“After Charlie was…”: Candace Owens ignites firestorm after claiming Erika Kirk’s “biggest donor” is a Scientologist

Conservative commentator Candace Owens has ignited another internal firestorm on the American right, this time by suggesting that a key financial backer behind Turning Point USA’s women’s division follows Scientology.

The remark, posted late at night on X, quickly spread across conservative media circles and reopened simmering tensions between Owens and Erika Kirk, who leads the organization’s women-focused initiatives.The controversy centers on one pointed claim. Referring to Kirk’s funding, Owens wrote, "Her biggest donor is a Scientologist." She offered no documents, no names, and no additional context. Yet within hours, the statement fueled speculation about religious influence, donor transparency, and ideological purity inside one of the right’s most visible youth movements.

Candace Owens’ Scientology allegation fuels new rift inside Turning Point USA

Owens has recently criticized what she calls performative Christianity within conservative influencer spaces. By linking Kirk’s financial backing to Scientology, a belief system many evangelical Christians strongly oppose, she shifted the debate from policy to faith. In conservative circles, even an indirect association can trigger distrust. That is precisely why the allegation gained traction so quickly.

She tweeted, “1) No matter how many times you Zionists lie, you cannot reshape reality. I never took any money from John Mappin.2) If you are upset about the mere prospect of Turning Point’s relationship with Scientology, you should ask for the call logs from the hospital after Charlie was shot. Because their team certainly did phone a Scientologist who happens to be one of the bigger donors to Turning Point USA—and it isn’t John Mappin.3) Maybe direct your questions to the new CEO??”Still, there is no public evidence identifying Kirk’s largest donor or confirming the religious affiliation referenced. Like many advocacy groups, Turning Point USA relies on major private contributions, and detailed donor breakdowns are not routinely disclosed. The accusation itself is just an implication since there are no verifiable records.The episode is a symptom of a more significant conflict in conservative media.

Internet media encourages conflict. Attacks on hypocrisy or religious prostitution are highly explosive in the eyes of the audience. This means that internal differences become more played in the open, mostly without substantiated evidence.In case programming or messaging is affected by financial relationships, such questions are prone to stringent coverage.. Transparency matters. At the same time, guilt by association can distort serious conversations about money and politics. For now, Owens’ brief statement has done what such posts often do. It has shifted attention from policy debates to personality clashes, leaving followers to sort signal from noise.