Uncovering the Financial Intricacies of Turning Point USA: An Investigative Audit

Initial Discovery and Background

What caught my attention? I thought it was only Turning Point USA because that’s all we hear about. But as you start digging into the IRS files, you find out there’s three more nonprofits: Turning Point Action, America’s Turning Point, and Turning Point Endowment. Whenever you hear “endowment,” that’s about managing investments—buying stocks and securities that just sit in this fund.

I hoped when I looked at this, I wouldn’t see Charlie Kirk giving himself a salary in all four, because to me, he should be getting a salary in TPUSA and zero in the others since he’s not logging work hours there. But what he ended up doing was wanting $1.6 million a year, so he divided it by four, and each nonprofit paid him about $400,000. The same goes for Tyler Bowyer, who got maybe $300,000 across all four. That really caught my attention—it seems like a shady way to make their salaries appear less egregious.

For example, if Charlie Kirk’s salary was $1.6 million in TPUSA alone, that would catch attention. But splitting it into four salaries of $400,000 each looks more reasonable optically. No one looks at the other three nonprofits, so it hides the true amount. Why would he need four salaries from three companies he doesn’t work for? That’s suspicious.

Is there any legal loophole allowing this? Probably not illegal because the nonprofit system was developed by rich people to circumvent taxes, sell stock without paying capital gains, and move dark money. So while it may be legal, it’s very dishonest. Charlie Kirk allegedly works 120 hours a week with a radio show every day and a family—where are the hours to do all this?

Dark Money and Insider Payments

Dark money is a way to hide donations. For example, a donor might not want people to know they gave $10 million to Turning Point. Through nonprofits, there are ways to circumvent transparency laws. Charlie Kirk and Turning Point used insiders to create LLCs to manage fundraiser payments. Rich donors can give money to these LLCs, and the source remains hidden.

There’s also a relationship between Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump Jr., and Sergio Gor, who is high up in the Trump administration. Trump Jr. started a publishing arm called Winning Team Publishing. In 2022, Turning Point gave almost $500,000 to them. Oddly, Charlie Kirk’s book was published by them. Usually, publishers pay authors in advance, but here, Charlie Kirk is paying the publisher. The next year, Turning Point gave another $164,000 and $33,000. These are huge sums going to Trump Jr. and Sergio Gor.

The speculation is that Trump Jr. couldn’t sell his book, so Turning Point bought it and gave it away at events to boost sales numbers artificially. This also explains Charlie Kirk’s access to the White House—paying Trump’s son and Gor grants him influence. For example, when they went to Greenland, the trio was present together.

Insider Laundering and Questionable Vendor Payments

One of the most egregious findings is the insider laundering of millions to insiders through LLCs with no real business activity. For example, Stacy Sheridan, a full-time Turning Point executive, has three LLCs that received over $5 million between 2020 and 2023. These LLCs have no websites, no employees, and no clear business purpose beyond processing fundraiser payments—likely just skimming money.

Similarly, Jake Hoffman, the communications director in 2018, received nearly $10 million through two LLCs, 110 and Rally Forge. This is an absurd amount for advertising services, especially when no receipts from major platforms like Google or Facebook exist. The justification that large sums are needed to push content on algorithms doesn’t hold up without evidence of actual advertising spend.

Other insiders like Josh Thifault and John McGovern also received large payments through LLCs with minimal transparency or justification. Many of these LLCs have vague or no websites, indicating they are fronts rather than real businesses. The percentages paid to these insiders for fundraiser processing vary wildly, from as low as 2% to as high as 36%, suggesting arbitrary or self-decided rates.

Salary Splitting and Financial Transparency Issues

Charlie Kirk and Tyler Bowyer both received multiple salaries from different Turning Point entities, often with identical amounts across the nonprofits. For example, in 2019, Charlie Kirk received four salaries of $329,000 each, totaling over $1.3 million. Tyler Bowyer’s salaries also show similar patterns of splitting.

This salary splitting appears designed to reduce the appearance of high compensation on any single nonprofit’s books, making it less likely to attract scrutiny. However, it raises ethical questions given the workload and time constraints of managing multiple roles while maintaining a public presence.

Turning Point USA also lacks basic financial transparency. Unlike other large nonprofits, it does not publish annual or impact reports on its website. Donors have no clear way to see how their money is being spent or what impact it has. This absence of reporting is unusual for a $100 million organization and adds to concerns about accountability.

Questionable Spending and Life Insurance Policies

Turning Point USA spends extravagantly on events, salaries, and travel. For example, $21 million was spent on events alone, and $7 million on advertising and promotion. Despite $81 million in total expenses in 2023, the organization had only $4 million in cash and $5.67 million in savings at year-end. Private jet expenses alone totaled nearly $200,000.

A particularly notable finding is a $350,000 annual premium for a split-dollar life insurance policy taken out in 2023, with Erica Kirk as the beneficiary. This policy was paid for by Turning Point, effectively loaning the money to Charlie Kirk. The timing is suspicious, as it was taken out just before Charlie Kirk’s death in 2025. The payout could be in the tens of millions, raising questions about who benefits and why the nonprofit is funding such a policy.

Political Donations and Connections

Turning Point Action, a 501©(4), donated over $2 million to the Turning Point Pack, a super PAC that can legally spend on elections. This allows Turning Point to influence politics indirectly while maintaining nonprofit status. The Pack also facilitates insider payouts and obscures donor money trails.

The audit reveals payments to entities connected to political figures, including Donald Trump Jr. and Sergio Gor. The circular flow of money—such as payments from the Pack to Performance One Media, which hosts the Charlie Kirk show—raises ethical concerns about self-funding and kickbacks.

There are also connections to military contractors through Erica Kirk’s mother, who directs a company involved in app development for voter registration. The developers were based in Ukraine, adding another layer of complexity and speculation about data harvesting and government ties.

Connections to Military and Intelligence Backgrounds

Erica Kirk’s family has deep military and government contractor ties. Her mother, a lifelong military contractor, directs companies with major government contracts, including with Raytheon, a top weapons manufacturer involved in Israeli projects and global conflicts. These connections suggest significant influence and embeddedness in military intelligence circles.

Erica’s father authored a book on desktop business intelligence and has a notable absence of mention of Erica in his acknowledgments, which is unusual. Erica herself has been involved in projects related to homeland security and defense, including a dystopian-themed book about global crises and nuclear war scenarios, indicating a background steeped in military strategy and intelligence.

Media and Influence Operations

The audit and investigation reveal a pattern of controlled opposition and limited hangouts—where figures like Charlie Kirk are promoted to control narratives while limiting the truth shared with the public. This strategy keeps audiences engaged but prevents them from uncovering deeper systemic issues.

The internet and influencer culture, often created and influenced by military and intelligence agencies, serve as tools for mind control and shaping public opinion. Influencers with military backgrounds or connections, like Jack Posobiec and Andrew Kolvet, play roles in managing narratives and suppressing inconvenient truths.

Broader Implications and Final Thoughts

The investigation raises serious questions about nonprofit transparency, insider enrichment, and the manipulation of political and social movements. Despite the scale of questionable financial activity, legal consequences seem unlikely due to the entrenched power of elites who shape laws and oversight.

The nonprofit system, originally designed by wealthy interests to circumvent taxes and hide money flows, remains a tool for corruption and influence. While prison time for involved parties is rare, revoking tax-exempt status or board removals could be more feasible reforms.

Donors deserve transparency and accountability, especially when millions of dollars are involved and the organization’s stated mission appears overshadowed by insider enrichment and political maneuvering.