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.