Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Have Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens made any public statements or apologies regarding their feud?
Executive Summary
Candace Owens publicly stated she was not invited to Charlie Kirk’s memorial and has made pointed comments alleging exclusion and a controlled narrative by Erika Kirk and certain donors, while there is no public record of a formal apology from either Owens or the late Charlie Kirk addressing their dispute. Reporting through September 2025 shows Owens amplified claims about donor influence and pressure on Kirk over his Israel stance, and others—including Bill Ackman—have publicly denied or disputed specific allegations in the same reporting cycle [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What Owens publicly asserted — a dramatic claim of exclusion and control
Candace Owens publicly announced she skipped Charlie Kirk’s memorial because she claimed she was not invited and that Erika Kirk and Turning Point USA donors exercised “full control” over the memorial narrative, framing her absence as evidence of being pushed out of the circle she once shared with Kirk. Owens has emphatically denied a personal rift with Erika Kirk while simultaneously asserting she felt excluded from the organization’s “controlled narrative.” Those statements were published across multiple accounts on September 22–23, 2025, showing consistency in her public messaging [1] [2].
2. The core allegation about pressure on Kirk and competing accounts
Owens also alleged that external figures and donors were pressuring Charlie Kirk to adopt a specific public position on Israel, portraying this as an intervention that altered his trajectory. Coverage notes that this allegation intersected with reporting about meetings and debates around Kirk’s evolving views, but the factual record includes denials from some named individuals—notably Bill Ackman—who disputed Owens’ claim that he threatened or coerced Kirk, calling such allegations “totally false.” The contrast of Owens’ assertions and Ackman’s rebuttal illustrates a contested factual field [4] [3].
3. The memorial controversy and reactions from conservative media
Reporting flagged how the memorial itself became a flashpoint, with figures like Tucker Carlson drawing additional controversy—his remarks comparing Kirk’s assassination to the death of Jesus drew criticism from Jewish groups and media in Israel—and Israeli leaders publicly denied any involvement in Kirk’s death. These developments shifted focus from a personal feud to broader debates within the conservative ecosystem about free speech, dissent, and political pressure, complicating the narrative Owens advanced about exclusion and influence [5] [4].
4. Apologies: absent from the public record as of late September 2025
Multiple pieces from September 16–23, 2025 document statements and denials but contain no recorded apologies from Candace Owens or Charlie Kirk concerning their dispute. Reporting consistently describes Owens’ comments as public criticism and claims of exclusion, while accounts of Kirk responding are limited by his passing and by third-party denials of specific allegations. The absence of an apology in the cited coverage is a factual point: contemporary news accounts do not report either figure apologizing for the feud or the comments that followed [4] [2].
5. Divergent motives and possible agendas shaping narratives
The coverage demonstrates competing agendas: Owens’ statements emphasize personal grievance and institutional control, while denials from donors and other conservative figures suggest motives to protect reputations and organizational continuity. Media participants who covered Kirk’s views on Israel—ranging from sympathetic commentators to investigative reporters—shaped the story both by highlighting alleged donor influence and by pushing back against what they framed as unsubstantiated claims. Recognizing these agendas helps explain why accounts vary and why certain denials were publicized quickly [4] [3] [5].
6. What the record shows about who spoke and when
Chronology matters: initial reporting on Kirk’s evolving Israel views and the surrounding debate appeared mid-September 2025, followed by Owens’ public statements about exclusion and memorial nonattendance around September 22–23, 2025. Bill Ackman’s public denial of Owens’ specific allegation about a Hamptons meeting was published on September 16, 2025, indicating pushback on key elements of Owens’ narrative preceded some of her memorial-related comments. The published timeline underscores a rapid, multi-actor public dispute rather than a resolved personal reconciliation [3] [4] [1].
7. Bottom line: public statements exist, apologies do not — and uncertainty remains
In summary, Candace Owens made explicit public statements asserting she was excluded from Charlie Kirk’s memorial and alleging donor and familial control over narratives; several actors named in Owens’ claims issued denials, and there is no documented apology from either Owens or Charlie Kirk in the public reporting through late September 2025. The available reporting presents contradictory claims and rebuttals, reflecting differing agendas and an unresolved factual dispute in the public record as of those publication dates [1] [2] [3] [4].