Aubrey Laitsch says she lost her job at Turning Point USA after questioning management and the organization’s narrative following Charlie Kirk’s death. If her account is accurate, it shows an organization that may punish internal questioning during a turbulent leadership transition.
The post will unpack what Laitsch claims happened, why she says she was singled out, and how those claims fit into broader tensions since Erika Kirk assumed leadership. Expect quotes and context that help you judge the credibility and implications of her allegations.
You’ll also get a look at how staff reactions and leadership choices have shaped the group’s internal culture as the organization navigates public scrutiny and change.
Aubrey Laitsch’s Allegations and Termination
Aubrey Laitsch says she lost her job after raising concerns about internal messaging and workplace treatment following Charlie Kirk’s death. She describes a mix of informal rumor, personnel shifts under Erika Kirk, and heavier duties without pay that preceded her dismissal.
Claims of Retaliation for Questioning the Narrative
Laitsch, who served as a public relations manager at Turning Point USA, says she questioned the organization’s account of events after Charlie Kirk’s assassination and that those questions were treated as disloyalty. She posted a roughly 12–13 minute video on X describing her side, and her remarks were later amplified by figures such as Candace Owens.
She alleges leadership under Erika Kirk and other senior staff reacted by sidelining staff who pushed alternative lines of inquiry. Laitsch describes a pattern where raising operational or messaging concerns resulted in reduced responsibilities and eventual termination, rather than an open discussion about facts or process.
Colleagues named in reporting, including Andrew Kolvet, appear in her account as people who received or passed along information that contributed to the decision. Laitsch frames the firing as punitive action tied to internal debate, not documented performance issues.
The Uber Driver Incident and Rumor Spread
Laitsch recounts an unusual anecdote she believes influenced her firing: an Uber driver allegedly told a TPUSA board member that his daughter knew an employee who disliked Erika Kirk. That second‑hand story, Laitsch says, was circulated inside the organization and treated as evidence without proper verification.
She says the rumor passed through channels and reached decision-makers, which she found baffling given its tenuous origin. The episode illustrates, in her telling, how informal gossip and amplified whispers rather than documented complaints shaped personnel moves.
Media accounts and social posts show the anecdote gained traction when staffers forwarded it; Laitsch insists she never spoke ill of Erika Kirk. The rapid spread of the Uber-driver claim, she says, contributed to a climate where rumor could outweigh documented facts.
No Extra Compensation and Workload Post-Assassination
Laitsch reports working extended hours after Charlie Kirk’s death to support events like Americafest and maintain outreach, but she says the increased workload came without additional pay or formal recognition. She describes pitching in on donor communications, tours, and crisis PR while formal roles shifted under new leadership.
She alleges those extra responsibilities were expected as loyalty tests rather than compensated assignments. Laitsch claims that despite long service to Turning Point USA, she received no vacation payout, bonus, or other financial adjustments when duties intensified or when she was let go.
That lack of compensation, combined with what she views as retaliatory termination, forms a central grievance in her public statements about how the organization treated longtime staff during the leadership transition under Erika Kirk.
Leadership Transition and Internal Reaction
TPUSA’s leadership change after Charlie Kirk’s death reshaped daily operations and sparked sharp internal reactions. Employees reported loyalty tests, departures, and public amplification by outside conservative figures.
Erika Kirk’s New Role and Internal Turmoil
Erika Kirk assumed the organization’s top leadership role after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, becoming CEO and board chair. Staff said the shift brought a new management style and tighter narrative control that some long-time employees found difficult to reconcile with the group’s prior culture.
Former communications staffer Aubrey Laitsch described repeated questioning about employees’ allegiance to Erika and discomfort with how the organization framed events surrounding Charlie’s death. Colleagues reported an atmosphere where asking for clarity on September 10, 2025, raised suspicion rather than open discussion.
This change intersected with high-profile public obligations, including the American Comeback Tour events and ongoing TPUSA campus activity, placing intense pressure on communications, fundraising, and event teams. The result, according to multiple accounts, was a surge in staff anxiety and internal friction.
Involvement of Key Figures and Staff Layoffs
Several named figures factored into the transition. Andrew Kolvet, a longtime TPUSA spokesman, reportedly participated in meetings that confronted employees about alleged disloyalty. Tyler Robinson and other leadership-side operatives worked on messaging adjustments as the organization recalibrated.
Staff layoffs and departures followed, with some claiming terminations tied to raising questions about internal decisions. Those layoffs included members of the communications team who had worked closely with Charlie, creating gaps in institutional memory and media relations during a sensitive period.
Board-level governance questions also emerged, as former staffers and board members described rapid decision-making with limited staff input. That hastiness contributed to a perception that dissent equaled disloyalty rather than a legitimate internal critique.
Candace Owens and Public Support
Conservative podcaster Candace Owens amplified internal allegations by sharing a video posted by a former TPUSA employee and commenting on what she called intense internal scrutiny. Her involvement broadened attention beyond niche conservative circles and framed the dispute as part of a wider conservative-media conversation.
Owens compared internal questioning to a “Scottsdale Witch Trials” atmosphere, which resonated with right-leaning audiences and prompted further commentary from allied media personalities. That amplification pressured TPUSA’s public relations apparatus to manage both internal personnel issues and heightened external scrutiny.
Some former colleagues welcomed Owens’ attention as validation; others warned it escalated divisions and complicated efforts to resolve disputes privately. The public backing influenced the narrative outside TPUSA more than it immediately changed internal policies.
Controversy, Backlash, and Organizational Silence
The accusations generated both sharp criticism and defensive silence. Critics accused TPUSA leadership of stifling dissent and fostering an intolerance for internal questions about the official narrative of Charlie Kirk’s death. Supporters of Erika pushed back, urging unity and caution against speculation.
TPUSA’s public statements emphasized unity and discouraged speculation about the assassination, but those messages did not always satisfy former staff demanding transparent answers. Allegations of employees being interrogated or flagged as disloyal circulated on social platforms and conservative outlets, intensifying backlash.
In several reported incidents, internal communications appeared limited or tightly controlled, leaving some staff feeling marginalized. That lack of open internal discourse reportedly drove additional resignations and fueled continued media coverage.
Relevant reporting on these events appears in coverage such as the account of the former staffer’s allegations about internal dissent and termination at TPUSA.
More from Decluttering Mom: