Since the unfortunate and untimely death of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, Turning Point USA appears to be moving forward without pause or interruption in its activities. Under Kirk’s leadership, TPUSA raised nearly $400 million, according to tax filings, an extraordinary amount of money for any nonprofit operating in today’s complex social and political environment.

I also learned that several Jewish or pro‑Israel philanthropists, including extremely wealthy donors, have been involved with TPUSA at various points. Some of these donors reportedly withdrew support over disagreements with Kirk’s stance on Israel. This raises an important question: How do Jewish or pro‑Israel philanthropists benefit from supporting TPUSA, given that segments of the organization’s conservative base are known to express antisemitic views?

For many donors, philanthropy is strategic. Supporting an organization like TPUSA can provide political access, influence over messaging, and the ability to shape the ideological development of young conservatives. From this perspective, TPUSA becomes a long‑term investment rather than a simple charitable contribution.

TPUSA is one of the most influential conservative youth organizations in the United States. Backing TPUSA allows donors to promote pro‑Israel messaging to a new generation, counteract anti‑Israel sentiment on college campuses, and ensure that young conservatives remain aligned with their broader political goals. But this relationship is inherently transactional—and increasingly fragile.

TPUSA now sits at the intersection of mainstream conservative donors, including pro‑Israel philanthropists, and populist or far‑right influencers, some of whom have expressed antisemitic views. Donors often support organizations that advance their overall political objectives, even when they disagree with certain elements. However, tensions over Israel and antisemitism have already caused donor backlash and withdrawals, signaling that the alliance is far from stable.

In the post‑Kirk era, TPUSA will need to navigate these competing pressures carefully. Its ability to maintain relationships with major pro‑Israel donors may determine how effectively it can continue expanding its national and global activities. The organization’s future depends on whether it can balance ideological contradictions within its coalition while preserving the financial support that has fueled its rise.

The United States doesn’t have a King. It’s ruled by “three equal branches of one federal government. Legislative (Congress), Executive (President), and Judicial (Supreme Court and federal courts). The Constitution was designed with checks and balances to prevent any branch from dominating. Over time, though, the executive branch has often expanded its influence, especially in foreign policy, national security, and through executive orders. For this Democracy to survive, the Legislative and Judicial branches must reclaim their power.

The presidency was never meant to be the engine of America’s democracy. That line could serve as the guiding reminder for a nation that has increasingly placed the executive branch at the center of attention. Executive orders dominate headlines, wars unfold with little debate, and national emergencies stretch on for years. Meanwhile, Congress and the courts often appear muted, their constitutional authority overshadowed.

Congress must avoid delegating broad authority to executive agencies and instead write clearer, more detailed laws. They must strengthen oversight by using hearings, investigations, and budgetary control to check executive actions. Congress must also limit emergency powers and narrow the scope of presidential emergency declarations and war powers. Most of all, Congress must honor its oath to the people by reducing gridlock so it can act decisively, rather than leaving a vacuum for the executive branch.

The Judicial Branch (Courts) must assert judicial review by striking down unconstitutional executive actions or laws that overreach. The judiciary must clarify the limits of executive authority by issuing rulings that define boundaries on presidential powers, especially in areas like national security and administrative law. The judiciary must also protect its independence by resisting political pressure and maintaining credibility so that rulings carry weight. “We The People” must demand that our Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (Supreme Court) rein in the “administrative state” by limiting the amount of power the Executive has without direct congressional oversight.

It’s less about the two branches “reclaiming” power; it’s more about exercising the authority they already have under the Constitution. The American people must hold both Congress and the Supreme Court accountable for their lack of oversight related to the repeated failures of standard operations by the executive branch of the administration.

We, the American People, want our government to return to “Regular Order.”