In recent weeks, Candace Owens has released a series of text messages she says were sent by Charlie Kirk years before his tragic death — messages in which Kirk purportedly predicted his own assassination. According to the story published by the Times of India, the messages reveal a grim sense of foreboding: Kirk noted “I might get wiped out at any time,” and “I am not sure if I will live to see the end of this revolution.”
The timing is particularly chilling. Kirk was fatally shot during a public event in September 2025, and Owens contends these messages were sent years earlier — in one case April 6 2018. In the texts, Kirk apparently compared himself to Moses: “I might be Moses tho. I might not see this whole thing through lmao.” The idea of a public figure saying they expect to die prematurely is striking in itself; what makes it newsworthy is the alignment of that prediction with actual fatal outcome.
Owens’ claim is more than a tragic coincidence. She frames it as a warning — a premonition, a message from someone aware of danger. Her release of the text screenshots and accompanying commentary have sparked intense debate across right‑wing media, social platforms, and conservative circles. Some view it as evidence of deeper conspiracy or internal strife within Kirk’s organisation Turning Point USA (TPUSA). Others caution that the messages, while disturbing, may not directly relate to the murder.
Importantly, TPUSA has confirmed the authenticity of certain messages regarding donor pressure two days before Kirk’s death. That confirmation gives more weight to Owens’ broader narrative. Whether the prediction of death was literal, metaphorical, or speculative remains unresolved — but the message is loud: Charlie Kirk believed he might not survive the fight.
The Context That Makes the Message Significant
To fully appreciate the gravity of these revelations, we must consider the context surrounding Charlie Kirk’s role, his organisation, and the environment in which this foreboding message emerged. Kirk founded Turning Point USA in 2012, building a youth‑‑oriented conservative movement that rapidly gained influence. His activism, social‑media presence, and involvement in culture‑war politics positioned him as a key figure in the broader conservative ecosystem.
In the years prior to his death, some reports suggested Kirk had grown uneasy with certain donor expectations and organisational pressures. According to articles cited by Owen’s exposé, he acknowledged losing a significant Jewish donor — reportedly $2 million a year — because the organisation refused to “cancel” a controversial media figure. One message reads: “Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro‑Israel cause.” These admissions suggest Kirk may have been under intense internal strain.
When Owens released screenshots of conversations dated just days before his death, the timing further deepened the intrigue. She described group‑chat exchanges in which Kirk seemingly acknowledged danger, saying he might be “wiped out” or killed, and that he might not live to see the “end of this revolution.” This raises questions about whether Kirk’s fears were symbolic — reflecting burnout, activism fatigue or moral burden — or whether they pointed to tangible threats.
Adding to the complexity is the fact that in September 2025, a shooting at a public event killed Kirk when a 22‑year‑old suspect allegedly sniped him on a university campus. While the suspect has been charged, motive remains somewhat unclear, and so Owens’ revelations enter into fertile ground for conspiracy theories, internal power struggles and questions of accountability.
Thus, what makes the messages significant isn’t merely the prediction—they’re layered against a backdrop of organisational tension, ideological conflict (notably around Israel and donor influence), and a violent outcome. The question now becomes: what did Kirk foresee, what did he warn about, and who listened?
Unpacking the Messages: What Charlie Kirk Said, and How It’s Being Interpreted
The text messages, as revealed by Owens, contain striking lines that symbolise fear, fatalism and leadership burden. For example, one message reads: “If I tell you the true prophecy I know in my gut it’s really sad … But I hope it’s wrong.” Another: “Anyway I am not sure if I will live to see the end of this revolution … Since the beginning of TPUSA I knew in my gut that I might get wiped out at any time … I cannot explain it … But I dream about it all the time. Like all the time.”
In a separate message, Kirk appears to frame himself as a Moses‐type figure, hinting at a leadership arc in which he guides but does not complete. “I might be Moses tho. I might not see this whole thing through lmao.” These metaphors are loaded: Moses leads people to the promised land but does not cross into it; the suggestion is that Kirk anticipated being cut short.
Observers interpret the messages in different ways. Some believe they reflect genuine premonition or knowledge of threats. Others argue they show the burden of perpetual public activism — the weariness of fight, the recognition of risk inherent to high‑stakes leadership. Still others view them as rhetorical, used by Kirk to dramatise his role and mission.
