I examined both its own web-site to see what it says for itself in its own words, and Wikipedia for a more measured extranll view, given that commercial American news serevices are likely to be either pro- or anti it.
It looks like a youth-cult version of the Heritage Foundation, although most of its leading directors are men old enough to be the fathers of the university students they want to influence.
It's hardly short of money, if as estimated it was paying its founder and CEO Charlie Kirk a salary of <$400 000. His widow, Erika, has taken over his role. I suppose if you found and run a hard-line political organisation you can take whatever salary you think an >$8 000 000 budget from sponsors can bear.
Actually its web-site gives little away, unlike the HF's love of explaining how it wants the US Government to rule the nation. It still uses cliches like "American exceptionalism" (does that isolationism, intense nationalism, or what?) and "family values" (these are...?).
It clearly has a desperate fear of anything it calls "leftist" or "marxist", which seems in American terms to mean Democrat Party, and a desperate fear of government. This suggests a sink-or-swim attitude like that of the Project 2025 towards anyone on less than, oh, maybe $400 000 / year.
One worrying aspect is that TP apparently wants it university-student members to control what their lecturers and professors say, not so much in the lecture-room, as in social-media posts and even formal research papers.
......
Now, whether comparisons with Adolf Hitler are fair, albeit of dubious morality, I would not like to say, but the Nazis did form a strong recruitment cult, its "Hitler Youth", and its contemporary, parallel but separate National Socialist organisation in the USA operated something similar.
It's also fair to point out the HF and TP and similar hard-Right attitudes are not confined to campaigners in the USA, nor the governments of the Russian Federation, Hungary and Turkey. There is a rise of such desires for authoritarian rule rather than democratic governance, around many democratic countries, for various reasons.
We see it in the UK with some strands within Farages' "Reform Party"; most notably recently by Steven ("Tommy Robinson") Yaxley-Lennon's bizarre, pseudo-Christian rally. This was a man who has served prison time for past far-Right, highly racist activisim. (There is a slight counter from the Left, the still-vague, fairly hard-line, left-wing party formed by Jeremy Corbyn.)
In the 1960s-80s, hard-Left ideology was fashionable among young people. Despite the Cold War between NATO and the USSR, that was perhaps understandable in America due to conscription and its unwinnable Vietnam War, but it did spread to France and the UK too, to a lesser extent.
In the UK the far-Right of that era existed mainly as small, noisy and occasionally violent irritants - some of the far-Left were just as sanctimoniously bad. Instead the far-Left was expressed more in industrial trades-union activism by leaders too determined to push their personal power to see the inevitable destruction of their own industries. That has fortunately ended and on the whole, British employers and unions are now far more co-operative, albeit helped by laws that HF and TP would likely call "Communist". Laws outlawing racial, sexual, medical and religious discrimination and other cruel or exploitative practices, that sort of thing. Though US-owned companies like Amazon are still terrified of allowing their foreign staff to join unions.
So, Cold War over, other global powers and ideologies rising, are we now seeing a similar wish for hard-line, dictatorial governments, ironically called for by the very people with the most to lose from such rule?
For whose benefit though? Those students? The nation? Or the highly-paid clique in charge of this organisation?
It is sadly ironical that so many who are blessed with comfortable lives in libertarian nations should call for their own lands becoming hard-line dictatorships of Left or Right; and I find it baffling why they would.
