Breaking down Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the Israel connection
By willowt // 2025-09-17
Copy
 
  • Charlie Kirk, co-founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), was assassinated last week in Utah.
  • Kirk rejected funding from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and became critical of Israel's influence in Washington.
  • Pro-Israel forces intimidated Kirk, leaving him fearful before his assassination.
  • Kirk’s change in views on Israel unsettled both his base and high-powered Zionist donors.
  • Some speculate that Israel played a role in Kirk’s death, although no evidence exists.
  • Netanyahu actively sought to frame Kirk in a pro-Israel light after his assassination.
Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old co-founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), was a prominent figure in the conservative movement. Known for his staunch support of former President Donald Trump, Kirk’s influence extended beyond the political arena. While initially a steadfast supporter of Israel, Kirk’s perspective shifted dramatically in 2025, particularly following Israel’s prolonged military campaign against the Gaza Strip. The situation led to a stark awakening for Kirk, who found himself questioning the extensive Israeli influence in Washington, particularly within the Trump administration. According to a close friend of Kirk, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Charlie’s evolution was a result of witnessing firsthand the Israeli regime’s overreach in the U.S. political landscape. The pro-Trump influencer had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept a "massive infusion of Zionist money" for his organization, TPUSA. However, Kirk declined the offer, believing that Netanyahu sought to cow him into silence as he began to publicly critique Israel’s role in Washington. The decision marked a turning point in Kirk’s political journey, setting him on a path that alarmed both his base and high-powered Zionist donors.

The rift with Israel widens: TPUSA’s shift and Kirk’s critical stance

Starting from 2012 when he launched TPUSA, Kirk’s career was largely propelled by Zionist donors, who funneled millions of dollars into his organization through neoconservative outfits like the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Over the years, Kirk repaid his backers by fueling an unrelenting flow of anti-Palestinian and Islamophobic content and propounded propaganda favorable to Israel. However, as Israel’s bombing campaigns in Gaza intensified, Kirk’s views began to change. At his TPUSA Student Action Summit this July, Kirk provided a platform for prominent conservative figures, including Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and the anti-Zionist Jewish comedian Dave Smith, to express their dissenting opinions. This shift within the conservative youth organization was met with resistance from pro-Israel forces within his circle and beyond. Kirk’s friend revealed that wealthy and powerful allies of Netanyahu, including many who had historically funded TPUSA, treated him with contempt, ordering him to fall back into line. "He was being told what you’re not allowed to do, and it was driving him crazy," the source said. Kirk’s frustration was palpable, as he aired his mounting concerns publicly. In an interview with conservative host Megyn Kelly, Kirk described his experience: "The more that you guys privately and publicly call our character into question—which is not isolated, it would be one thing if it were just one text, or two texts; it is dozens of texts—then we start to say, ‘whoa, hold the boat here.’”

Netanyahu’s attempt to shape Kirk’s legacy

Shortly after Kirk’s assassination, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched a public relations push to frame Kirk’s legacy in a pro-Israel light. In interviews and tweets, Netanyahu sought to portray Kirk as a staunch supporter of Israel, despite the late activist’s public transformation. Netanyahu’s efforts raised questions about his intent and whether they aimed to distract from the controversy surrounding Kirk’s changing stance on Israel. Netanyahu’s public relations machine worked overtime, with the Prime Minister dedicating multiple tweets and interviews to memorializing Kirk. In a Fox News interview, Netanyahu insinuated that Israel’s enemies were responsible for the killing, despite no official suspect being named at the time. The Israeli Prime Minister also denied any involvement in Kirk’s assassination, dispelling widespread rumors on social media that his government was behind the act.

A polarized response: Conspiracy theories and official investigations

The immediate aftermath of Kirk’s assassination saw a surge of public speculation, with thousands of social media users speculating that Israel played a role in Kirk’s death. A post by libertarian influencer Ian Carroll on Twitter/X garnered over 100,000 likes, suggesting that Israel had "murdered" Kirk. Harrison Smith, a personality at the pro-Trump Infowars network, had even warned of "someone close to Charlie Kirk that Kirk thinks Israel will kill him if he turns against Israel." Despite these theories, no evidence substantiates Israeli involvement in Kirk’s assassination. The official investigation, led by federal law enforcement, has identified a 22-year-old Utah resident as the primary suspect. However, the public remains divided, with many skeptical of the official narrative and pointing to the rapid rise of conspiracy theories. Some theorize that Israel might have been attempting to conceal plans related to the Golan Heights or to lure the United States into joining their side in the conflict. The controversy deepens as public figures question official statements, yet face accusations of anti-Semitism or being labeled as conspiracy theorists. This polarization raises critical questions about the balance between questioning authority and fostering a healthy skepticism in the face of tragedy.

A battlefield for narratives and the future of the conservative movement

Charlie Kirk’s assassination marks a pivotal moment for the conservative movement in the U.S. His transformation from a zealous supporter of Israel to a critic of its influence in Washington highlights a growing schism within the movement. Kirk’s death has left many questioning the direction the conservative youth movement will take in the wake of his passing. Ben Shapiro, in a statement following Kirk’s death, vowed to continue Kirk’s work, promising to "pick up that blood-stained microphone where Charlie left it." However, the future remains uncertain, and the conservative movement is likely to see ongoing debates about the role of Israel in American politics. As America grapples with the implications of Kirk’s assassination, one thing is clear: the landscape of conservative politics will never be the same. The incident has ignited a firestorm of debate and exposed the complex dynamics at play within the conservative movement, leaving many to wonder where the conservative movement is headed in the aftermath of this tragedy. Sources for this article include: TheGrayZone.com Presstv.ir X.com ResponsibleStateCraft.org
Copy