Why did Candace Owens allege Pierre DuPont wa involved w Charlie’s murder
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Candace Owens alleged that a French-American billionaire named Pierre DuPont was connected to Charlie Kirk’s assassination after she said multiple Turning Point insiders told her leadership placed an immediate phone call to a DuPont prospect the minute Kirk was shot, and that a secret, potentially “billions” deal tied to an upcoming IPO was at stake [1] [2] [3]. Owens has presented the DuPont claim as part of a broader theory linking Turning Point USA, foreign actors and an institutional cover-up, while repeatedly acknowledging she lacks concrete proof and critics across the media ecosystem have pushed back [4] [5] [6].
1. How Owens framed the DuPont claim: a tip, a phone call, and “life‑changing money”
Owens says her allegation rests on unnamed Turning Point USA insiders who told her leadership immediately phoned a French‑American donor prospect — identified as “Pierre” or Pierre DuPont — right after the assassination, and that the donor was connected to a secret deal worth “potentially billions” tied to an IPO that Kirk had allegedly rebuffed [1] [2] [3]. She has repeatedly used the idea of a post‑shooting call as a key piece of circumstantial evidence, presenting it as proof that insiders knew something important about money and motive the organization had not publicly acknowledged [1] [7].
2. The wider narrative Owens is weaving: France, defense contractors and an alleged cover‑up
Owens has placed the DuPont allegation inside a far broader narrative that names French interests, defense contractors and transatlantic influence — claims that include assertions of US‑French alignment in Wilmington and links to firms like Thales and Incyte — and that amount to a theory of institutional collusion or a cover‑up at Turning Point USA [4] [8]. On podcasts and interviews she has said federal officials “know what happened,” while also suggesting Turning Point insiders engaged in a cover‑up rather than explicitly alleging they committed the assassination themselves [5] [8].
3. Admissions of weak evidence and media pushback
Multiple outlets and interviewers have noted Owens admits she has “no concrete evidence” for many of her claims and that she is “connecting the dots” from tips rather than producing documents or verifiable records; Piers Morgan pressed her on that point and she conceded lack of concrete proof while insisting a cover‑up exists [6] [5]. Mainstream and conservative media have expressed skepticism, and TPUSA insiders, conservative commentators and the late victim’s widow have publicly rebuked her assertions as unsubstantiated and potentially defamatory [2] [9] [10].
4. Motives and context that shape why she made the DuPont allegation
Reporting shows Owens’ claim reflects three overlapping drivers she herself and critics identify: firsthand tips from unnamed insiders, a longstanding pattern of advancing elaborate conspiratorial narratives about geopolitics and domestic institutions, and interpersonal history with TPUSA that commentators say may fuel personal grievance or ambition — though those motives are debated and not definitively proven in available reporting [1] [11] [7]. Critics argue she is “conditioning” an audience to accept escalating allegations absent public evidence, while some supporters view her as raising ignored leads [8] [7].
5. What is verified, what remains unproven, and why the DuPont name matters rhetorically
What is documented in the reporting is that Owens publicly named Pierre/Pierre DuPont as the donor prospect she believes was phoned after the shooting and that she linked a purported multi‑billion‑dollar deal to the moment [1] [3]. What is not documented in the sources is any verifiable record of the phone call, any contractual deal tying DuPont to TPUSA, or evidence connecting DuPont or Turning Point leadership to the planning or execution of the killing; Owens herself has said she lacks concrete evidence and has stopped short of saying TPUSA murdered Kirk while insisting a cover‑up occurred [6] [5]. Naming DuPont functions rhetorically: it invokes a powerful, aristocratic-sounding family and foreign influence to intensify suspicion, but available reporting shows that allegation remains uncorroborated and has drawn broad skepticism and calls to stop spreading unverified claims [9] [10] [11].