Charlie Kirk’s mother is breaking her silence—and directly confronting the rumors that have swirled around her family and daughter-in-law Erika Kirk in the year since her son was assassinated.

Kathryn Kirk, who has largely remained outside the public spotlight since Charlie’s September 2025 killing, spoke to Vanity Fair about the speculation surrounding the family, Erika’s takeover of Turning Point USA and claims of a bitter private feud.

Her message was unequivocal.

“Here’s the truth: We were 100% behind her,” Kathryn said of Erika’s selection to lead the organization Charlie founded.

Kathryn specifically rejected claims that Charlie’s parents blamed Erika for his death, were battling her over his estate or opposed her taking control of Turning Point USA.

Instead, she said the unimaginable loss they share has brought the two women closer.

“Erika and I have, through the trauma, grown closer,” Kathryn said.

“We knew Charlie in a way that no one else did,” she added, describing a bond forged through their shared grief.

Kathryn said the two can look into each other’s eyes and understand “the depth of our despair.”

Her comments represent a rare and direct response to months of speculation that has spread across social media following Charlie’s assassination.

Vanity Fair reported that Kathryn became emotional while discussing the relentless scrutiny and accusations directed at Erika.

Kathryn said Charlie would have been deeply upset by the treatment his wife has endured since his murder.

She also acknowledged that her own desire to remain a private citizen inadvertently created a vacuum in which speculation flourished.

Among the claims circulated online have been allegations involving Charlie’s will, his estate, Turning Point USA’s succession plan, tensions between Erika and Charlie’s parents and even suspicions surrounding Erika herself.

But prosecutors have presented no evidence implicating Erika in Charlie’s assassination.

Authorities have instead charged 23-year-old Tyler Robinson with Charlie’s killing. Robinson has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.

A Utah judge recently ruled that prosecutors had presented sufficient evidence at the preliminary-hearing stage for Robinson to stand trial on the charges against him.

His next pretrial conference is scheduled for October 23.

The stakes in the case remain enormous, with prosecutors seeking the death penalty.

Charlie’s security in the period leading up to his assassination has also come under intense scrutiny.

He had been receiving threats before his appearance at Utah Valley University, and discussions were underway about additional protective measures.

According to the Vanity Fair account, Charlie discussed bulletproof shields and protective vests with Erika and their pastor the night before he was killed.

Kathryn said her son intentionally kept his parents out of many of those conversations because he knew the details would intensify their fears for his safety.

The possibility that something could happen to Charlie had also reportedly forced Turning Point officials to confront an uncomfortable question before his death: Who would lead the organization if Charlie no longer could?

According to board members and people close to the organization interviewed by Vanity Fair, Charlie had made his preference clear.

He wanted Erika.

Eight days after Charlie’s assassination, Turning Point USA’s board unanimously elected Erika CEO and chair.

The organization said at the time that Charlie had “expressed to multiple executives that this is what he wanted.”

That account undercuts one of the most persistent narratives surrounding Erika’s rapid elevation—that her takeover represented an unexpected power grab following her husband’s death.

Those close to the organization instead described succession discussions that had taken place before the assassination.

“She knew him more than anyone,” one former Turning Point employee said of Erika.

Vice President JD Vance also defended Erika’s ability to carry Charlie’s organization forward.

“We can never replace Charlie,” Vance said while discussing Erika and the future of Turning Point USA.

But Erika’s new position has placed her under a level of scrutiny few political widows ever face.

Questions about Turning Point’s future have become intertwined with speculation about Charlie’s assassination, his estate and the circumstances surrounding Erika’s rise to the top of the organization.

Vanity Fair identified former Charlie Kirk ally Candace Owens as one of the most prominent voices publicly questioning Erika and aspects of the official account surrounding the assassination.

Owens has argued that Erika should face questioning.

Prosecutors, however, have not accused Erika of participating in her husband’s killing.

The toll of the case was visible during Robinson’s preliminary hearing.

Erika described sitting alongside Kathryn as enhanced surveillance footage of Charlie’s shooting was shown in court.

As the footage depicted the alleged shooter moving into position, Erika said she grabbed Kathryn’s arm and cried.

Erika also recalled insisting on seeing her husband’s body after the shooting despite a doctor initially advising her against doing so.

Now, after largely staying silent as theories about her family spread online, Charlie Kirk’s mother has publicly entered the conversation herself.

And on one of the biggest questions fueling that speculation—whether Charlie’s parents privately blame Erika or oppose her leadership—Kathryn Kirk’s answer could hardly have been clearer.

“Here’s the truth: We were 100% behind her.”

Fox News is bringing one of former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s most prominent former aides onto its platform — a move that immediately triggered a furious response from one of the network’s own former personalities.

Melissa DeRosa, Cuomo’s longtime top lieutenant and former secretary to the governor, has been hired as a Fox News contributor and will appear on the network’s new weekly podcast, “The Girls.”

DeRosa will make her debut when the program premieres Oct. 1, Fox News Media announced Monday.

But the announcement quickly reopened one of the most bitter controversies surrounding Cuomo’s administration: New York’s handling and reporting of nursing home deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Former Fox News meteorologist Janice Dean blasted the decision.

Dean’s mother-in-law and father-in-law died of COVID-19 in 2020 after living in New York long-term care facilities. Their deaths turned Dean into an outspoken critic of Cuomo and his administration as she pushed for answers about the state’s nursing home policies.

Following news of DeRosa’s Fox role, Dean unloaded.

“Melissa DeRosa helped smear the women who came forward about Andrew Cuomo’s harassment, and played a hand in undercounting nursing home deaths during COVID. Also tried to silence my advocacy.”

DeRosa served as secretary to the New York governor, becoming the first woman to hold the powerful position.

