he did not like Bibi Netanyahu,” Carlson said, adding that Kirk believed the United States was being used to fight wars on Israel’s behalf. “There was a small, very intense group who tormented Charlie until the day he died,” Carlson added, though he did not elaborate further.
The fallout from these revelations has been profound. Within the conservative movement, Kirk’s apparent shift away from unconditional support for Israel stunned many of his longtime allies. Some have praised his willingness to embrace a more “nuanced” view of the Gaza conflict, while others have accused him of betrayal. The withdrawal of $2 million in funding by Jewish donors, as reported by Kolvet and confirmed by Carlson, underscores the immense financial and political pressures that shaped Kirk’s final days.
Meanwhile, the official investigation continues. The FBI has arrested Tyler Robinson, who remains the sole suspect and could face the death penalty if convicted in Utah. Yet, as IBTimes notes, the motives behind Kirk’s murder remain unsettled. Critics argue that inconsistencies in the government’s account—along with the emergence of these private messages—warrant a deeper probe into the influence of donor money and lobbying in shaping U.S. policy toward Israel.
As the dust settles, Kirk’s death has deepened existing fractures within the American right over support for Israel and the role of major donors in conservative politics. The newly released texts, confirmed by multiple sources, have not only complicated the narrative surrounding Kirk’s assassination but have also forced a reckoning with the unseen forces that shape both public policy and personal destinies in Washington. The debate over what really happened to Charlie Kirk—and why—shows no sign of fading soon.
For now, the legacy of Charlie Kirk’s final days is one of unanswered questions, political intrigue, and a movement at war with itself.