Owens, for her part, treats them as evidence of something darker: insider betrayal, organisational cover‑ups, internal pressures that may have contributed to his vulnerability. She warns individuals who “betrayed Charlie” to come forward, fuelling speculation about internal conspiracies. Nonetheless, as of now, no public investigation has definitively linked donor pressure or internal conspiracies to the shooting. The official suspect’s motive remains ideologically driven from initial reports.
The interpretation of the messages will depend in large part on forthcoming details of the murder investigation, internal communications at TPUSA, and how widely these messages were shared or taken seriously at the time. What is clear: they have become a symbolic node in a broader narrative about elite politics, media influence and internal fracture within the conservative movement.
The Broader Fallout: Movement, Trust and Internal Fractures
The release of these messages has cascading implications for the conservative movement, TPUSA’s internal dynamics, and trust among activists. At the organisational level, TPUSA’s confirmation that the messages about donor pressure and Israel were genuine marks an unusual moment of transparency. A spokesperson said the chats were private but acknowledged they occurred. This admission triggers questions about how much pressure political organisations place on their leaders and how vulnerable those leaders might be.
Within the movement, the revelation of possible fear of assassination undermines the narrative of invulnerability often associated with prominent conservative voices. If a prominent leader believed he would be killed, that belief itself becomes part of the story — raising questions about risk, accountability and protection of public figures in politics. It also raises tensions around donor influence: when messages reveal that major financial backers may withdraw support over certain ideological stances, it points to pressure behind the scenes that many supporters may not see.
Furthermore, for rank‑and‑file activists and younger members, the spectacle of internal drama can erode trust. The narrative of Kirk as a fearless leader is replaced with one of warning, vulnerability and possibly betrayal. That shift can injure morale, raise cynicism and complicate succession planning. And in an era of polarised politics, the suggestion that a leading figure anticipated their murder adds a conspiratorial dimension that might distract from policy aims and grassroots organisation.
Finally, the broader public narrative is also at stake. The optics of a leader predicting his own death feed into media stories of instability. They give fodder to critics who argue the movement is undergoing internal collapse or cultural crisis. In the conservative ecosystem, where brand and authenticity matter greatly, the emergence of these messages may force a reckoning: about hero worship, about internal checks and balances, about the cost of public leadership.
What’s Next: Questions to Watch and Possible Outcomes
Looking ahead, several key questions will determine how this story evolves. First, will the investigation into Charlie Kirk’s death incorporate the messages released by Owens? If law‑enforcement or the courts begin referencing these texts as part of motive or context, the revelations will shift from symbolic to evidentiary. If not, they may remain part of cultural conversation rather than judicial record.
Second, what will TPUSA and related organisations do in terms of internal review? The messages about donor pressure and ideological standpoints raise structural questions: How does an organisation handle dissent? How transparent are its leadership and funding decisions? Whether TPUSA undertakes reforms, releases more internal communications, or distances itself from Owens’ narrative will influence how seriously the movement takes the implications.
Third, how will the conservative community respond? If supporters rally behind the narrative — that Kirk foresaw his danger and that his warnings were ignored — it could galvanise parts of the movement around accountability and truth‑seeking. Conversely, if the story is treated as distraction or conspiracy, it may deepen fractures and mistrust. Indeed, Owens’ call for “betrayers” to come forward has already generated hostility and division.
Finally, the broader impact on political culture matters. Leaders in high‑stakes public roles may face renewed scrutiny about safety, vulnerability and the mental toll of activism. The notion that someone in the limelight anticipated violent demise brings to the surface issues around threat assessment for public figures, organisational responsibility and the narrative of martyrdom in political movements.
In closing, whether the messages released by Candace Owens are literal prophecies, metaphorical resignations of fate, or dramatic flourish, their resonance is undeniable. They force a conversation not only about Charlie Kirk’s legacy but about what happens when high‑visibility political voices feel exposed. For the conservative movement, TPUSA and broader activism culture, this may be a turning point: a moment when internal vulnerability becomes front‑page narrative, rather than hidden behind the scenes.
