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.
Fact check: What were the findings of the most recent audit of Turning Point USA?
Executive Summary
The most recent publicly available audit-like documentation for Turning Point’s nonprofit entity shows independent auditors concluded the financial statements for fiscal years ending September 30, 2023 and 2022 “present fairly” in all material respects, but there is no publicly confirmed, separate “massive audit” announced by Charlie Kirk before his death as claimed by others [1] [2]. Independent regulatory actions and reporting since 2023, including a fine for a political arm and fresh complaints about disclosure, add context that financial oversight and controversy continue to surround the group’s political entities [3] [4].
1. What supporters said: an asserted “massive audit” that can’t be verified
Candace Owens publicly claimed Charlie Kirk announced a major audit of Turning Point USA days before his death; that claim appears in a September 26, 2025 report but the article itself notes no official confirmation from Turning Point USA or release of any audit findings [2]. The available documents do not corroborate a separately issued posthumous, organization-wide investigative audit or a public report described as “massive.” This discrepancy—between a prominent public claim and the absence of an organizational release—highlights how claims circulating in partisan networks can outpace available documentary evidence, and points to the need for primary-source verification from Turning Point’s corporate filings or independent regulators [2] [1].
2. What the independent auditors did report: clean presentation of 2023 and 2022 financials
Turning Point, Inc.’s financial statements for the years ended September 30, 2023 and 2022 include an independent auditors’ opinion stating the financials “present fairly, in all material respects” the organization’s position and cash flows, which is essentially an unqualified opinion on the audited financial statements [1]. That auditor language indicates standard external review procedures were completed for those fiscal years and that, at least on the metrics audited, there were no material misstatements requiring qualification in the auditors’ report. This is distinct from regulatory enforcement or targeted compliance probes into political spending and disclosure practices, which can occur separately from routine financial statement audits [1].
3. Regulatory fines and complaints: political arms face separate scrutiny
While the core nonprofit’s audited financial statements received an unqualified opinion through 2023, Turning Point’s political arms have faced enforcement and complaint actions. Turning Point Action was fined $18,000 on November 1, 2024 for failing to disclose $33,795 in reportable contributions, following a complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) [3]. More recently, a July 2025 complaint from Unity Rising USA alleges violations of Arizona’s dark money disclosure law tied to campaign activity supporting a gubernatorial candidate, raising separate compliance questions about donor transparency and state-level election law [4]. These actions show financial and disclosure scrutiny often focuses on political entities, not just the charitable corporate parent.
4. Investigative reporting that shapes context: prior concerns about accounting relationships
Independent reporting has flagged historical concerns about Turning Point’s financial arrangements and the independence of auditors. ProPublica’s earlier investigation (initial reporting in 2020, revisited in later pieces) documented questionable financial relationships, such as use of accounting firms with ties to insiders, which critics say can imperil perceived audit independence and credibility [5]. Those reports do not negate the unqualified auditor opinion on the 2023/2022 statements but supply crucial context: auditor opinions are one piece of oversight; governance practices, related-party arrangements, and disclosure compliance on political spending are separate dimensions that can drive regulatory complaints and public scrutiny.
5. Reconciling the record: what we know and what remains unverified
The verifiable record shows an audited set of financial statements for Turning Point, Inc. through fiscal year 2023 with an unqualified opinion, a 2024 fine for a political arm, and ongoing 2025 complaints about disclosure in another state [1] [3] [4]. The claim of a newly announced “massive audit” immediately before Charlie Kirk’s death remains unverified in organization releases and official filings cited in available sources [2]. That gap matters because audits, audits’ findings, fines, and regulatory complaints operate differently; a clean audit opinion on an entity’s financials does not immunize associated political operations from fines or legal challenges regarding disclosure and campaign activity.
6. Bottom line: documented audits exist but no public massive-audit findings
The factual bottom line is that Turning Point’s nonprofit financial statements for 2023/2022 were audited with an unqualified auditor opinion [1], but no publicly released “massive audit findings” as described in some social claims have been produced or documented in the available sources [2]. Meanwhile, regulatory enforcement and complaints against Turning Point’s political arms — including the November 2024 fine and a 2025 disclosure complaint — underscore continuing oversight risks and show why independent verification matters when public figures assert major internal investigations or audit revelations [3] [4].