Warning: This article is about political violence. Some referenced videos may have explicit language.
As we approach the one-year anniversary of Charlie Kirk’s death, the trauma and controversy around his assassination continues. There has been no peace in the world since his death. Both sides of the divide that Charlie Kirk tried to unite are even more polarized than before. As the pre-trial formalities and hearings continue in Utah, there are two terms that arise in the Charlie Kirk Assassination story: narrative and conspiracy theory.
The goal of this article will be to try to identify facts, determine the origins of narratives and postulate motives that have led to conspiracy theories. The secondary goal is to get you thinking and not “ tell you what to think”, because too many are content to let traditional media sources do the thinking for you.
There are only two facts that we can ascertain from the CKA today. First is that Charlie Kirk was murdered viciously and publicly. Second, his death has divided the Right, or said another way, the conservative side of American politics. Everything else about the CKA is in dispute with the alleged assassin, the evidence to the motive.
It is the opinion of this author that there is an undeniable third fact about the CKA which is that the assassination was intended to initiate and or has become a psychological operation. The evidence for said statement can easily be found in the second fact above. The Right is divided against itself. The fact that the right is divided can be found easily on social media and the online news outlets.
As of August 2026, you have Tim Pool versus Alex Jones arguing on social media. You have Candace Owens battling Turning Point USA and Erika Kirk (Kirk’s widow). You also have the prominent conservative commentator Tucker Carlson taking a hard stance against the Trump administration for the military actions against Iran, which Carlson claims as Israel’s bidding against its enemies. Then you have conservative commentators like Megyn Kelly trying to stay out of the fray by not taking sides, which led to more division.
The Trump administration itself has been in turmoil as well since the assassination with resignations from Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Kent, Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi. Kirk’s death appears to be the spark that lit an emotional wildfire around the administration creating strife and division. The scrutiny of Kash Patel on the handling of the CKA has diminished his reputation in the eyes of many conservatives, but we’ll come back this later. Bondi and Gabbard had nothing to do with the CKA investigation, but we’ll come back to this later too.
Simply said, the Right is a divided hot mess at this moment. The timing couldn’t be worse considering we’re going into the midterm election with the Democratic Socialist Movement on the rise in our country. The question is how we go from the CKA to a psyop focused against the conservative right in America. The CKA has all the traditional hallmarks of a psyop and are thus outlined below.
A clear target audience – The Right.
Defined Behavioral Objective – Division and Dissension
Narrative Construction, Immediate and Ubiquitous Appearance
The victim = Charlie Kirk
The villain & the motive = multiple options
Allegedly Assassin - Tyler Robinson
Motive - Trans rights & LGBTQ issues, crime of passion
Conspiracy Theory Assassin – Israel Mossad
Anti-Israel from the destruction and killing in Gaza
Pressure from Israeli donors to de-platform certain people
Opposition (at the time of the CKA potentially) to war with Iran
Multi-channel Dissemination of Information
Ambiguity / Partial Truths
Ambiguous evidence – blurry photos and video, questionable text messages, failure of body cam footage, degraded DNA evidence, the inconclusiveness of the autopsy of the fatal wound based on the caliber of the bullet, etc.
Unanswered questions - the most glaring being the reason for the immediate paving over of the crime scene
Emotional Activation
Fear, Anger, Outrage – a perceived peacemaker is slain
Tribal Loyalty – Right vs LGBTQ or the Right vs Israel
Moral Disgust
Questioning the Narrative is perceived betrayal
Perception of the events being presented only in a binary fashion
Emotional escalation without new information
We have one victim and competing narratives. One narrative has evidence with no clear motive. The other narrative has no tangible evidence with a reasonably clear motive.
Here are the facts. Tyler Robinson is charged with aggravated murder, firearm discharge, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and a violent offense in the presence of a minor. Robinson’s alleged motive centers around his romantic relationship with his roommate Lance Twiggs. His alleged act of political violence at a TPUSA event at Utah Valley University was motivated by his growing leftist social beliefs and relationship with Twiggs.
