On 7th of October, 2025, Turning Point (TPUSA) Spokesperson Andrew Kolvet confirmed on the Charlie Kirk Show what has been long been claimed by Candace Owens since the murder of Charlie Kirk, that there were prominent Jewish donors, namely Bill Ackman, pressuring him not to be anti-Israel, merely two days before his death.
In a leaked text message chain, Charlie Kirk had said he had lost a $2 million donation from a Jewish donor because he wouldn’t cancel Tucker’s appearance (presumably at this year’s Student Action Summit). After venting about Jewish donors, Charlie Kirk said, “I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause.”
The Free Pack reached out to Arionna Mangione, President of TPUSA NCSU chapter, about what they make of this conversation.
“Of course it’s very interesting, but it doesn’t prove any of the conspiracy theories that people have been talking about.”
On the leaked text messages, Kolvet asserts, “That was a textgrab, a screengrab that I had shared with people, so it is authentic.” He further elaborates that he had shared the screengrab with “some people in government” soon after Charlie’s assassination. “…it happened really quick. It took 33 hours for authorities to get their suspect, and in those first moments, we wanted no stone unturned. We wanted to leave nothing unturned. So I shared it with a few people. Don’t know where it went from there, apparently. But here we are.”
Did Kolvet share any of the other exchanges? And why is it only now that we hear about this exchange? After all, Kolvet had previously denied Candace Owens’ other allegation, that Ackman had staged an intervention with Charlie Kirk over his reservations about the Israel conflict, even though, while Ackman denies that it was an intervention, he did not deny the notion of a gathering in the Hamptons happening: “Ackman has strenuously denied specific claims of an “intervention”, as have others, including Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon, who were at the Hamptons event, which they nonetheless confirmed had taken place.” (Newsweek 2025).
Furthermore, it is alleged by Owens that Kirk was invited by Ackman and others such as Dillon to the Hamptons after Kirk’s rhetoric had started to change and he began questioning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies of prolonging the ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Everyday, Kirk was allegedly becoming increasingly a proponent of the idea that Netanyahu’s policies in Gaza created an emergency mandate that allows Netanyahu to strengthen his already iron fisted grip on power.
It is important to note for context, that in Israeli politics there are many political parties, and candidates only have to achieve 20% popularity in order to be elected. This being said, the notion that Netanyahu is a populist is demonstrably false by all measures. He only gained 27% popularity and is still, according to the New York Times, under indictment for corruption. Though most mainstream media outlets will not cover this, a large portion of Israelis have been protesting Netanyahu and his policies for years, many of which pertain to Gaza, according to The Guardian and Reuters.
Other than that, another thing Kirk has brought to light on Patrick Bet-David’s podcast is that Netanyahu has openly expressed how he feels the judicial branch has “too much power.” To top it all off, because the Gaza war has just ended as reported by Al Jazeera, Netanyahu very well likely may face being charged with international war crimes, especially considering they are not respecting the ceasefire which seems to be a common theme with Israel.
Despite always being a staunchly Zionist defender of the state of Israel, according to Candace Owens, Kirk was allegedly offered 150 million dollars (10-20 million more than TPUSA’s annual budget) by Bill Ackman for Turning Point if he were to essentially stop spreading “antisemitic” rhetoric, referring to simply the questions that Kirk was finally beginning to ask about Israel, Netanyahu, the Gaza conflict, and AIPAC influence through, which happen to be the very same questions that a large portion of everyday Americans on both sides of the political spectrum are asking themselves.
For context, AIPAC is the American Israeli Political Action Committee, a foreign lobbying group with the goal of promoting a pro-Israel narrative, predominantly among the religious right. AIPAC also happens to be the only foreign lobbying group not registered under FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act). This is the problem many other conservative proponents such as Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massie, Margorie Taylor Green, etc, have been talking about: when it comes to Israel, keep your mouth shut unless it is in full support of everything the state is doing and has ever done and things will go a lot smoother for you. It is a commonly perpetuated mantra that turning your back on Israel is complete and utter PR suicide according to The Guardian, regardless of what side of the aisle you are on.
“I have been asked about the Bill Ackman event more than a few times now so I asked our staff who were traveling with Charlie to find out what’s true and what’s not. His team was with him ‘100% of the time when he wasn’t in his hotel room,’” Kolvet said on his X account.
“Here’s what they told me: ‘Bill never yelled at Charlie, never pressed him on Bibi, never gave him a list of Charlie’s offenses against Israel.’ There was concern raised about having Tucker at SAS (we don’t believe this came from Bill) and Charlie’s reply was: ‘Honestly, people telling me not to have Tucker makes me want to have Tucker, and I am going to lock him in for AmFest too.’ Charlie personally told me he had a very cordial relationship with Bill, and the event was productive.”
The investigation, if you can even call it that, into the assassination of right wing influencer and founder of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, has been handled about as well as the investigation into all of the attempts on President Trump’s life, or the Luigi Mangione case. It is no doubt a tumultuous time, and feeding into conspiracy theories and rumors at a time like this, especially regarding an incident as serious as a political assassination is not productive. However, I think many Americans can agree that it has become increasingly challenging to believe everything you see on the news, and the official narrative on what happened to Charlie Kirk stinks; almost none of it adds up.
There are many other loose ends about this case and lingering questions left unanswered that will likely never be publicly addressed by the appropriate responsible parties. What about his autopsy report? Death certificate? Ballistics and forensics reports? Why is Erika Kirk handling it so well, and seemingly peachy as a clam on the Charlie Kirk show days later instead of taking time to grieve and be with her children? Why does it seem like Candace Owens cares more about finding out who the real killer is than Erika Kirk? Why did he not have a nationally televised church funeral, but instead a MAGA rally with speeches of grandeur and t-shirts for sale with Charlie’s face on them? Why did Ben Shapiro make the face he did when Charlie said in his last ever interview with him that maybe we should not be believing the official narrative on what is being said about Israel? Why did Ben Shapiro say he was going to take over TPUSA right after Charlie died? The point I am stressing is this: not just are we asking the right questions, but are we willing to?
