MAGA Fights Over Charlie Kirk's Legacy

As soon as I finished yesterday’s blog post, my first thought was that today I should write about the civil war that has broken out in MAGA land regarding Charlie Kirk and Israel. My second thought, however, was that Will Sommer of the Bulwark would address the same topic, and nothing that I wrote would measure up. I hoped that I might beat him to press. But, sadly, no. He published a report yesterday, and as expected, it’s excellent. I strongly recommend Sommer’s article. However, that article is behind a paywall, so I assume there is still room for my poorman's version.

Just to set the table, I should emphasize that there is no evidence whatsoever that Israel had any role in Kirk's murder. Moreover, I am not aware of any prominent MAGA influencer who has explicitly accused Israel of killing Kirk. Rather, the allegations have been more of the "just asking questions" sort of thing. The crux of the controversy appears to be whether or not Kirk was changing his views on Israel and was suffering repercussions as a result. The leading voice suggesting that this is the case is Candace Owens, now primarily a podcaster but earlier in her career had been hired by Kirk at Turning Point USA. By all accounts, she and Kirk were reasonably close friends. Owens has support from Tucker Carlson, Roger Stone, Megyn Kelly, and Matt Gaetz. Lined up against them are a host of MAGA establishment figures such as Vice President JD Vance, Ben Shapiro, and most vocally of them all, Laura Loomer.

Someone attempting to be diplomatic might describe Owens and Loomer as eccentric. I, however, have no interest in diplomacy and will simply say that they are both crazy. Owens is currently being sued by French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, over repeated allegations by Owens that Brigitte is transgender. Loomer might be best known for chaining herself to Twitter's front door after she was banned from the social media network. Whereas Owens' friendship with Kirk is not in question, Loomer was at odds with Kirk prior to his death. In July, Loomer posted a long tweet on X calling Kirk a "political opportunist" who behaved like a "charlatan." She argued that Kirk was not truly a supporter of cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump and was extremely angry that he had hosted comedian Dave Smith at a Turning Point USA event.

One thing that should be noted is that everyone involved in this controversy has ulterior motives. First of all, most of them hate each other. The MAGA influencer community is famous for its backstabbing, sabotaging of each other, and shifting alliances. TPUSA has a massive political constituency and significant political power. Moreover, it generates huge sums of money. It would be natural to expect a fierce battle over the organization's spoils. To an extent, TPUSA has resolved this issue by appointing Charlie Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk, as the organization's Chairman of the Board and CEO. This is probably the best possible outcome for both Owens and Loomer, neither of whom had any chance of leading the organization themselves, but both of whom likely hope to gain influence by picking up many of Charlie Kirk's supporters. Ultimately, however, this is a battle over who will control Kirk's legacy, especially as it relates to Israel.

Charlie Kirk and TPUSA were already embroiled in controversy concerning Israel before his death. Israel's war in Gaza has caused many Republicans, especially younger ones, to question the United States' support for the country. Republican support for Israel has traditionally been strong, and Kirk himself was a strong supporter of Israel. However, the Gaza war was putting stains on this support. Last month I wrote about decreasing support for Israel among Republicans and quoted a Quinnipiac poll that showed that “Republican sympathy for Israel had dropped to 64 percent, down from 78 percent a year earlier.” However, this drop-off was even more stark among young Republicans. As I wrote in that post, a recent Pew Research poll found that "Republicans under 50 are now about as likely to have a negative view of Israel as a positive one (50% vs. 48%)." Negative attitudes towards Israel are likely even higher among college-aged Republicans, and it is exactly that age group to which Kirk was attempting to appeal. Therefore, like any politician, Kirk had to either modify what had come to be an unpopular position or risk losing support among his constituency. But the more Kirk expressed skepticism about Israel, the more he encountered pushback from those who are pro-Israel.

According to Owens, this all came to a head during an early August TPUSA conference held in the Hamptons. At some point, billionaire Bill Ackman organized a meeting between Kirk and others, some of whom were strong supporters of Israel. Owens has called the meeting an "intervention" and said that "threats were made" towards Kirk due to his failure to toe the pro-Israel line. Owens also claimed that Kirk was offered a "ton of money" which he declined. She also says that during the meeting a phone call was arranged between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Kirk, during which Netanyahu invited Kirk to visit Israel. Owens described that as an attempt to "reeducate" Kirk and that Kirk declined the invitation. More ominously, Owens has said that Kirk believed the message of that meeting was that this was his "last chance."