Lance Twiggs is a central witness against Robinson in this case. Twiggs has been granted immunity in exchange for cooperation with prosecutors. The basis of the prosecution’s case stems from Twiggs regarding Robinson’s behavior the day of the shooting, their text, phone and social media communications and the physical evidence found at their residence. Apart from Twiggs, the prosecutors plan to present DNA evidence, ballistic evidence, surveillance footage, eyewitness testimony, and digital location tracking evidence along with the physical evidence found at their residence.
At a glance, it seems very clean cut and dry. But when you start to analyze the evidence and the witness testimony, the room for reasonable doubt creeps in quickly. The case right now seems fragile at best.
Here is the defense for Robinson. The ambiguity of ballistics is key. The bullet can’t be conclusively tied to Robinson’s gun. There aren’t enough significant markings on the bullet to say definitively it was fired from his gun. The engravings on the other bullets could have been added by anyone. Also, Robinson’s motive is purely speculative and overstated by the prosecution.
There are no direct statements from Robinson about expressing intent to kill Kirk. At this time, no threats, no manifesto, no messages or documented political obsession about Kirk exist. One engraved bullet does not prove premeditation or intention to commit murder. It is purely speculative. There is no evidence of planning or premeditation presented at this time. Digital evidence is circumstantial. Surveillance footage does not show intent. He may have been in the area but that does not mean he did it. There were plenty of other people who didn’t like Charlie Kirk on campus that were present as well. Then there are the chain-of-custody issues from delays in processing the evidence, inconsistencies in how the items were logged and possible contamination of DNA samples.
In addition, Twiggs’ testimony is unreliable. Twiggs has received immunity from the prosecution which incentivizes him to shape his story. Also, Twiggs’ statements allegedly have changed over time. Some details he gave were not corroborated by the physical evidence. Particularly, Twiggs timeline of Robinson’s movements didn’t align. In addition, his statements about Robinson’s behavior seem to contradict the footage and digital evidence. According to Twiggs, Robinson never spoke about Charlie Kirk or any conservative figure. Apart from political memes and expressing contrary political views, there was no definite intent to shoot Kirk presented as a motive by Twiggs’ own testimony or having even seen him with the gun. One could conclude that Twiggs could be attempting to protect himself from prosecution at a federal level. Remember, these are state charges.
Again, this all based on the preliminary hearing thus far. We’ve yet to see the full discovery. Based on what we have seen thus far, there is plenty of room for “reasonable doubt.” If there was a magic bullet piece of evidence that Robinson did in fact kill Kirk, you would think at this time the defense would be bargaining for a plea deal, and said evidence would be all over the news. We are not seeing that at all here in this case.
Now, this is where critical thinking comes into play. Fact: he wasn’t a student at UVU. There is no way to determine how familiar he was with the campus. Even if we take the prosecutions stance that Robinson was expressing “erratic behavior” that day (contradicted by Twiggs initially), we can deduce that if Robinson’s intention was to kill Charlie Kirk, that he would try to minimize his presence and the evidence of his intended crime.
Though no definitive number of cameras have been given that have captured Robinson’s presence on campus, allegedly “multiple” cameras show that Robinson was there. For someone who was allegedly about to commit murder, he made no attempts to hide his face. An addition, he makes no attempt to cover his movements by keeping his cell phone on his person. Riding the bus or taking public transportation would be wiser than driving your own car to a crime scene. If we travel down this line of thinking, he is innocent by reason of insanity or pure stupidity.
What person does that? If he was that unstable, why didn’t he just walk up to Kirk and shoot him? From what we see, there was plenty of opportunity to do just that. None of this makes sense with the least amount of critical thinking. This was the least thought-through, halfhearted attempt to commit murder of a public figure and or the most watered-down crime of passion ever committed if the prosecution’s evidence is true. Occom’s razor just doesn’t cut cleanly enough for this to be the case.
This has all the ingredients to make a lovely tasting conspiracy cake. There are huge voids to fill with speculation and intuition. And again, the trial itself hasn’t started and no true discovery of the facts from the prosecution or the defense has been presented. The trial of public opinion and questioning of the actions of Erika Kirk, the TPUSA staff, the Utah police and the FBI, is well underway.
