Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Could political motives or misinformation explain why Candace Owens made this claim about Erica Kearney and Egyptian military planes?
Executive summary
Candace Owens has promoted a theory that two Egyptian military aircraft—identified in reporting as SU‑BTT and SU‑BND—overlapped with Erika Kirk’s known locations about 68–73 times between 2022 and September 2025, and that one of those planes was at Provo Airport on the day Charlie Kirk was shot (claims reported across multiple outlets) [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not provide independent verification of the flight‑tracking data; some outlets note FlightRadar24 and FAA checks found no record of Egyptian military aircraft near Provo for the period in question, and the Egyptian government declined to comment [4].
1. What Owens is alleging — the core claim
Owens says flight‑tracking records, produced to her by an anonymous “pregnant mommy sleuth,” show two Egyptian military planes tracked or overlapped with Erika Kirk’s travel locations roughly 68–73 times from 2022 through September 2025, and that those planes were present or “powered on” at Provo Airport on the day Charlie Kirk was shot [5] [6] [3].
2. How widely the claim has been reported and the variations
Multiple outlets have relayed Owens’ allegation, but the details vary slightly: some report “68 overlaps,” others “about 70” or “73,” and some name the tail numbers SU‑BTT and SU‑BND while others simply summarize the overlap count [2] [7] [1]. That variation is typical when secondary outlets repackage a developing social‑media narrative sourced to a podcast or viral clip [8] [9].
3. Verification gaps and contradictory checks
At least one report says FlightRadar24 and the FAA found no record of Egyptian military aircraft operating near Provo between 2022 and 2025, and that Egypt declined comment—an explicit counterpoint to Owens’ narrative and a clear illustration of unverified elements [4]. Other reports note that Owens’ source provided flight records but do not independently corroborate those records via third‑party aviation or government data [5] [6].
4. Motives that could drive this kind of claim — political and social context
Owens is a well‑known conservative commentator who has previously amplified high‑profile conspiratorial interpretations of political events; her framing connects foreign surveillance, alleged organizational irregularities at Turning Point USA, and a contested narrative about who might have been the target of the assassination [7] [10]. Political motive to shift suspicion away from domestic actors or institutions—or to highlight perceived weaknesses in official investigations—can make such theories attractive to partisan audiences; reporting shows Owens links the aviation claim to larger accusations about TPUSA and the investigation [7] [10].
5. How misinformation dynamics typically work here
Online sleuthing and viral clips can create persuasive-looking datasets (overlap counts, tail numbers, license plates) that are difficult for casual audiences to verify; news outlets reproduce those details while verification lags, producing a mixed record of claim and counterclaim [5] [9]. The presence of named tail numbers and precise overlap counts increases perceived credibility even when independent confirmation is missing [1] [6].
6. Competing perspectives and what they imply for readers
One side—Owens and her amplifiers—frames the overlaps as evidence of surveillance and a possible foreign‑linked operation, arguing the pattern is too striking to ignore [6]. The other side—aviation trackers and at least one report citing FlightRadar24/FAA—says there’s no public record of Egyptian military flights in that U.S. airspace during the relevant period, which undermines the specific aircraft‑presence assertion [4]. Both perspectives are present in the reporting; neither side has produced definitive, publicly verifiable proof that settles the question.
7. What is not found in current reporting
Available sources do not publish independent verification of the raw flight‑tracking files Owens mentions (for example, primary data from the claimed sleuth, corroboration by independent aviation analysts, or official confirmation from Egypt) nor do they report legal findings tying those aircraft to any covert operation related to the assassination [5] [4]. Sources do not confirm that the FBI or other investigators have endorsed the Egyptian‑plane theory; one outlet notes the FBI said there were “no solid leads” in earlier reporting but does not connect that to validation of Owens’ new claim [11].
8. How to interpret the claim responsibly
The claim contains concrete, checkable elements (tail numbers, overlap counts, alleged Provo appearance) and therefore demands independent verification from aviation data providers, FAA logs, or official statements; until such verification is public, readers should treat the theory as unverified and weigh both Owens’ assertion and the publicly reported checks that challenge it [1] [4]. Reporters and consumers should ask for the primary data, independent analysis of flight tracks, and official responses before treating the allegation as established fact [5] [4].
9. Bottom line for readers
Candace Owens’ claims have been widely publicized and give specific, dramatic details that are easy to circulate, but available reporting shows significant verification gaps and at least one explicit check disputing aircraft presence near Provo; the story currently sits between an assertive social‑media theory and contested or absent independent confirmation [6] [4].