Fact check: Have there been any public criticisms of the Mormon Church's involvement with Turning Point USA?

Executive Summary

The public record shows multiple criticisms and concerns about ties between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and organizations linked to Turning Point USA, though the church itself has not been shown to have an explicit institutional partnership with Turning Point USA. Reporting points to questions about political neutrality, encouragement of member participation in conservative civic programs with Turning Point connections, and debate inside the Latter‑day Saint community about the implications of those ties.

1. What critics actually claimed — sharp questions about neutrality and influence

Reporting in 2023 flagged concern that LDS endorsement of an external civics program raised questions about the church’s political neutrality, noting that the Utah Area Presidency promoted participation in “Why I Love America” and American Founders Month, programs tied to ultraconservative organizers ^[1]. That coverage framed the central claim as institutional: promotion of a civic program that critics say has links to actors on the political right creates the appearance of partisanship, potentially conflicting with long‑standing LDS guidance against direct political endorsements. Critics emphasized the appearance of institutional alignment with right‑wing civic programming, not necessarily a formal alliance with Turning Point USA, and they used this appearance to argue the church should clarify boundaries between faith instruction and partisan civic organizing ^[1].

2. Where Turning Point USA enters the story — personnel links and ideological overlap

Multiple news pieces document that individual members of Turning Point USA, including senior staff, are Latter‑day Saints, and that Turning Point’s founder and outlets promote Christian nationalist messaging that has drawn criticism ^{[2] [3] [4]}. That fact pattern prompted critics to argue that the presence of Latter‑day Saints in leadership roles at Turning Point creates practical and reputational overlap between the movement and the church. Reporting in 2024 and 2025 highlighted Charlie Kirk’s movement toward Christian nationalism and Turning Point’s explicit partisan mobilization, which critics tie to increased concern when members of a religious institution are visibly active in such organizations ^{[5] [3] [4]}. The charge here is not necessarily formal cooperation, but potential moral and reputational entanglement.

3. Legal and tax worries — why some critics raised alarms about churches and partisan canvassing

Legal analysts and journalists have warned that churches and faith communities that host or assist partisan get‑out‑the‑vote drives risk jeopardizing tax‑exempt status, and that Turning Point USA’s use of religious networks for pro‑Trump canvassing triggered those legal concerns ^[6]. This line of criticism applies to any faith institution that visibly participates in or promotes explicitly partisan activity; critics argued that the LDS endorsement of programs with ties to partisan groups could expose local leaders or congregations to similar legal exposure. The reporting framed these worries as practical compliance risks rather than purely ethical critiques, urging clearer boundaries between religious instruction and partisan political operations ^[6].

4. Internal LDS debate — members split between support and opposition

Journalistic and scholarly coverage documents a divided Latter‑day Saint community, with some members embracing conservative activism and others warning against Christian nationalism and partisan entanglement ^[7]. Critics inside the faith argue that alignment with Christian nationalist rhetoric undermines the church’s global, multi‑partisan pastoral role; supporters see civic programs as legitimate civic education or individual exercise of political conscience. Coverage in 2024 and 2025 shows this split driving much of the public criticism: opponents frame the church’s regional promotion of certain civic curricula as institutional drift toward partisan actors, while defenders emphasize individual agency and separate civil‑society engagement by members ^{[7] [3]}. The debate illustrates tension between institutional neutrality and private political expression.

5. What defenders and available reporting say — absence of explicit institutional endorsement of Turning Point USA

Available reporting also documents a lack of evidence that the central LDS Church hierarchy formally partnered with Turning Point USA; instead, critical coverage often relies on endorsements of allied groups, presence of LDS members within Turning Point, and regional leadership promotions of external civic programs ^{[2] [3] [1]}. Journalists note the difference between individual members’ affiliations and an official church endorsement. Defenders point to the church’s public statements on political neutrality and caution congregations about partisan activity, arguing that isolated promotions of civic programs by area presidencies or member participation do not equal institutional alignment with a partisan nonprofit ^{[2] [1]}. This nuance is central to public debate and underscores the distinction between appearance and formal institutional action.

6. The unresolved questions — transparency, dates, and the need for clearer boundaries

Across reporting through 2025, critics have demanded greater transparency and clearer policies about how the church evaluates external civic programs and the roles of members in partisan organizations, while journalists point to gaps in documentary evidence about formal partnerships ^{[8] [1]}. Financial and governance scrutiny of the LDS Church has grown in parallel, prompting calls for clearer disclosures about institutional endorsements and local leadership guidance ^[8]. The public criticisms therefore cluster around political neutrality, reputational risk, and compliance with nonprofit rules, but key factual gaps remain: no definitive public record shows a formal institutional alliance with Turning Point USA, even as individual ties and regional promotions continue to fuel scrutiny ^{[2] [1]}.