Considering all this, how can this not be a start to a psyop? Are we to assume mere incompetence instead of malice? One would think that the assassination of one of the United States most prominent political and spiritual leaders would warrant more thoroughness and due diligence.
What would be someone’s motivation to target Charlie Kirk for assassination to disrupt the right-wing conservative movement in the US? There are several potential motives. None are particularly clear as of yet though there are several ties that bind them.
Narrative #1
Let’s start with the original narrative presented that Tyler Robinson allegedly murdered Charlie Kirk. Allegedly Robinson shot Kirk to stop the Right from advancing on their initiative of taking a stance against LBGQT+ rights and social issues. If anything, after the assassination, it had the opposite effect by raising the attention to how many trans-mass-shootings there have been over the past decades. Robinson’s alleged actions didn’t help his cause if that were his intention. Public perception is moving back to the original thought that trans-people are mentally unstable as a medically diagnosed condition.
In addition, more money has been raised to support TPUSA than ever before. It is safe to say that Kirk’s organization is well funded into the future. This would be a political backfire to disrupt the right-wing movement at best. You can’t threaten a group whose main pillars are the 1st and 2nd amendment. The militant trans-furry movement just doesn’t make sense.
If you really look at the effect of what has happened, things start to make more sense as a psyop against Israel or by Israel. No matter how you slice it, Israel always winds up in the middle of the conspiracy theories. There are too many coincidences that point in their direction.
Narrative #2
Watch this video below. This Megyn Kelly interview with Charlie Kirk gives context to what follows. In Kirk’s own words, he is critical of the Trump administration, Israel and the handling of the Epstein files in this video below and the first Megyn Kelly video above.
Let’s start with the CKA was a psyop against Israel. Why would someone want to frame Israel with assassination of Charlie Kirk? Public perception was that he was a peacemaker, an olive branch extender and generally someone who would talk to you and not at you with respect and decency. He truly treated people as he perceived them as the imago dei. There wasn’t another evangelical figure in the world that was a politically charged and beloved as Charlie Kirk. How else could you get the whole of the evangelical church in America to turn on Israel than the blatant killing of one of their own?
The timing of it couldn’t have been more perfect if this were the case. There is plenty of evidence and information available that Kirk was under pressure by TPUSA Jewish donors to de-platform certain speakers from their events like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, and even Megyn Kelly for not taking a side. Kirk was critical of the war in Gaza with the deaths of so many women and children, many of them Palestinian Christians. Kirk was critical of the administration with the potential (now a reality) of our war with Iran.
Also, Kirk was critical of Pam Bondi and the handling of the Epstein files and considering Epstein being a intelligence asset. Trump campaigned on releasing the Epstein files and balked at his promise. The narrative that Trump and many others (including Trump’s friends) were in the files and by his own admission he was protecting them. As written in previous articles, the proof of intelligence ties and more specifically to Mossad is beyond a shadow of a doubt now. The evidence mounting forced Bondi into a resignation in a short time later. You can see Kirk taking a behind the scenes position against the Israeli government growing the more you read and listen to his words.
In addition, there was allegedly a fundraising event in the Hampton’s where Kirk was under more pressure from the Israel lobby, though the context of those events is hotly debated. Regardless, something happened in the Hampton’s in the days before the assassination that was pushing him out the Israeli camp. In the interest of brevity, there are plenty of videos on YouTube with people like Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Joe Kent, etc. that clearly document that event so we won’t recount it all here.
It all leads back to Israel. The fact is that Kirk was disgruntled with the Israel lobby. In addition, he wasn’t quiet about it. Everything else beyond this is speculation about what was said or offered or threatened. Regardless, the seeds were planted and the scene set for Israel to be the villain in the story.
