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.
What was Ben Shapiro's disagreement with Candace Owens about?
Executive summary
Ben Shapiro’s public disagreement with Candace Owens centers on disputes over her comments and positions on Israel, antisemitism and specific accusations she allegedly made about Charlie Kirk’s death; Shapiro has called Owens’s actions “evil” and accused her of implying Erika Kirk killed Charlie Kirk, a claim Owens denies [1] [2]. The split also reflects broader fractures on the U.S. right over Israel and definitions of antisemitism, according to reporting that frames the clash as part of wider ideological differences [3] [4].
1. A clash over rhetoric and responsibility: “I think what Candace Owens is doing…is evil”
At a public appearance with Megyn Kelly, Ben Shapiro sharply criticized Candace Owens’s recent conduct, saying “I think that what Candace Owens is doing right now is evil,” and pressed why media figures wouldn’t treat her comments as they would similar accusations from the left — a formulation that pushed the disagreement into moral terms, not merely personal squabbling [1]. Shapiro used the Kelly platform to argue Owens’s actions warrant stronger pushback, framing the issue as journalistic and civic responsibility rather than merely ideological disagreement [1].
2. The specific flashpoint: an accusation about Erika and Charlie Kirk
Shapiro told Megyn Kelly that Owens had accused Erika Kirk of being behind the death of Charlie Kirk, an allegation Owens vehemently denies; Owens publicly called Shapiro a liar and said he “fabricated” the claim to discredit her [2] [1]. Media coverage records that Shapiro made the charged statement on Kelly’s show and that Owens responded on social media, promising to respond further and calling his statement “made up out of thin air” [1] [2].
3. A wider debate over Israel and antisemitism strains long-time allies
Beyond the immediate dispute, reporters and commentators place the Shapiro-Owens split in the context of differing views on Israel and what constitutes antisemitism; this divergence has pulled apart relationships among right-leaning media figures who once traveled similar paths [3]. The Times of Israel notes the split as indicative of larger divisions within the U.S. right, where disagreements over Israel policy and the bounds of acceptable criticism have become fault lines [3].
4. Debate challenge and media provocations: Theatricality and the offer to debate
Candace Owens publicly challenged Ben Shapiro to a debate over the Israel-Hamas war and the definition of antisemitism, a challenge Shapiro accepted while reminding her he had proposed debating earlier — signaling both a substantive clash over policy and a media-savvy, combative approach to settling it in public forums [4]. This exchange suggests both substantive disagreement and an element of performance: each figure uses public challenges to define the terms and audience for their dispute [4].
5. Competing narratives and motives: Smear vs. truth-telling
Owens characterizes Shapiro’s claim about the Erika Kirk comment as an intentional smear — accusing him of lying to pressure a host and to turn people against her [2]. Shapiro frames his criticism as principled: treating similar commentary from the left would draw scrutiny, so conservative figures should also be held to account [1]. These competing motivations — one side alleging bad faith attacks, the other insisting on consistent standards — are explicitly present in the coverage [2] [1].
6. What reporting does and does not establish
Available sources confirm that Shapiro publicly accused Owens of making or implying an accusation about Erika Kirk’s role in Charlie Kirk’s death and that Owens denied and condemned that claim [1] [2]. Sources also place the dispute in the broader context of Israel/antisemitism debates among conservatives [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention independent verification that Owens actually made the alleged accusation about Erika Kirk; they report the accusation and the denial but do not provide primary evidence of Owens’s original statement [2] [1].
7. Why this matters: reputations, standards, and intra-right fragmentation
The fight matters because it involves personal reputations and the question of whether high-profile commentators police one another’s rhetoric — particularly on sensitive topics like alleged responsibility for a person’s death and accusations of antisemitism. Journalists and analysts frame the spat as illustrative of a larger fragmentation on the right, where disagreements over Israel and how to define and confront antisemitism have turned erstwhile allies into public adversaries [3].
Limitations: reporting in these sources focuses on public statements, social-media rebuttals, and commentary; they do not provide a complete transcript of the disputed remarks nor independent proof of Owens’s original wording beyond the parties’ claims and denials [2] [1].