What were the key statements from Candace Owens during her feud with Ben Shapiro?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Candace Owens answered Ben Shapiro’s public rebuke with profanity, denunciations of his character, and renewed conspiratorial accusations tied to the Charlie Kirk saga, framing Shapiro as an impostor with misplaced loyalties while insisting she was telling inconvenient truths; those remarks escalated a wider conservative-media civil war in which allies and rivals publicly took sides [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows Owens combined personal attacks (“f**k you,” “impostor”) with broader claims that Shapiro protects foreign interests—particularly Israel—and attempted to destroy her professionally after her firing, while Shapiro and others countered that her claims lack evidence and amount to dangerous conspiracy-mongering [1] [4] [5].
1. The explosive invective: explicit, personal, theatrical attacks
Owens’ immediate public response to Shapiro’s speech used raw invective and theatrical language: on her podcast she told Shapiro “f**k you and the midget horse that you rode in on,” called him “an impostor,” and played clips of his remarks back to her audience as fuel for denunciation—lines that outlets quoted to mark a clear escalation in the feud [1] [4].
2. The core substantive claims: conspiracies about Charlie Kirk and foreign actors
Beyond insults, Owens doubled down on her theory-driven coverage of Charlie Kirk’s murder, asserting broad, insinuatory claims that implicated foreign governments and intelligence services and suggesting that Shapiro’s criticisms were motivated by an effort to shield those interests; multiple reports catalogued her public suggestions that Israel or France could be involved and that Shapiro’s condemnations reflected allegiance rather than principle [5] [3] [2].
3. Accusations about Shapiro’s motives and Owens’ alleged professional retaliation
Owens framed the spat as not merely ideological but personal and material: she said Shapiro, after her firing from a platform they once shared, had sought to “make sure my reputation and livelihood was also destroyed,” and accused him of trying to pressure other hosts to denounce her—charges reported in summaries of her podcast and social posts [4] [2].
4. How Shapiro framed Owens and how allies reacted
Shapiro’s onstage riposte at TPUSA’s AmericaFest portrayed Owens’ output as “absolutely baseless trash,” “emotive accusations,” and “conspiracy theories” that fall short of evidence—language that his defenders used to argue a public duty to call out misinformation, while his critics (and friends of Owens like Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson) have pushed back that private context and rivalries complicate the moral calculus [5] [6] [7].
5. Stakes and subtexts: media power, identity politics, and perceived foreign allegiance
The feud maps onto larger struggles over conservative media authority: Owens’ attacks fuse grievance about elite gatekeeping and claims of foreign-aligned loyalties (she accused Shapiro of caring “only about Israel’s interests”), while Shapiro frames himself as policing standards of evidence and protecting grieving parties from exploitation—each posture advances an implicit agenda about who should define acceptable conservative discourse [3] [8] [9].
6. Alternative viewpoints and implicit agendas
Reports show two coherent narratives: Owens argues she exposes hidden truths and resists silencing by media elites; Shapiro and critics insist her assertions are irresponsible and harmful without corroboration [2] [5]. Coverage also highlights how allies’ reactions—Megyn Kelly’s defense and Bari Weiss’ amplification of Shapiro—may reflect their own institutional or personal stakes in defining legitimacy on the right, suggesting the feud is as much about credibility and audience capture as about the immediate facts [10] [7].
7. Limits of current reporting
Available reporting documents Owens’ rhetoric, her claims about Shapiro’s motives, and Shapiro’s public denunciations, but it does not provide independent verification of the conspiracy claims Owens advanced nor definitive evidence about Shapiro’s private actions alleged by Owens; those remain contested and unresolved in the sources reviewed [5] [4].