Are there privacy or legal limits to publicly sharing flight paths near individuals like Charlie and Erika Kirk?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Public flight data are widely available and have been used to map aircraft that commentators say overlapped with Erika Kirk’s travels—Candace Owens claims two Egyptian military planes matched her movements roughly 70–73 times between 2022 and 2025 [1] [2]. U.S. aviation rules make most flight-plan and tracking information public unless an owner shows a valid security concern; the FAA also tightly regulates how private pilots may “share” flights and what information can be withheld [3] [4].
1. Public skies, public data — what’s really visible
Flight-tracking services and publicly filed flight-plan information routinely expose departures, arrivals and routes; U.S. authorities have said private-plane owners cannot hide routine flight information for mere privacy reasons and must show a valid security concern to block public visibility [3]. That explains why independent observers can spot repeated overlaps between an individual’s travel and the recorded paths of particular aircraft—this is the raw material driving the claims about Egyptian planes and Erika Kirk [2] [5].
2. Legal limits on sharing and aggregating flight paths
There is no general federal law that criminalizes publishing flight tracks themselves once they are public; the U.S. government’s posture—reflected in FAA and Transportation Department guidance—is that airspace use is a public interest and routine flight data should be available unless a justified security exception is made [3]. Separate FAA rules govern how pilots may operate (and how they may advertise cost-sharing flights), but those rules do not create a ban on publishing historical flight-track data [4] [6].
3. Privacy vs. security: when can flight data be redacted?
The Transportation Department’s position cited in reporting is clear: privacy alone is not sufficient to block flight information; owners must demonstrate a valid security concern to obtain blocking from public feeds [3]. That is a high bar intended to balance individual concerns against transparency in the National Airspace System; available sources do not mention a different standard applied specifically to flights allegedly linked to foreign militaries in the Kirk reporting [3].
4. Safety, “holding out” and limits on flight-sharing disclosures
A separate but relevant body of law governs pilots sharing flights for expense-splitting: the FAA’s advisory guidance and court cases prohibit “holding out” to the public and limit what pilots may advertise or arrange publicly without becoming a common carrier [4] [7]. Those rules explain why some aviation actors are cautious about publishing itineraries that appear commercial; they do not, however, prevent third parties from aggregating publicly available tracking data to claim repeated overlaps with a person’s travel [4] [7].
5. How journalists and investigators should treat pattern claims
News coverage shows commentators alleging dozens of overlaps—e.g., Owens saying two Egyptian aircraft matched Erika Kirk’s movements about 70–73 times [1] [2]. Responsible reporting requires showing the underlying data, explaining sampling methods, and checking for benign explanations (routine training flights, common routes, gaps in rural transponder coverage, time-zone errors). The FBI and FAA have previously said incomplete data or rural coverage can create apparent gaps that fuel misreading of tracks—an example relevant to earlier “mystery flight” questions in the Kirk case [8].
6. Official probes, public statements and competing narratives
Investigative authorities have publicly pushed back on some flight-based theories: an FBI spokesperson said transponder gaps were due to incomplete data in rural areas and that the agency would report confirmed findings as they arrive [8]. Meanwhile, commentators have used aggregated ADS‑B or tracking screenshots to allege surveillance; those competing narratives are being aired simultaneously in the press [2] [8].
7. Legal exposure for those who publish falsehoods or doxxing
Publishing truthful, public flight information is generally lawful; publishing false statements, fabricated logs, or private personal details (home addresses, burial sites) used to harass or endanger people can expose poster to civil liability or social-media sanctions. The sources document intense social-media scrutiny of Erika Kirk and calls for privacy—some outlets report family pleas to stop conspiracy-mongering and that Erika has asked for dignity while grieving [9] [10]. Available sources do not lay out a specific lawsuit that has been filed over the flight-data claims, only reports that litigation has been discussed [1].
8. Takeaway: transparency plus skepticism
The aviation record is largely public and that enables third parties to spot overlaps; the Transportation Department and FAA place limits on blocking data but also warn about misinterpretation [3] [8]. In the Charlie and Erika Kirk coverage, major assertions—such as 70+ overlaps by Egyptian military aircraft—are reported by commentators and outlets [1] [2], while government investigators have warned that technical artifacts and incomplete data can produce misleading gaps [8]. Readers should demand the underlying tracking evidence, independent verification from aviation authorities, and consider alternative, benign explanations before treating pattern claims as proof of surveillance.
Limitations: this analysis uses the supplied reporting and official FAA/Transportation summaries; available sources do not provide the raw ADS‑B logs, legal filings about flight-data publication specific to the Kirk case, or adjudicated court rulings on the exact claims discussed here (not found in current reporting).