For speculations sake, let’s say Iran was the perpetrator of Kirk’s murder to frame Israel. If so, it has been a successful campaign, because anti-Israel sentiment is at an all time high. Antisemitism was steadily growing in America before Kirk’s death, and post the CFK, it has accelerated. Zionism is a growing topic among evangelicals, especially in Christian and conservative podcasts and social media. Dispensationalism is now being discussed and debated more regularly in Christian circles. “Replacement theology” is being espoused by the Catholic church and debated by Jews and Protestants alike it seems. It is a theological hot mess. But you know what Christians aren’t talking about? Islam and the mass migration of Muslims.
Again, let’s use critical thinking to analyze this thread of conspiracy. Here is where it doesn’t make sense. Kirk was not advocating war against Iran. From Kirk’s perspective, Iran was not a threat. It was a waste of time, money and resources that could be spent on rebuilding America by Kirk. Watch the videos below.
Watch the full interview here. The video below is time stamped at the most relevant part of the context of this article.
The narrative that Iran killed Charlie Kirk only makes sense if Iran can guarantee that they can frame Israel for it. This strategy is too big of a risk of drawing the US into the conflict. Ultimately a year later, we have the results of the 12-day War and a looming forever-war with Iran underway. Sorry Charlie.
Narrative #3
Let’s consider the CKA was part of a psyop by Israel. What would be their objective? First, it would be to silence a growing potential political enemy with great influence. Second, it would send a message across the conservative movement that if you aren’t with Israel, you’re against us.
But why Kirk? Why not someone like Thomas Massie who is openly opposed to the Israeli lobby in the US? Kirk was a political figure, but not in government like Massie. The assassination of a member of Congress would fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI and the CIA. It would be more than just a Federal investigation. It would go further and have greater implications delving into International Law. It would almost be an act of war. World War I much? Kirk’s murder is being prosecuted at the state level. We call it an assassination because it was an act of political violence, but he was not a politician in the US government. In this case, he was the perfect choice if this were true.
Where is the evidence of Israeli involvement? To find the evidence you have to look at Joe Kent, former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Most of the claims of foreign involvement in Kirk’s death stem from statements Kent has made which fueled the conspiracies around this event.
“We’ve been told that this individual, Robinson, is the lone gunman, and maybe he is, but the investigation that I was a part of — the National Counterterrorism Center was a part of — we were stopped from continuing to investigate,” Kent told Carlson. “There was still a lot for us to look into that I can’t really get into, but there was still linkage for us to investigate that we needed to run down,” he added. “It’s a data point that we need to look into,” he told conservative commentator Tucker Carlson in March.
We may never know if those data points were Iranian or Israeli. The FBI and the DOJ told Kent to back off from this investigation based on his comments. In addition, if there were any potential foreign involvement, he would be notified by them. It is unknown publicly if there was any followup.
Then we have Candace Owens, friend and protagonist of the foreign intelligence connection to the assassination. Beyond a shadow of doubt, Owens and Kirk were close friends. If you’ve followed Kirk’s career, it is very plain the Kirk thought well of Owens. As someone who had a close friend murdered in a similarly violent fashion, it is easy to empathize with her passion to pursue justice for her close friend and brother in Christ.
Regardless of her intentions, the analysis of the CKA has made her career. Owens has been cast before and after Kirk’s death as an alleged grifter. Her coverage of the investigation and of the preliminary trial skyrocketed her numbers on social media without a doubt. And regardless of what you think of Owens, her investigative team uncovered many interesting correlations and questionable evidence contrary to the Robinson shooter narrative.
https://www.axios.com/2025/09/17/charlie-kirk-israel-candace-owens-ackman
Her theories on Egyptian military planes following the Kirk’s being one of purely circumstantial and coincidental fuels the flame of international involvement. Now, Owens claims that the overlap (roughly 69–73 occasions between 2022 and September 2025) and that the pattern suggests the aircraft were tracking Erika rather than Charlie. Two of said planes were on the ground in Provo, Utah on that day supposedly. But flight logs are not an assassin’s bullet.
Then you have her critique of the Kash Patel tweets which adds fuel to the fire.
Fact: Director of the FBI, Kash Patel, tweets almost four hours to the minute after Kirk’s death that they have the suspect in custody. The search for Kirk’s killer ends with law enforcement. It isn’t until an hour and a half later, Patel has to retract his statement. According to Owens, this lapse of time allows for a potentially would-be assassin to get away.
