Are Egyptian planes following Erika Kirk as Candace Owens claims?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Candace Owens has repeatedly asserted that two Egyptian aircraft tracked Turning Point USA CEO Erika Kirk dozens of times — a pattern she says connects to the October 2025 assassination of Charlie Kirk — but contemporary reporting shows those claims rest on publicly circulated flight-tracking snippets and interpretation rather than independent, verifiable confirmation; Erika Kirk and some analysts dispute the timeline and causation Owens alleges [1] [2]. Independent debunking efforts and mainstream coverage note gaps, conflicting timelines and a lack of corroboration from official sources, leaving Owens’ central claim unproven by publicly available evidence [3] [4].
1. What Owens is claiming and the evidence she cites
Owens says two Egyptian military aircraft — widely identified in reporting by tail numbers such as SU‑BTT and SU‑BND in social-media posts she has amplified — overlapped with Erika Kirk’s travel “nearly 70” or roughly 73 times since 2022 and that one of those planes was at Provo Airport on the day Charlie Kirk was shot, with transponder activity she characterizes as suspicious; she has pointed listeners to flight‑tracking data and third‑party online aggregations as her source [1] [5] [6].
2. How Erika Kirk and mainstream outlets respond
Erika Kirk has publicly pushed back, saying the circulated timelines do not align with her or Charlie Kirk’s movements and that she has provided phone records to rebut social‑media speculation; she told CBS she and the planes were not in the same place at the same time as alleged [2] [7]. CNN and other mainstream outlets report that Owens continued to press the theory even after a lengthy private meeting with Erika, and that Owens has not produced definitive new documentation that would prove the aircraft were intentionally “following” Erika [2] [4].
3. Independent challenges and alternative explanations
Journalists and digital sleuths have flagged alternative explanations and inconsistencies: public flight‑tracking analysis circulated online has been interpreted in multiple ways; critics say apparent overlaps can result from misreading data, time‑zone errors, aircraft maintenance stops or routine positioning flights rather than covert surveillance, and at least one outlet summarized that public flight data undermined Owens’ broader shadowing claim [3] [8]. Owens herself has acknowledged some data could have ordinary explanations but continues to call for answers [8].
4. What’s missing — no official confirmation, no chain of custody for the data
None of the reporting reviewed cites confirmation from Egyptian authorities, military sources, U.S. investigators, or a forensic chain of custody proving the aircraft records were linked to any intelligence operation; major outlets note the absence of independent verification beyond Owens’ and third‑party online tracking posts [4] [3]. That absence matters: public ADS‑B flight data can suggest coincidences but cannot, by itself, prove intent or direction of surveillance without corroborating logs, manifests or statements from involved governments or aviation entities [3].
5. Motives, media dynamics and why the story spread
The claim has amplified because it ties into a high‑profile assassination, because Owens is a prominent provocateur whose theories quickly find audiences, and because social platforms accelerate raw flight‑data snippets; both supporters and detractors bring political incentives — proponents seeking a grand explanation, opponents warning about misinformation and juror contamination — which complicate objective sorting of facts [4] [9].
6. Bottom line: what can be said with confidence
Reporting shows Candace Owens has promoted flight‑tracking overlaps and alleges Egyptian aircraft shadowed Erika Kirk dozens of times, but Erika Kirk and mainstream journalists dispute the timelines and there is no publicly available, independently verified evidence that those planes were “following” her as an intelligence operation; the claim remains unproven by the sources reviewed [1] [2] [3]. Investigative confirmation would require authenticated flight manifests, official statements, or corroborating investigative findings not present in the cited reporting.