Turning Point USA is a nonprofit organization that believes in “educating, training, and organizing students to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government” (TPUSA). Recently, a TPUSA chapter was formed here at the University of Evansville, sponsored by students and faculty alike. The chapter can be understood as bringing together students on campus who share similar views. However, the views described by TPUSA are broadly framed and may resonate with a range of individuals on and off campus. So, what makes TPUSA a noteworthy topic? This article examines Turning Point’s funding networks, ideological affiliations, and policy positions, along with perspectives from student leaders on campus.

Because Turning Point USA operates as a national organization with defined funding structures, policy positions, and leadership messaging, the presence of a campus chapter raises questions not only about student organization activity, but about how those broader elements translate into a university setting.

TPUSA has always had the goal of creating college chapters around the country, but more recently it has evolved to include high school chapters. Today there is an entire division of TPUSA called “Turning Point Education,” which supplies classroom products such as worksheets and coloring pages aimed at students grades three through six. According to their mission statement, they are “dedicated to RECLAIMING the education of our children, REVIVING virtuous education focused on truth, goodness, and beauty, and RESTORING God as the foundation of education” (Turning Point Education). For high-school level education, varied materials are available to aid in the classroom, all adorned with a TPUSA logo. The presence of branded materials and structured teaching at earlier stages of education reflects a larger effort to introduce students to specific ideas before they reach college-age. This introduces questions about the role of advocacy organizations in educational spaces, where expectations around neutrality can vary. This expansion into earlier stages of education provides context for how the organization approaches student engagement more broadly, including at the university level, where campus chapters represent a continuation of that outreach.

The words “Turning Point USA” make many people think of Charlie Kirk’s debates, whether from watching Kirk speak at a college campus or seeing videos of him on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, etc. Kirk was the founder and CEO of Turning Point, which started in 2012 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Before we get into TPUSA’s policies, let’s look at what defines a non-profit and what the IRS says about 501(c)(3) organizations and similar non-profits.

A 501(c)(3) organization is a tax-exempt non-profit. The IRS says that “Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office” (IRS). There are a couple exceptions to this rule. For example, if an organization is simply trying to educate voters in a non-partisan way, such as helping people register to vote, that is allowed (Continued in Appendix).

Understanding this structure is relevant when evaluating campus chapters, as student organizations affiliated with national nonprofits operate within the broader framework established by those entities, even when their day-to-day activities are locally directed.

What is “dark money,” and how does it apply to these organizations? Dark money refers to “funds from groups that do not disclose their donors” (Brennan Center). Dark money is money given to groups, typically politicians, by groups that do not disclose where their money originates. This money comes from not only mega-donors, but also regular donations, no matter how small. A portion of their donations do go into their own nonprofit to keep it running, but much of the money is then directed into other expenditures

 (Continued in Appendix). 

While these funding mechanisms exist at the national level, they can become part of the broader context universities consider when recognizing or hosting affiliated student organizations.

In addition to organizational structure and funding, policy alignment and public positions contribute to how affiliated groups are perceived when they are introduced into campus environments. Now, let’s examine TPUSA’s policy positions. TPUSA is a conservative organization. Their views have been described as aligning with positions associated with Donald Trump. They are also on the advisory board, along with over 100 other conservative groups, of Project 2025, the blueprint created by The Heritage Foundation. While Trump has actively tried to distance himself from directly supporting their 920-page policy blueprint, some analysts have noted overlaps between his implemented policies and elements of the proposal.

This includes changes to immigration policy, proposals involving the Department of Education…, and positions related to gender definitions.

(Continued in Appendix). 

Let’s talk a little more about Charlie Kirk himself; what he stood for, things he said, and how his legacy lives on after his assassination in September 2025. Charlie Kirk was a Christian conservative who founded TPUSA at 18 years old, hosted a news commentary podcast called “The Charlie Kirk Show,” and was known for publicly advocating his views. In his 31 years, he amassed a large following among conservative youth. He regularly debated on college campuses, popular YouTube channels, and podcasts, all while running TPUSA and being a husband to Erika Kirk and a father to a 4-year-old daughter and a 2-year-old son. Charlie Kirk frequently expressed strong opinions and spoke about a multitude of different topics, and the following quotes are included to present his statements directly.

