Have you ever lost someone close to you, someone who shared their heart with you in their final days, someone who entrusted you with important information and personal insight? After they suddenly pass, you feel inclined to share their heart and intentions with other people, especially when others misconstrue who that person was, what they were thinking, what they believed. That’s the position Candace Owens finds herself in now—grieving her friend Charlie Kirk while fighting to correct the record about his final days. When Israel’s current leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke to Fox News about Kirk’s position on Israel just a day after his sudden death, it did not settle right with some of Kirk’s closest friends—most notably Owens, who knew the truth about his shifting beliefs and the pressure he was under from billionaires and the leaders of foreign governments (Netanyahu) in his final days of life.
Key points:
- Candace Owens claims Charlie Kirk was pressured by billionaire donors and foreign governments to align with pro-Israel narratives before his death.
- Owens alleges Kirk was offered large sums of money to conform, while also facing threats and intimidation.
- Netanyahu publicly commented on Kirk’s views, but Owens demands transparency, including the release of a private letter Kirk sent to the Israeli leader.
- Kirk was reportedly reconsidering his stance on Israel, concerned about free speech restrictions under antisemitism laws.
- Owens insists this isn’t about conspiracy theories or blaming anyone for assassinating Charlie Kirk, but about honoring Kirk’s legacy and exposing the pressures he faced.
A friend’s courageous stand
As a close friend to Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens knew important details about his whereabouts and mindset—details that are now being re-framed by figures like Netanyahu, who has sought media attention to shape a narrative about Kirk’s beliefs regarding Israel. But there’s more to the story, and others are speaking out. Owens is challenging Netanyahu to release the full letter Kirk sent him just months before his death, arguing that the public deserves to know the truth about his evolving perspective.
Let’s be clear: Owens isn’t accusing Netanyahu or Turning Point USA’s billionaire donors of orchestrating a grand conspiracy to assassinate Kirk. She’s simply trying to set the record straight on where her friend stood on these critical issues in the months leading up to his death. According to Owens, Kirk was changing his positions, opening up to new evidence about the Israeli government’s actions and growing concerned that antisemitism laws were becoming a threat to free speech in America. He believed these laws were backfiring, hurting Israel’s case rather than helping it.
Kirk’s shift wasn’t just ideological—it was personal. Owens has taken a bold step to clarify where her friend stood, and she’s calling on billionaire donors and even Netanyahu to be transparent about their communications with Kirk. This isn’t about assigning blame for his death; it’s about understanding the pressures he faced from foreign governments and wealthy influencers who wanted to control his organization’s messaging.
The cost of dissent when foreign governments and billionaires apply pressure
Kirk’s growing skepticism put him at odds with powerful forces. Owens has hinted that he was offered substantial financial incentives to fall in line, but he resisted. His defiance may have cost him dearly. The question now is whether Turning Point USA, the organization he built, will honor his legacy by fostering open debate—or whether it will continue to be a tool for outside interests.
This moment isn’t just about Kirk; it’s about the broader struggle for intellectual honesty in conservative circles. If a movement can’t tolerate questions about foreign influence, how can it claim to stand for freedom? Owens isn’t just mourning a friend—she’s fighting for the soul of a movement that seems increasingly willing to sacrifice principle for power.
Owen’s concerns are corroborated by other sources close to Charlie Kirk, who spoke with independent journalists at the GrayZone.
Among these concerns:
- A month prior to his assassination, Bill Ackman hosted a contentious meeting in the Hamptons where he and other pro-Israel figures confronted Charlie Kirk over his criticism of Israeli influence.
- Kirk left the meeting upset, allegedly feeling “blackmailed” and concerned about Israeli pressure on his organization.
- Ackman denied the claims, calling them “totally false,” but refused to provide evidence to back his denial.
- The meeting included influential pro-Israel operatives, some of whom later participated in Israeli-government-funded trips to Gaza.
- Kirk was reportedly considering converting to Catholicism, distancing himself from the evangelical Zionism that dominates conservative circles.
- Before his death, Kirk resisted offers from Netanyahu for funding and a meeting in Jerusalem.
- After Kirk’s death, Netanyahu publicly commented on it, framing his own narrative about Kirk, while not being transparent of forthright about their business interactions and conflicts of belief in Kirk’s final days.
Candace Owens is asking for transparency on these communications, which reveal the type and severity of pressure that Charlie Kirk was under in his final days. Imagine foreign governments, candidates for higher office, and billionaire funders all vying to control who you allow at your events and what topics are allowed to be discussed, while trying to impugn your character for speaking out on contentious topics…
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.