A few things strike us as necessarily true, like basic logic and math, but that isn’t the same as claiming there must be some particular thing that exists. When people ask whether anything exists necessarily, a lot hangs on whether “there could have been nothing at all” and if that makes sense. I for one would say “absolute nothing” is not a real option, because even trying to describe it uses ideas like “is,” “not,” and “could,” which already assume a background where talk and truth have a foothold. You could reasonably conclude that reality can’t be completely empty. But even if that’s right, it doesn’t automatically mean there’s one special thing that exists no matter what. It could simply be that there’s always something there, while what that “something” is can vary: in every possible version of reality there is at least one occupant, yet for any particular occupant you pick, there could have been a version where it never existed at all. In that sense, existence might be unavoidable even if every individual thing is still contingent.