Charlie interviewed Riley Gaines, the woman who competed against Lia Thomas in 2022. Lia Thomas is an openly transgender athlete, and after the 2022 NCAA Championship, Gaines began speaking out against transgender athletes. In the interview, Kirk states that “we need to have a Nuremberg style trial for every gender affirming clinic doctor,” that the “NCAA is a perverted organization,” and that someone should have “just took care of it, the way we used to take care of things in the 1950’s and 60’s” (The Charlie Kirk Show). Those opinions stem from the overarching idea that transgender women are not women and that the NCAA messed up by allowing Lia Thomas to participate in the championship and use the same locker room as other competitors.

Then in 2024, Charlie got a question from a fan about replacement strategy, to which he responded, “the great replacement strategy, which is well underway every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.” He claimed that democrats and immigrants are “just like the Soviets one hundred years ago,” and that they “hate those of you that own land and have guns and won’t stop until you and your children and your children’s children are eliminated.” He went on to speak directly to certain areas in America and said that “the same way Joseph Stalin went after [their opposition], they want to go after you. Those of you that live in […] Evansville, Indiana, you’re the problem, didn’t you know it?” (Media Matters).

Charlie Kirk was incredibly open with his opinions. Some of his statements drew criticism, while supporters argued that he was expressing views they felt were underrepresented. This raises questions about how such statements are evaluated by different audiences. From the perspective of people who support him, supporters say he brought a sense of representation to conservative youth, which was his overall goal. supporters describe his messaging as influential. He was able to provoke discussions on controversial topics, which were often described as direct and confrontational. Many of Kirk’s achievements are impressive: starting his own foundation at 18, maintaining relationships with political figures, including the president, publicly expressing his views despite opposition, and regularly hosting events and speaking engagements speaking in front of thousands of people at such a young age. His accomplishments have been cited by supporters as significant.

 Although some argue that he didn’t use his platform in the ‘correct’ way, many people believe that he did. His legacy continues to live on through his wife, Erika Kirk, events hosted by TPUSA, and, most importantly to the organization, through TPUSA chapters on college campuses. Statements made by national leadership can shape how affiliated campus chapters are understood by students and faculty, regardless of whether local members directly express those same views.

These national characteristics, organizational structure, funding networks, and public messaging, form the backdrop against which individual campus chapters are introduced, including the recently recognized chapter at the University of Evansville.

Recently here at the University of Evansville, Turning Point became an officially recognized student organization. I had the opportunity to sit down with their president, Gavin Wheeler, and speak about the reasonings behind the founding of the chapter, their plans, and what TPUSA means to him.

I started by asking Gavin why he believes UE needs a TPUSA chapter. He said that “we haven’t had a place for conservative students to go” and hopes this organization will change that and bring people of both similar and different values together. He also mentioned how Students for Life, which he is also on the board of, holds similar values, but doesn’t encompass everything that TPUSA does. He plans to do tabling events where the organization will have conversations with students that both agree and disagree and try to find common ground, and, most importantly, stay respectful and understanding through everything they do. When asked about DEI, TPUSA policy positions and opinions, Gavin acknowledged that rather than having Turning Point UE be in complete agreement with TPUSA, they are essentially adapting it into their own organization that follows a blueprint rather than rules. I asked him how he believes students and the community will respond to the controversy surrounding TPUSA and he said, “I would say they need to meet us first, listen to our position.” After this conversation the interviews suggested that while the organization is following in the footsteps of TPUSA, their aim is to welcome healthy debate and bring awareness to ballot questions.

This perspective reflects how campus chapters may interpret the organization’s mission at a local level, which can differ in emphasis from how the national organization is viewed externally.

I also interviewed Christi Peach, the operations administrator of the psychology department, who is the Turning Point UE advisor. I began by asking her what the organization plans to do on campus, and she started her response by talking about TPUSA. She began following TPUSA years ago, before it became “kind of a trigger point” and found it interesting how Charlie Kirk was bringing people, specifically students, together and getting them to talk about their views. She was initially hesitant to sponsor the organization considering the controversy surrounding it, but after she got to know some of the students involved and realized it was an “education based civic group” (which was the reason she originally began following Turning Point), she decided it was something she would like to support. She clarified that the timing of Charlie Kirk’s assassination is in no way related to the founding of Turning Point UE because the campus group had already been an idea before that. I asked her towards the end of our interview how this group differs from other campus organizations such as Students for Life and the Student Christian Fellowship, because Gavin had mentioned the overlap, and Christi responded by saying “they can kind of work together and build each other.” By the end of our conversation, I learned that advisors don’t play a huge role in the organization itself but rather serve as someone who will question decisions that may go against the group’s bylaws and ideologies. She explained to me that she is not directly involved in the events of the organization, but rather the overall choices made and the outcomes to ensure that the organization stays on track to accomplish what they set out to do.

