Have Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens publicly discussed their working relationship since her exit?

1. Public rupture centered on Israel and rhetoric

The split traces to Owens’ public commentary on Israel after the 2023–24 Gaza war, which she framed as a moral condemnation of state violence and which drew condemnation from Shapiro, who publicly called some of her remarks “disgraceful” and used an onstage forum to criticize her commentary ^{[4] [1]}. Reporting ties her departure from The Daily Wire in March 2024 to a series of escalating disputes over those comments and related conduct that Daily Wire leadership said made continuation untenable ^{[4] [3]}.

2. Shapiro’s public rebukes and an invitation to quit

Ben Shapiro has not stayed silent: he criticized Owens directly in public remarks and on social platforms, characterizing parts of her commentary as beyond the pale and, in one public exchange, telling her she could “by all means quit” if her stance conflicted with the company’s values ^{[1] [2]}. Those statements were widely reported as explicit, on-record critiques that framed the dispute as more than private disagreement and as a matter of organizational standards at a conservative outlet ^[1].

3. Owens’ public replies and her account of contact (or lack of it)

Candace Owens responded publicly in multiple venues: she reposted The Daily Wire CEO Jeremy Boreing’s announcement that their relationship had ended, she defended her positions in interviews, and she told Tucker Carlson she had received no apology or explanatory outreach from Shapiro after the public confrontation ^[3]. Subsequent media accounts and Owens’ own programing continued to feature pointed attacks against Shapiro, reflecting that the public dispute persisted after her exit ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Institutional statement versus interpersonal dialogue

The formal notice of her exit came via Daily Wire leadership rather than a joint statement negotiated by the two principals, with Boreing posting that “Daily Wire and Candace Owens have ended their relationship” and Owens resharing the announcement on X ^[3]. That sequence underscores that much of the post-exit discussion has been asymmetric and adversarial — public speeches, social posts, and media appearances — rather than a private, reconciliatory conversation documented in reporting ^{[3] [1]}.

5. How reporting frames motives and competing narratives

Mainstream coverage links the split to a clash over antisemitism and pro‑Israel norms inside a conservative media organization, with some outlets and commentators emphasizing Shapiro’s Jewish identity and his public distancing from rhetoric he saw as antisemitic, while Owens framed her remarks as principled opposition to certain policies and has accused colleagues of trying to suppress her ^{[4] [1] [3]}. There are also partisan and reputational incentives at play: Daily Wire leaders have an interest in preserving the brand’s relationships with a broad conservative audience, and Owens has incentives to cast the departure as martyrdom for free speech; these dynamics shape the public statements each has made ^{[3] [7]}.

6. Limits of available reporting and what remains unknown

Public reporting documents multiple exchanges, on-stage critiques, social media posts, and media interviews showing the two figures discussing the split in public forums ^{[2] [1] [3] [5]}. What the sources do not provide is a complete record of private communications between Shapiro and Owens after her exit; Owens’ claim that Shapiro did not contact her is on the public record, but no independent reporting cited here verifies private outreach in either direction ^[3]. Therefore the definitive state of any private reconciliation attempts cannot be asserted from these sources.