Have candace owens' allies or conservative figures defended or criticized her after the comments?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Candace Owens’ recent remarks about Charlie Kirk’s assassination and her criticism of his widow, Erika Kirk, have provoked a sharp split in conservative media: several prominent right‑wing voices have publicly rebuked her while others and some online supporters have defended or amplified her claims [1] [2] [3]. High‑profile pushback has come from Tim Pool, who called Owens “evil” and accused her of destroying what Kirk built [2], while outlet and commentator responses — including Josh Hammer and National Review — have explicitly criticized her for unsubstantiated claims and “unhinged” behavior [3].
1. Conservative allies have publicly broken with Owens
A number of recognized conservative figures and outlets have moved from tacit tolerance to explicit criticism. Tim Pool — a right‑wing podcaster — conducted an extended on‑air denunciation, accusing Owens of peddling conspiracies about Kirk’s killing and saying she was “burning everything down that (Charlie) built” [2]. Opinion commentators and institutions have also rebuked her: Newsmax contributor Josh Hammer labeled her conduct “unhinged” and National Review publicly criticized her for alleging Zionist involvement without evidence [3]. These reactions show an organized conservative attempt to distance mainstream voices from Owens’ most extreme assertions [3] [2].
2. The criticisms focus on conspiracy claims and reputational harm
Critics center their objections on two themes: lack of evidence and collateral damage. Several outlets and commentators fault Owens for advancing theories that link foreign actors or Turning Point insiders to the assassination without corroboration, and say those claims harm grieving survivors and the conservative movement’s credibility [3] [4]. The American Thinker and National Review coverage cited in available reporting stresses that naming groups or people without proof has prompted formal rebukes and legal entanglements [3] [4].
3. Some conservatives publicly defend or amplify Owens — and some merely refrain
Not all conservative figures have condemned Owens. Reporting shows that while “big accounts, longtime supporters, and even people who once defended Candace” have turned on her, there remain conservatives who continue to amplify her work or avoid direct rebuke [5] [6]. Opinion pieces and analytics cited show Owens’ audience grew sharply after the killing and that she remains influential in sections of the right, which partially explains why some peers hesitate to fully repudiate her publicly [6] [5].
4. Personal feuds have intensified the split
The dispute has become intensely personal. Owens publicly criticized Erika Kirk for rejecting conspiracy theories and for how she has handled Turning Point USA leadership, prompting other conservative personalities such as Laura Loomer to defend Erika and attack Owens as jealous [1] [7]. Social‑media blowups and name‑calling — including examples compiled in coverage of the backlash — have magnified the rift beyond policy disagreements into interpersonal conflict [1] [7].
5. Media and partisan incentives are complicating the response
Coverage suggests both incentives and risks shape reactions. Outlets and influencers that depend on sharp, controversial content have at times amplified Owens’ theories because they drive engagement, while institutions concerned about credibility or legal exposure have condemned her to limit reputational damage [5] [3] [6]. That dynamic explains why responses range from fulsome denunciation to strategic silence or selective amplification [5] [3].
6. Legal and reputational stakes are already visible
Owens’ recent claims have led to concrete consequences: the Macron defamation lawsuit and broader reporting that fact‑checkers find her allegations unproven are cited in the record, and commentators warn that unverified public accusations can create legal and reputational fallout for both individuals and conservative outlets that repeat them [4] [6] [3]. Available sources do not mention whether any additional legal actions beyond those reported have been filed in response to the most recent statements.
7. What the available reporting does not settle
Reporting documents who has criticized Owens and some who have defended or amplified her, but it does not provide a complete list of every conservative figure’s stance or any private conversations among movement leaders (available sources do not mention a comprehensive list). Nor do these sources prove the factual claims Owens advances about the assassination; critics in the reported pieces emphasize a lack of evidence [3] [4].
Bottom line: major conservative commentators and outlets have publicly broken with Candace Owens over her post‑assassination claims, accusing her of unsubstantiated conspiracy‑mongering and reputational harm, while parts of the right still amplify or hesitate to condemn her because of audience and engagement dynamics [2] [3] [6].