That subject in custody was Zachariah Ahmed Qureshi. This man is a Provo, Utah resident and a returned Latter-day Saint missionary who attended the “American Comeback Tour” event that day from twenty feet away reportedly. Tyler Robinson would not be arrested and in custody until the morning of September 11th the following day. Strangely enough, no media source reports the exact time of his arrest.
Another claim Owens allegedly made was Netanyahu misrepresented a letter sent to him by Kirk. In this letter, Netanyahu states that Kirk expressed his unwavering support for Israel. Owens also allegedly claimed that “Bibi protests too much” at Israeli involvement in Kirk’s death. Pointing to the strange timing of Netanyahu’s public relations campaign in the US and how quickly the denials of involvement looked too convenient and suspicious according to Owens.
Probably the most valid suspicion Owens has of the handling of the investigation is the handling of memory cards by Terryl Farnsworth. After investigation Owens claims the footage behind Kirk’s head was pertinent to the investigation and it was clipped from what was presented. Also, Farnsworth only takes the one card (footage from behind) and not all four cards. Agreeably, watching the footage shown by Owens, the behavior seems odd and suspicious. Watch the video below and determine for yourself.
But coincidence, strange timing, inconsistencies and misrepresentations are not an assassin’s bullet. Ultimately, Owens admits there is no direct evidence of Israel’s involvement in Kirk’s death. Until something is presented in discovery during the trial or a whistle blower leaks, there never will be.
Without a doubt, there is no other podcaster or investigator that is more knowledgeable of the CKA than Owens. In what was called “The Great Debate” Owens debated Andrew Wilson regarding her alleged claims of the case for the price of $300,000 USD. Owens admits that most of what she believes is circumstantial and subject to change based on new evidence or information. But she clearly smokes Wilson at the end on his validity to represent the narrative Robinson is the likely killer and knowing the facts of the case. Owens clearly proves herself in what appeared to be a setup to discredit her and her claims in the CKA.
It was rumored that Joe Kent that contacted Owens to pursue the Israel connection. Both have denied such claims. But Owens continues investigate Kirk’s death and provoke TPUSA regarding the handling of the CKA and the transition of leadership in the organization and most importantly, Israel. Owens reported credible alleged threats against her life by foreign entities. Though under threat, Owens continues to move forward questioning the Robinson prosecution, the Trump administration and the war in Iran.
Conclusion
What are we believe from all this? Which narrative are we to believe? If you can’t believe Narrative 1 because of the preliminary evidence, you are justified by reasonable doubt. Narratives 2 and 3 lack the evidence to connect a state actor in Kirk’s death.
But there is definitely a two word term that can explain why Kirk died: war profiteering. The US just surpassed 40 trillion dollars of national debt. War is good for business. It is good for the economy. Kirk was against going to war against Iran. But he wasn’t the only one either. Tulsi Gabbard agreed with him. Told you we wouldn’t forget about her! Gabbard refused to confirm Iran posed imminent threat to US at Director of National Intelligence.
Despite Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that Iran was on the eve of having a nuclear bomb, Kirk was not convinced. Netanyahu has been making this claim for decades. Below is a video of all the combined statements of Netanyahu going back to the 1990s warning us about “Iran being weeks away” from building a bomb. For whatever reason, it will not allow the video to be embedded.
https://youtube.com/shorts/p0mEWmfbdIE?si=GeZNPG1QI3022aU9
Despite which narrative you believe, the reason for his death is clear. Ultimately, Kirk got in the way of evil. Kirk got in the way of the military industrial complex. Someone got their war with Iran. They will soon get it with Turkey next. Exit NATO, anyone?
Without a doubt you could say Charlie Kirk would be disappointed in his peers and friends. They’ve allowed the circumstances around his death to divide them instead of unite them. His death should have galvanized them against the evil of this world. Sorry, Charlie.
Of course, as always, I could be wrong about all of it. It is just my perspective from the bottom end.