How have donors and partner organizations responded to controversies involving turning point usa or david jeremiah?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Donors and partners have largely doubled down on Turning Point USA after major controversies and Charlie Kirk’s September 2025 death, with reported revenue of about $85 million in 2024 and fresh large gifts from known conservative donors and foundations [1] [2]. Social‑media allegations about financial impropriety in December 2025 prompted some small‑donor refund requests and public urging by influencers to seek refunds, while major funders and political allies continued backing and new state partnerships emerged [3] [2] [4].
1. How big the money is — and who kept giving
Turning Point USA built a large fundraising machine: Fortune and The Guardian report $85 million in revenue in 2024 and a donor base of roughly 350,000 small‑dollar contributors, alongside sizeable gifts from foundations and wealthy conservatives such as the Bradley Impact Fund and Donors Trust [1] [2]. Forbes found TPUSA raised nearly $400 million under Charlie Kirk’s leadership and identified previously unreported foundation gifts, including a $13.1 million grant from a Texas foundation in IRS filings [5].
2. Small donors reacted — but big money stayed
Influencers and social posts in December 2025 raised questions about missed filings and alleged impropriety; those posts spurred at least a small number of grassroots donors to seek refunds after being urged to do so by prominent voices [3]. Available sources do not claim this triggered a mass exodus: coverage shows continued inflows from major backers while only a minority of small donors reportedly requested returns [2] [3].
3. Political and institutional partners doubled down publicly
After Kirk’s death, political allies and large conservative donors signaled renewed support; The Guardian noted an immediate wave of backing from big donors and Trump‑aligned figures, indicating elite donors viewed TPUSA as an enduring vehicle regardless of controversy [2]. State partnerships moved forward: Texas launched a plan to expand TPUSA chapters into high schools and granted visible support from Governor Greg Abbott, showing institutional alliances can persist despite reputational storms [4] [6].
4. Internal disputes and public feuds magnified the controversy
TPUSA’s internal tensions spilled into public view: reporting and commentary referenced disputes with high‑profile former allies such as Candace Owens, who accused leadership of hiding information and questioned donor management — accusations that TPUSA denied and that are the subject of contested livestreams and media coverage [7]. These public confrontations amplified scrutiny and pushed questions about governance into the media cycle [7].
5. Scrutiny focused on transparency, not uniform condemnation
Investigative and financial reporting concentrated on donors, tax filings and opaque donor‑advised funds rather than criminal findings; Forbes and The Guardian parsed tax records and foundation grants to fill gaps left by anonymized nonprofit returns, while InfluenceWatch summarized social‑media allegations about filings [5] [2] [3]. There is no single, unified narrative of wrongdoing in the sources provided — rather a contested mix of claims, denials, continued large gifts and some grassroots refund requests [3] [2].
6. What critics of David Jeremiah did — and how that differs
Concerns about evangelical leader Dr. David Jeremiah in the sources are a different genre: long‑running theological critiques and personnel or marketing disputes (allegations about bestseller list methods, partnerships with controversial teachers, or doctrinal “false teacher” charges) have prompted calls for correction from fellow ministry figures and watchdogs, not donor‑refund campaigns or big political realignments like TPUSA’s fundraising dynamics [8] [9] [10]. Much of the Jeremiah material consists of theological critique, accusations from fellow pastors or former staff, and commentary sites documenting those disputes [9] [8].
7. Competing perspectives and the limits of current reporting
Sources show two clear perspectives: supporters and large donors treat TPUSA as a durable political vehicle and continued to increase funding after crises, while activists and influencers amplified allegations that led some small donors to ask for refunds [2] [3]. For David Jeremiah, critics within evangelical networks allege doctrinal compromise or questionable fundraising/book‑marketing practices; defenders point to his long tenure and continued speaking engagements [9] [11]. Available sources do not mention criminal convictions or regulatory closures for either TPUSA or David Jeremiah — reporting focuses on contested allegations, donor flows and public accusations [3] [8].
8. Why this matters to donors and partners going forward
Donors and partner organizations evaluate reputational risk, policy influence and returns on political or ministry investments. In TPUSA’s case, major funders appear to have prioritized influence and organizational reach, sustaining or increasing gifts despite controversy; grassroots donors showed vulnerability to influence campaigns urging refunds [2] [3]. For ministry figures like David Jeremiah, controversy centers on theological gatekeeping and donor/partner perceptions within religious networks rather than large public policy partnerships [9] [8].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied reporting and does not attempt to verify claims outside those sources; where sources do not address a specific fact, I note that absence.