Have donors or partners cut ties with tpusa following criminal accusations?
Executive summary
After recent criminal accusations and high-profile incidents involving Turning Point USA (TPUSA), available reporting shows some donors and partners publicly maintained or even increased support while at least one major donor is reported to have cut ties days before Charlie Kirk’s death (reported by The Grayzone) and fundraising surged after his killing (The Guardian) [1] [2]. Local and national reactions to individual criminal allegations of TPUSA staff or members include calls for accountability, legal charges against members, and varied corporate/partner responses in the press, but comprehensive lists of donors who formally severed relationships are not provided in the available sources [3] [4] [2] [1].
1. A reported high-profile donor departure — timing matters
Reporting in The Grayzone cites sources saying a major pro-Israel donor, Robert Shillman, “ended funding for TPUSA” in the days before Charlie Kirk’s death amid disputes over Kirk’s Israel remarks and event programming [1]. The piece frames that exit as part of internal lobbying and pressure from Netanyahu allies; TPUSA spokespeople did not respond to that reporter’s requests [1]. This is a single outlet’s sourcing on a sensitive personnel-and-money claim; TPUSA’s internal confirmations or denials are not in the supplied files [1].
2. Fundraising reportedly increased after Kirk’s killing
The Guardian reports the opposite picture in aggregate: after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, “a wave of support” and renewed fundraising from large donors and Trump allies flowed to TPUSA, suggesting the organization’s financial base remained robust or even strengthened in that moment [2]. Campaign-finance experts quoted by The Guardian argue TPUSA’s fundraising apparatus and MAGA ties make it likely donors would rally rather than retreat [2]. That accounts for a mixed donor response — at least one reported cut, but broader support post-crisis [1] [2].
3. Criminal accusations tied to staff and members and institutional fallout
Reporting shows several separate legal and criminal-justice threads: two TPUSA members admitted to or were diverted in an assault case involving an ASU professor and faced charges, prompting university condemnation and internal scrutiny [3] [4] [5]. Separately, a civil lawsuit alleges serious misconduct by a TPUSA supervisor involving sexual-harassment claims and an alleged kidnapping; that reporting stresses the suit is civil and, as of the articles provided, criminal charges have not been filed in that specific case [6] [7]. These incidents produced public outrage and institutional responses (ASU president statements, legal filings) but the sources do not comprehensively document donor or partner terminations tied directly to each accusation [3] [4] [6].
4. Corporate and institutional partners: limited direct evidence of mass withdrawals
Analyses of TPUSA’s donor list and corporate links exist (OpenSecrets and investigative pieces), and an independent Substack piece flags corporate connections and fundraising scale — claiming TPUSA raised tens of millions and noting corporate and individual funding streams — but none of the supplied sources offers a verified list of corporations or foundations that officially severed ties after these specific accusations [8] [9]. Rolling Stone’s past reporting criticized specific sponsors and partners for problematic associations [10], but the current set of articles does not show broad corporate divestment in response to the 2023–2025 allegations [10] [9].
5. Conflicting narratives and the limits of current reporting
Sources present differing narratives: The Grayzone reports an individual donor’s termination [1] while The Guardian documents increased support and fundraising after Kirk’s death [2]. Local outlets document criminal charges or civil suits against specific TPUSA staff or members, which led to legal proceedings and university rebukes [3] [4] [5] [6]. None of the provided reporting supplies a comprehensive, independently verified list of donors or partners who formally cut ties with TPUSA specifically because of the criminal accusations cited here; that absence is material and should caution readers about drawing broad conclusions (not found in current reporting).
6. What to watch next — verifications and institutional disclosures
Confirmations would come from donor statements, nonprofit filings (e.g., IRS Form 990s or donor disclosures), or corporate press releases; the supplied OpenSecrets and TPUSA donor pages catalog past giving but do not document post-accusation withdrawals in these excerpts [8] [11]. Watch for follow-ups from outlets that first reported cuts (The Grayzone) and for TPUSA’s own disclosures or rebuttals; The Guardian’s coverage suggests donor behavior may move contrary to isolated departures [1] [2].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied sources and does not assert facts beyond them; if you want, I can search for direct donor statements, corporate confirmations, or official nonprofit filings to verify who — if anyone beyond the reporting cited — formally cut ties.