Candace Owens flight log
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Candace Owens has publicly claimed flight‑tracking data show two Egyptian aircraft (identified as SU‑BTT and SU‑BND) overlapped with Erika Kirk’s locations roughly 68–73 times between 2022 and September 2025, and that one of those planes was briefly active at Provo Airport on the day Charlie Kirk was shot (Sept. 10/Oct. 12—reports differ on the date in some outlets) [1][2][3]. Multiple news outlets report these assertions but note they remain unproven and that independent confirmation or law‑enforcement corroboration is not present in the cited reporting [4][5].
1. The claim in plain terms: Egyptian jets allegedly shadowed Erika Kirk
Owens says flight‑tracking logs show two Egyptian‑registered aircraft—named in some coverage as SU‑BTT (the “yellow plane”) and SU‑BND (the “blue plane”)—whose recorded positions overlapped with locations Erika Kirk visited some 68–73 times from 2022 through September 2025; Owens argues this pattern suggests surveillance aimed at Erika, not Charlie Kirk [1][3][2].
2. What Owens specifically alleges about the shooting day
In her podcasts and posts Owens has asserted one of the Egyptian planes was “powered on” at Provo Airport on the day of the shooting and that a departure or transponder activation coincided with activity around Duncan Aviation’s FBO; she also said passengers from the Egyptian flights were assigned multiple rental cars—details she has presented as reasons to demand answers [2][3].
3. How media outlets are reporting the assertions
The claims have been widely re‑reported by U.S. and international outlets (including Hindustan Times, Times of India, Economic Times, Sportskeeda and smaller sites). Most summaries repeat Owens’ numeric counts (68–73 overlaps) and her theory linking the flights to a larger plot; several outlets note she has intensified the story through a podcast episode titled “Operation Mocking‑Plane” [5][2][3].
4. What the sources say about verification and official response
Available reporting makes clear these are allegations; multiple outlets state the flight‑data claims and the “federal agent tip” Owens cites have not been independently confirmed and police have not corroborated her account. Some articles explicitly note Owens herself says she lacks proof and is soliciting tips and evidence from the public [4][5][2].
5. Discrepancies and shifts in the narrative to note
Different pieces of coverage give slightly different tallies (68, 73 overlaps) and describe timing variably; one write‑up traces an earlier correction by Owens about a time‑zone error but emphasizes she persisted with the theory thereafter. Some commentary frames the avalanche of claims as part of a larger pattern of conspiratorial narratives surrounding the Kirk case [1][6][7].
6. Competing perspectives reported in the coverage
Outlets reproduce Owens’ position that the flight overlaps are suspicious and demand answers from Turning Point USA; other journalists and commentators cited in the coverage treat the theory as unproven and, in at least one long piece, characterize the web of allegations as implausible or akin to conspiratorial speculation lacking “extraordinary evidence” [5][6].
7. What this coverage does not provide
The assembled reporting does not include independent verification of the raw flight‑tracking records, manifest data, rental‑car receipts, or law‑enforcement confirmation that links the cited aircraft to a state actor or to surveillance activity. Available sources do not mention forensic confirmation tying SU‑BTT or SU‑BND to Egyptian military operations beyond Owens’ claims and the flight‑data snapshots she circulated [1][2]. They also do not present an official statement from Egyptian authorities in these articles [4][5].
8. How to weigh the claims responsibly
Extraordinary allegations about foreign surveillance and involvement in a political assassination require transparent primary evidence: flight logs, telemetry, verified registration and operator records, and law‑enforcement corroboration. The present reporting consistently places these Owens‑led assertions in the category of evolving allegations without independent corroboration; readers should expect one of three outcomes as reporting continues—corroboration with primary records, official refutation, or inconclusive public evidence [4][2][3].
Sources cited in this briefing come from the collection of articles summarizing Owens’ podcast posts and social media claims [4][5][1][2][3][6].