Needless to say, Ackman's account of this meeting is much different. According to him, far from being an "intervention," it was arranged per Kirk's request and its purpose was to meet with potential "young ambassadors" who might work to counter the anti-Israel sentiment that has been growing among young people. He disclaims any hint of threats or bribes. For what it's worth, nobody who attended the meeting and who has publicly discussed it has supported Owens' account of events.

Regardless of which version of the meeting is true, the day after the meeting, Kirk appeared on the Megyn Kelly Show. During his appearance, Kirk stressed his pro-Israel credentials but complained about how he was being treated by some members of the pro-Israel community. He described their behavior as "revolting." He was very upset by the sentiment among some that criticism of Israel should not be allowed. Subsequent to Kirk's murder, Kelly reiterated that Kirk was under strong pressure from the pro-Israel crowd and that he deeply resented it.

The view that Kirk was changing his views on Israel and had received virulent responses from some pro-Israel individuals has received further support from others. Tucker Carlson, who is said to be at the root of much of the controversy, supported this view in a long interview. Carlson claims that Kirk urged him to highlight ties between Jeffrey Epstein and Mossad, Israel's intelligence service. He also says that two days before he died, Kirk told him that Kirk had lost a $2 million donation because he had agreed to host Carlson at a future TPUSA event. Former U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz wrote that he had "personal knowledge" that Carlson's claims were "100 percent true." Roger Stone, another crazy MAGA personality, wrote that he had "personal, firsthand knowledge that everything Matt Gaetz and Tucker Carlson are saying is true, because Charlie Kirk told me." U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene also supported Owen's and Carlson's version of events.

While none of these figures were suggesting that Israel had a role in Kirk's murder, others were connecting the dots. Such allegations gained enough traction that Netanyahu was forced not once, but twice to publicly dispel them. In a video appearance, Netanyahu denied that Israel had killed Kirk and blamed Qatar for funding such rumors. He presented Kirk as a strong and unwavering supporter of Israel.

While many viewed Kirk and TPUSA primarily as a conservative organization devoted to free speech, others viewed it more as a Christian organization. This was apparent in the aftermath of Kirk's killing when Kirk was often portrayed with religious imagery. Three churches even used artificial intelligence-created audio meant to recreate Kirk's words during their services last Sunday. This has spurred another division between various factions in the aftermath of Kirk's death. Kirk was an Evangelical Protestant. However, Owens claims, also without proof, that Kirk was considering converting to Catholicism. As already noted, there were strong divisions between pro-Israel and so-called America First factions. Greene weighed into this dispute with a long tweet this week. She described Kirk as a "Christian movement leader" and a "Christian martyr." She then went on, apparently in response to Netanyahu's remarks, to say, "Do not allow a foreign country, foreign agents, and another religion to tell you about Charlie Kirk." She concluded, "I hope a foreign country, and foreign agents and another religion does not take over Christian Patriotic Turning Point USA." Greene was clearly concerned about Jewish and Israeli influence in TPUSA. She also provided screen captures showing that Kirk had invited her to a TPUSA conference to debate about AIPAC, the pro-Israel public affairs organization.

For her part, Loomer has been nearly apoplectic about all of this. She accused Carlson of "trying to profit off of Charlie's dead body" and wrote that "I hate Tucker Carlson." One reason why Loomer was particularly angry with Carlson is that he was distracting from what she considered the more important exploitation of Kirk's death. Loomer wrote, "Imagine being such a sell out that you choose to push foreign propaganda to blame Israel for the Muslims instead of utilizing the death of Charlie Kirk to get accountability against the radical left." This was saying the quiet part out loud in multiple ways.

Many found this dispute to be extremely distasteful given that Kirk had not even been buried. Vice President JD Vance attempted to calm things down, writing:

To my friends on the political Right: I understand the feeling that people are putting words into Charlie Kirk's mouth. At some level, I agree and share your frustration.

Try to remember: a lot of people loved Charlie. It is natural for them to debate his views and his legacy. In fact, I think Charlie would welcome that.

But for now, let's celebrate our friend, remember his impact, and save the debate for after his funeral.

Figures like Owens and Loomer have little incentive to slow or halt the debate. Both generate income from the content they create on this topic. Owens' video about Kirk and Israel has received 8.1 million views on YouTube. The suggestion that Loomer would ever willingly hold her tongue is ludicrous. As a result, this dispute is likely to continue for some time. There could even be a moment of drama this weekend during Kirk's memorial service. If Owens plans to attend, Loomer has said that she would be banned. However, it is not clear that Loomer is in a position to make such a pronouncement.