by Kaelynd Brouillette ’29 on October 9, 2025
Opinion
I usually don’t get pulled into discussions of conspiracy theories. Although some have a factual basis, I typically like my information to be concrete and deduce my opinions from proven facts. After Charlie Kirk was assassinated, I did my research about what happened and looked into the narrative being pushed by the federal government and the investigation team. What I found was that many aspects did not add up. My gut feeling was that something was off, and clearly, others thought that too. For example, Candace Owens, a conservative political journalist and dear friend of Kirk’s, used her platform to perform her own investigation. She even went as far as creating her own tipline and constructing her timeline of events, based on her research. To be honest, I was intrigued. It is evident the mass media is lying to us about the situation. Why should I blindly follow what the feds are saying when their narrative has so many pieces that simply do not add up? Why are more people not questioning this? This does not mean that I believe everything Owens has to say about the situation, but I do agree that she has a point. Many points are valid and make me question everything I thought I knew about the assassination.
The FBI’s version of events that took place on Sept. 10 paints a clear and confident picture. According to their timeline, Tyler Robinson was identified as the shooter through “overwhelming” physical and digital evidence, including DNA on a towel used to wrap the rifle, fingerprints found on a nearby screwdriver, and surveillance footage placing him at the scene. Within roughly 33 hours, they claim to have tracked him down and arrested him, citing the case as a model of efficiency and cooperation between state and federal agencies. Officials at the press conference repeatedly emphasized their certainty, even going as far as to label Robinson a “disturbed lone actor.” They have publicly stated he was suicidal when he turned himself in, and that he was placed in a suicide-prevention smock for his own safety. To the FBI, the evidence was clear, but things simply don’t add up.
Owens tells a story very contrary to the FBI. She has questioned nearly every part of the FBI’s narrative, starting with the photos and videos released to the public. According to Owens, the supposed shooter looks different in nearly every image, which raises doubts about whether the footage has been altered or selectively edited. She has also pointed out the FBI’s failure to release the full, unedited video footage from the scene, and claims that a woman seen with the shooter has been completely omitted from the official record. Most importantly, Owens rejects the idea that this was the work of a “disturbed lone actor,” as the FBI has repeatedly insisted. In her eyes, the details don’t add up to one man acting alone, but rather they point to something much bigger, something coordinated. Owens argues that Robinson’s decision to turn himself in wasn’t an admission of guilt, but a response to fear. She says he believed the FBI was going to show up at his home and kill him, so he went to the station first to protect himself. Despite that, Robinson has never confessed to the crime, yet the narrative of his guilt has already been cemented in the public eye. Owens’ questions don’t just challenge the FBI’s competence; they challenge the entire system of trust between citizens and the institutions meant to protect them. Owens’ claims on what happened to Kirk go much deeper than just what is summarized above, but regardless, we, as a country, are not in a position to simply dismiss her ideas as simply being “crazy” or “impossible.”
The tensions between Owens’ questions and the FBI’s are certainly more than just a difference in interpretation. It’s a reflection of our country’s growing lack of trust in the media and government. Every time we’re told to “believe in the facts,” those facts seem to shift depending on who they’re coming from. I believe we live in a society where the loudest voice is mistaken for the correct one. The media feeds us headlines before the facts have even been completely settled, and government agencies speak as if their word is law, instead of just one collected version of the story. Blind trust is easy. It asks nothing of us except for obedience. Yet questioning authority, demanding evidence, and refusing to take anyone’s word as gospel is what real civic engagement looks like. The truth does not come prepackaged, tied with a bow from D.C., or filed down a teleprompter; it’s something you have to dig for yourself. I’m asking anyone who is reading this to listen to both the FBI’s official statements and Candace Owens’ investigation. Hear the contradictions. Notice what’s said and, more importantly, what isn’t. Then decide for yourself what feels true. Because in a country built on freedom, the most dangerous thing we can do is stop thinking for ourselves.