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.
What exactly did Charlie Kirk say about Israel and when did he say it?
Executive summary
Charlie Kirk publicly combined steadfast pro‑Israel rhetoric with pointed criticisms of Israeli strategy and communications; his most concrete intervention was a May 2 letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urging an overhaul of Israel’s information operations because, in his view, the country was “losing the information war” with young Americans [1] [2]. After October 7, 2023, Kirk repeatedly defended Israel’s right to self‑defense while also demanding accountability for security failures and specific civilian‑casualty incidents, and in the months before his death in September 2025 conflicting private messages and public statements produced deep disagreement about whether he was turning away from traditional pro‑Israel activism [3] [4].
1. A clear public intervention: the May 2 letter that tried to change Israel’s PR playbook
Kirk’s most specific, verifiable public action was a May 2 letter to Netanyahu in which he framed Israel’s public relations situation as a “five‑alarm fire,” urged immediate communications reforms, and outlined a multi‑step plan — rapid response teams, cultivation of pro‑Israel experts, and a so‑called “Israel Truth Network” to counter charges like “apartheid” and “genocide” on social media. He tied his recommendations to concerns about rising anti‑Israel sentiment among Gen Z and explicitly described his stance as coming from a place of “deep love for Israel” [1] [5] [2]. Netanyahu referenced the letter publicly after Kirk’s assassination and used its existence to rebut conspiracy claims about Israeli involvement in Kirk’s death [1].
2. Public defense after October 7 coupled with hard questions about accountability
Following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks, Kirk’s public posture combined unequivocal support for Israel’s right to self‑defense with sharp scrutiny of Israeli performance. He labeled the attacks “barbarism” and “horror,” but he also raised the alarm over how Israeli security apparently failed, suggesting possible infiltration or betrayal and demanding answers about specific incidents such as the strike near the St. Porphyrius church that killed civilians [3]. He pushed back on narratives alleging intentional starvation in Gaza, calling those depictions “propaganda” and “visual warfare,” reflecting a pattern of both defense and selective critique [3].
3. Private messages and leaked texts that complicate the pro‑Israel narrative
After the May letter and in the months before his death, leaked text exchanges published in October indicate Kirk privately expressed anger at Jewish donors who he said withdrew funding over disagreement about event speakers, and he wrote that he was “leaving the pro‑Israel cause” because he refused to be “bullied.” Turning Point spokesman Andrew Kolvet confirmed the screenshots’ authenticity in reporting that framed Kirk as frustrated with donor pressures and considering a distancing from organized pro‑Israel advocacy [4]. These private communications contrast sharply with his public letter and statements, introducing an alternative narrative that he was moving away from some donor‑driven expectations even while publicly defending Israel.
4. How allies and critics used his words after his death — competing narratives and possible agendas
After Kirk’s assassination on September 10, 2025, supporters such as Prime Minister Netanyahu lauded him as a “lion‑hearted friend of Israel,” citing the May 2 letter as proof of loyalty and to deflect conspiracy theories about Israeli culpability in his death [1] [3]. Opponents and some commentators emphasized the leaked texts and selective criticisms to argue he had cooled on pro‑Israel activism or been uneasy with donor influence, with figures like Candace Owens and others portrayed as amplifying those claims [6] [7]. These competing frames reflect different agendas: political allies use the letter to solidify a legacy of friendship with Israel, while critics highlight private anger to question his steadiness or motivations.
5. Bottom line: what he said, when, and why the record looks contradictory
In short, the public record shows a May 2, 2025 policy letter urging urgent PR reforms and repeatedly expressed support for Israel after October 7, 2023, while also publicly demanding accountability for security lapses and civilian‑harm incidents [1] [3] [2]. Simultaneously, leaked private texts from 2025 indicate Kirk privately contemplated stepping back from organized pro‑Israel advocacy because of donor disputes, creating a tension between his public advocacy and private frustrations [4]. The divergence between public letters and private messages explains why different actors — Israeli leaders, conservative allies, and critics — can all find evidence supporting their interpretations; readers should note the timing (May letter, October 2023 statements, leaked texts and coverage in September–October 2025) and the possible incentives shaping how those statements were amplified [1] [7].