At the institutional level, faculty advisors and university policies play a role in shaping how affiliated organizations function on campus, even as the broader affiliation remains part of their identity.

In their constitution, TPUE explains exactly what they hope to do, and what their intentions are with this organization. Their preamble reads: “We, students of the University of Evansville, assemble together to promote and conserve American identity, beliefs, ethics, and culture, as defined by our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. We seek to love and to promote the value and dignity of human life and liberty and conserve traditional families in society, as defined and taken from Christian values, ethics, and principles. Through this, we place our faith, family, community, and America first” (TPUSA at UE Constitution). 

The interviews with Gavin and Christi led me to believe that the students and faculty involved in Turning Point UE do not describe their intent as creating controversy, so concerns raised by some individuals are connected to the organization’s broader national reputation. I sat down with Jonathan Trombetta, director of UE Pride Camp, and was given insight into how TPUE makes some minority students feel.

Jonathan was very open about his involvement in queer-centered organizations and explained that it feels like having a Turning Point chapter on campus will be “working against everything [he] is fighting for.” He described their presence as exclusionary and expressed real concern about what it means for students who already feel marginalized. For him, the organization makes him feel “wholly unsafe and unsupported.” He does not believe that the broader meaning of the organization can be separated from the campus chapter, and that even if TPUE doesn’t intend to do harm, simply by bringing this organization to campus they are bringing negative, harmful connotations with them.

I also spoke with Folarin Oyeleye, who is a part of multiple groups for students of color. He offered a similar perspective to Jonathan, except from the standpoint of race and campus climate. Folarin said, “yes, [they] have the freedom to make such an organization on campus,” but that they also need to be “cognizant of the stigma that [their] organization brings, especially with us going to a predominantly white institution, for a lot of students of color such as [himself].” He said that the existence of the group brings a threat to the emotional safety of minorities on campus and personally makes him feel “afraid, vigilant, and baffled,” even if the group’s intentions might not be to do so. He does not believe that these concerns are hypothetical; they are experienced. I read the TPUSA preamble to him, and in response he said that the “founding documents” mentioned were not written with students and people like him in mind, and that it feels like a lot of generalizations.

While TPUE is hoping the campus will give them a chance before making assumptions about what their plans are, some students described feeling that negative effects are already present.

 TPUE held their call-out meeting on March 18th, which I attended with Joshua Fisher, who has been helping with the research for this article. The club spoke about its goals, beliefs, and intentions, all of which aligned with the goal of sparking healthy debate on campus that I heard about during interviews. Gavin Wheeler also mentioned that the organization is “not religious, but many of the ideas are taken from traditional Christian values.” Overall, the meeting did not include statements indicating an intent to make students feel unsafe, unsupported, or afraid.

These reactions illustrate how perceptions of a national organization can influence how its campus chapter is experienced by students, independent of the chapter’s stated intentions or planned activities.

When evaluating the role of a campus organization affiliated with a national group, the distinction between local function and national identity becomes a central consideration

Throughout this article, two recurring questions emerge: why this specific organization has been brought to campus, and how it relates to other existing student organizations. The University of Evansville has a range of groups that engage students around faith, values, and civic issues, including organizations such as Students for Life and Student Christian Fellowship. While these groups are not identical in purpose or structure to Turning Point USA, they contribute to a broader campus environment in which discussion, advocacy, and community-building already take place.

In interviews, TPUE leadership described a desire to create space for conversation, engagement, and civic participation among students with similar viewpoints. At the same time, this raises a structural question: whether those goals required affiliation with a national organization, or whether they could have been pursued through existing organizations, adaptations of those organizations, or the creation of a new independent group defined solely by local priorities.

This distinction becomes particularly relevant given that affiliation with a national organization carries with it established messaging, materials, and identity. According to TPUE’s constitution, the chapter intends to distribute materials associated with Turning Point USA, indicating an ongoing connection to the organization’s broader communication framework. As a result, the decision to affiliate is not limited to forming a new student group, but also involves introducing an external organization’s messaging into the campus environment.

No interviewees from TPUE identified a specific gap that could only be addressed through this particular affiliation, which raises the possibility that the distinguishing factor is not solely the function of the organization, but its connection to a national entity. This leads to a central question: could the stated goals of dialogue, engagement, and civic participation have been achieved without that affiliation? If so, the decision to recognize the chapter extends beyond student organization policy and reflects a broader institutional choice about what external partnerships and identities are incorporated into campus life.