What role did Turning Point USA play in the 2020 and 2024 U.S. election-related events?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Turning Point USA and its political arm Turning Point Action played active, high-profile roles in both the post-2020 political ecosystem and the 2024 election cycle: in 2020 they were tied to aggressive online messaging and mobilization efforts that critics labeled disinformation and partisan agitation [1] [2], while in 2024 TPAction mounted a large, targeted “Chase the Vote” ballot‑chasing and get‑out‑the‑vote operation and expanded its on‑the‑ground influence in key battleground states even as some leaders faced legal scrutiny linked to post‑2020 schemes [3] [4] [5].
1. Turning Point’s 2020 footprint: online amplification and mobilization
In 2020 Turning Point’s activity centered on social media mobilization and partisan messaging that drew scrutiny: reporting says TPUSA paid young people in Arizona to post narratives about COVID‑19 and mail‑in ballots that were later described as false by mainstream outlets, and Charlie Kirk’s organization helped channel tens of thousands of supporters to Washington around January 6, 2021 — actions that tied the group to the era’s more confrontational grassroots activism [1] [2].
2. From campus to campaign ground game: building infrastructure after 2020
After 2020 TPUSA and TPAction scaled beyond campus activism into formal voter‑contact infrastructure, raising large sums and preparing a nationwide field apparatus; internal presentations and reporting documented strategies targeting low‑propensity conservative groups like churchgoers and hunters for turnout in swing states, a pivot that Republican operatives treated as an untested but potentially consequential augmentation of the party’s outreach [4] [6].
3. “Chase the Vote”: the 2024 ballot‑chasing and GOTV operation
In 2024 Turning Point Action launched “Chase the Vote,” hiring around a thousand organizers to run a ballot‑chasing, mail‑voter outreach and canvassing program across battleground states and aiming to mobilize younger and infrequent Republican voters — a campaign described in multiple outlets as the organization’s largest and most visible election operation to date [3] [5] [4].
4. The impact debate: credited by allies, questioned by skeptics
Supporters and sympathetic coverage credit TPUSA with helping narrow the youth gap and providing a “ground game” that filled gaps in the official campaign’s outreach, with some conservative figures publicly praising the group’s role in 2024 turnout [7] [2]; critics and some reporters cautioned that the group’s methods, targeting heuristics and prior use of disinformation risked overreach and that its tactics were unproven relative to party and campaign infrastructures [4] [1].
5. Legal entanglements and credibility costs tied to election controversies
Turning Point’s political arm confronted legal and reputational problems connected to election‑related controversies: reporting cites an indictment of TPAction’s COO Tyler Bowyer related to the 2020 Arizona fake electors plot and notes other figures tied to TPAction faced criminal or ethical probes, including a former Arizona TPAction leader who later pleaded guilty to forging nominating‑petition signatures in 2024 [3] [8].
6. Institutional ambition and political consequences beyond a single cycle
Beyond operations, observers document Turning Point’s strategic push to embed itself inside state Republican machinery — seeking to be a kingmaker in places like Arizona and planning long‑term voter‑registration and election work — signaling a transition from campus influencer to institutional political powerbroker with both policy aims and partisan objectives [9] [5].
7. What the reporting leaves open
Existing public accounts establish Turning Point’s aggressive outreach, fundraising and legal entanglements, but available reporting does not quantify precisely how many votes TPUSA/TPAction delivered compared with campaigns or party operations, nor does it settle causation between their tactics and statewide outcomes; those gaps mean definitive impact estimates remain contested between partisan claims and skeptical analysts [4] [7].