She resigned in August 2021 as sexual harassment allegations engulfed Cuomo’s administration.

But DeRosa had already become a central figure in the controversy surrounding the Cuomo administration’s handling of nursing home death information.

Months before her resignation, DeRosa acknowledged during a private call with Democratic state lawmakers that the administration had withheld nursing home death data while facing concerns about a possible investigation by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department.

The February 2021 disclosure intensified scrutiny over New York’s accounting of COVID-19 deaths among nursing home residents.

At the time, the state’s nursing home tally did not include residents who died after being transferred from nursing homes to hospitals, leaving thousands of deaths outside that particular count.

DeRosa later maintained that the administration had placed state lawmakers’ request for the information on hold while it prioritized responding to the federal inquiry.

The controversy did not end there.

A New York State Assembly investigation released in November 2021 concluded that Cuomo had not been fully transparent about nursing home resident deaths.

The investigation also concluded that Cuomo sexually harassed women and used state resources in connection with the production and promotion of his pandemic memoir.

Now DeRosa is returning to the political-media spotlight through Fox News.

She will appear on “The Girls,” a new weekly podcast featuring a rotating group of female co-hosts discussing politics, careers, family life and pop culture.

The premiere will also feature Fox personalities Rachel Campos-Duffy, Harris Faulkner and Kat Timpf.

New episodes are scheduled to be released Thursdays on YouTube, Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

The launch will also bring former ESPN personality Sam Ponder back into the spotlight following her 2024 departure from the sports network.

Ponder, the former host of “Sunday NFL Countdown,” will join DeRosa and the Fox personalities for the premiere episode.

But it is DeRosa’s addition that has already generated controversy before the first episode even airs.

For Dean, the issue is deeply personal.

She spent years publicly challenging Cuomo’s administration over its handling of nursing homes after losing two family members during the pandemic.

Now the former governor’s onetime top aide is joining the same media organization where Dean became one of the most visible critics of that administration.

And Dean made clear exactly what she thinks of the decision.

President Donald Trump’s escalating battle with the national media has exploded into a full-blown legal showdown after his administration barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico reporters from the White House — a move prominent Republicans are now publicly defending.

Trump announced Friday that the three organizations would no longer be permitted inside the White House, accusing them of repeatedly publishing what he described as “fake news” and unfair coverage of his administration.

By Saturday, the threat had become reality.

Reporters from all three organizations were denied entry to the White House, with some saying their credentials had been deactivated or confiscated.

Now Republicans are lining up behind the president, arguing that news organizations do not have an automatic right to coveted access inside the White House complex.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., defended Trump during an appearance Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“There are literally thousands of media outlets in America,” Scalise said.

Scalise pointed to the obvious physical limitations of the White House press operation, arguing that only a fraction of America’s news organizations can operate from inside the complex and that the administration has authority over who receives that access.

Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, also defended Trump’s decision, pointing to what he described as years of inaccurate and unfair coverage of the president.

Other Republicans have made a similar argument: barring reporters from physically entering the White House does not prevent CNN, MS NOW or Politico from continuing to report on the Trump administration.

And Trump has indicated the crackdown may not end with those three organizations.

“Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow,” Trump wrote.

Asked about other organizations that could potentially lose access, Trump criticized The New York Times and The Washington Post but stopped short of announcing additional bans.

The media organizations targeted by Trump aren’t backing down.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed a federal lawsuit Monday seeking restoration of their White House access, arguing that the administration retaliated against them because it objected to their journalism.

The organizations are seeking a temporary restraining order that could quickly force the constitutional fight before a federal judge.

“This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes,” the organizations said in a joint statement.

The White House Correspondents’ Association has also pushed back.

WHCA President Jacqui Heinrich, a Fox News anchor, called on the administration to restore the organizations’ access, arguing that allowing the government to exclude journalists because officials object to their reporting could establish a precedent affecting other news organizations.

And the criticism isn’t coming exclusively from Trump’s political opponents.

Some prominent conservatives have openly broken with the president over the decision.

Former White House press secretary and Fox News contributor Ari Fleischer argued that conservatives should confront media organizations they believe are biased rather than remove their access.

“Argue and defeat them,” Fleischer said. “Don’t ban them. Or one day they’ll ban us.”

Fox News contributor and legal scholar Jonathan Turley similarly called excluding disfavored media organizations from the White House a “terrible precedent and practice.”

The showdown is the latest front in Trump’s continuing fight with the national press.

Early in Trump’s second term, the White House took control over decisions involving which journalists participate in the presidential press pool — a responsibility traditionally handled by the White House Correspondents’ Association.

The administration also previously restricted Associated Press access following a dispute over the organization’s decision to continue using the name Gulf of Mexico while acknowledging Trump’s executive order renaming it the Gulf of America.

That dispute also landed in federal court.

And there is significant history surrounding fights over White House press credentials.

During Trump’s first term in 2018, his administration revoked CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass following a contentious exchange with the president.

CNN sued.

A federal judge subsequently ordered the White House to temporarily restore Acosta’s credentials while citing due-process concerns.

An even older case could also loom large over the current fight.

In the 1977 case *Sherrill v. Knight*, a federal appeals court held that once the White House establishes press facilities, decisions involving credentials are subject to constitutional protections and cannot be made arbitrarily.

That precedent could become a major issue as CNN, MS NOW and Politico attempt to convince a federal court that Trump’s latest restrictions crossed a constitutional line.

For Trump and his Republican defenders, the argument centers on whether any particular media organization is entitled to special physical access to the White House.

For the three news organizations, the issue is fundamentally different: they contend the government cannot selectively revoke access in retaliation for reporting it dislikes.

Now that fight is moving from the White House briefing room to a federal courtroom — where a judge could determine just how far a president can go when deciding which journalists are allowed through the gates.