In the days leading up to his shocking murder on October 6, 2025, conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk was a man under pressure—frustrated, outspoken, and, as recent revelations show, caught in a storm of internal conflict over his ties to Israel and its supporters. The fallout from Kirk’s leaked private messages has sent ripples through the conservative movement, exposing deep divisions over Israel, donor influence, and the boundaries of political loyalty.
The controversy began when Candace Owens, a longtime friend and fellow right-wing commentator, released a series of WhatsApp messages Kirk had sent to a group including Jewish associates just 48 hours before his death. The texts, confirmed as authentic by Turning Point USA (TPUSA) spokesperson Andrew Kolvet on October 8, 2025, painted a picture of a man grappling with the demands of powerful donors and the shifting sands of conservative opinion on Israel. In one particularly pointed message, Kirk lamented, “Jewish donors play into all of the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause.”
According to The New York Times, the tensions boiled over when a major donor, tech mogul Robert Shillman, pulled a $2 million annual donation from TPUSA after Kirk refused to cancel an event featuring Israel critic Tucker Carlson. Kirk’s frustration was palpable in another leaked message: “Just lost another huge Jewish donor. $2 million a year because we won’t cancel Tucker. I’m thinking of inviting Candace.” The group chat, reportedly including a rabbi and at least one pro-Israel Jewish associate—Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer—responded with unease, with one member replying, “Ugghhh,” and another pleading, “Please don’t invite Candace.”
The texts, first revealed by Owens on her YouTube show, quickly became the subject of heated debate within the conservative sphere. Owens argued that the messages showed Kirk had “recently made powerful enemies in the pro-Israel sphere,” even insinuating on X (formerly Twitter) that Hammer may have had foreknowledge of Kirk’s murder. Kolvet, however, struck a different tone, telling listeners on Kirk’s own show, “I actually am really excited that the truth is out there,” and describing Kirk’s private frustrations as “consistent with public frustrations he voiced many times” about the pro-Israel movement. Kolvet emphasized, “What is the truth about the way Charlie felt about Israel? Well, it’s complicated and it’s nuanced, and it was a wrestle that was going on for months.”
Kolvet further clarified that Kirk’s public tone on Israel was often more moderate than the private messages suggested, sharing past interviews where Kirk complained that some pro-Israel circles were unfairly painting him as antisemitic. In fact, months before his death, Kirk had sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warning that Israel was “losing support even in conservative circles.” Kolvet later confirmed that the controversial texts had been handed over to the FBI in the wake of the shooting, explaining, “We wanted to leave nothing unturned,” and cautioning that speculation about Kirk’s relationship with Jewish donors could “taint a jury pool.”
Josh Hammer, who was on the WhatsApp thread, downplayed the significance of the messages in a post on X, saying Kirk was “blowing off steam in a private group chat setting.” He added, “Charlie sought out our advice for how to better communicate the Israel issue on campus so as to be most effective with a younger Gen Z audience.” Hammer defended the right of donors to withhold support and of organization leaders like Kirk to be upset when they did so, but insisted, “the notion that Charlie Kirk was ‘turning’ on his career-long friendships with the Jewish people and the Jewish state of Israel—as opposed to (sarcastically!) blowing off steam in a private group chat setting—is an egregious lie and is belied by the facts.”
The saga took another turn at Kirk’s funeral, attended by former President Donald Trump, where Tucker Carlson delivered a eulogy laced with anti-Israel innuendo. Carlson alluded to Kirk’s assassins “eating hummus,” a remark widely interpreted as a nod to conspiracy theories circulating in right-wing circles that Israel may have had a hand in Kirk’s murder. These theories, while gaining traction among some young conservatives increasingly skeptical of Israel’s actions in Gaza, have been categorically denied by Netanyahu himself, who released a video refuting any Israeli involvement just before the funeral. No evidence has surfaced linking the only suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, to Israel. Robinson was arrested days after the shooting at Utah Valley University and remains in jail without bail as the investigation continues.
The internal turmoil at TPUSA hasn’t been limited to the donor dispute. Some members of the organization voiced frustration to The Daily Mail over Owens’ decision to leak the texts, arguing that it sowed division and distracted from mourning Kirk’s legacy. “The internal debates only fueled division, which they believe Kirk stood against, while taking away focus on mourning his legacy,” one member said. Despite these concerns, Kolvet has maintained that transparency is key, especially given the high-profile nature of the case and the swirl of conspiracy theories.
Meanwhile, the debate over Israel’s conduct in Gaza and its standing among U.S. conservatives continues to rage. Kolvet described Kirk’s stance as “nuanced,” noting that he often struck a more moderate tone in public than in private. He cited Kirk’s efforts to educate himself and his team on the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, referencing a discussion on Kirk’s show with Blake Neff, a former Fox News writer. Neff held up a copy of Righteous Victims, a book by Israeli historian Benny Morris that critically examines Israel’s role in the conflict, and recalled, “I read this book because Charlie said, ‘Blake, get really well versed on this so you can help me whenever it comes up.’”
As for the political fallout, the Trump administration has pointed fingers at the left, blaming them for Kirk’s murder without evidence and cracking down on speech critical of Kirk. This response has only deepened the sense of polarization and suspicion already swirling around the case. The investigation into Robinson’s motives is ongoing, and with the texts now in the hands of law enforcement, the coming months are likely to bring further revelations.
For now, the legacy of Charlie Kirk remains as complicated as his final days—marked by fierce independence, deep divisions, and a struggle to reconcile personal conviction with the demands of political and financial alliances. As the conservative movement reckons with these revelations, the story of Kirk’s last messages offers a window into the pressures and fractures shaping American politics today.
