What exactly did Candace Owens say about Charlie Kirk and how did she later amend it?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Candace Owens publicly claimed that Charlie Kirk warned people he would be killed the day before his assassination — saying he told security and others “they are going to kill me” — and then faced a direct denial from Erika Kirk, who said she had Charlie’s phone and no such message existed [1] [2]. Owens continued to press allegations about who knew what and who “betrayed” Kirk while critics and TPUSA associates publicly pushed back, and reporting shows multiple outlets documenting Owens’ evolving and amplified claims [3] [4] [5].
1. What Owens originally said: a direct, sensational allegation
On her show and in social posts, Owens asserted that Charlie Kirk told people — including his security guard Dan Flood and others — that “they are going to kill me tomorrow,” and she framed that as evidence that people close to Kirk knew he feared imminent danger [1]. Multiple outlets summarize her claim that he warned a donor, security and TPUSA members the night before he was shot, positioning that alleged text or message as central to her broader suggestion of inside knowledge and possible betrayal [1] [3].
2. The immediate rebuttal from Erika Kirk and its force
Erika Kirk publicly denied Owens’ specific claim, saying she had Charlie’s cell phone and that he “was not messaging people the day before saying, I’m going to be murdered… he didn’t say that,” directly contradicting Owens’ account and prompting Owens to respond in turn [2] [3]. Erika’s statement — reported by multiple outlets — became a focal point for critics who argued Owens was making unverified assertions about intimate last communications [2] [6].
3. How Owens amended, doubled down, and shifted claims
After Erika’s denial, Owens did not fully retract her wider line of questioning about who might have known or benefited; she continued to allege that Kirk had felt threatened and later suggested there were betrayals by TPUSA leadership, promising to “name names” and asserting with “full confidence” that leadership had betrayed him [4]. Reporting shows Owens amplified and broadened her theories — at times pointing to alleged military, foreign-government or organizational involvement — rather than narrowing her original statement to a verified text message [7] [5].
4. Public reaction and the information gap
Media coverage records strong pushback: TPUSA figures, colleagues and commenters criticized Owens, while others in her audience endorsed her skepticism of the official account [8] [5]. Independent summaries and commentary note that no corroborating official evidence for Owens’ specific text claim was publicly produced as of these reports, leaving the key factual element — a message saying “they are going to kill me tomorrow” — unverified in mainstream reporting [9] [10].
5. Competing narratives and the stakes of the dispute
The dispute pits Owens’ insistence on hidden knowledge and internal betrayal against Erika Kirk’s insistence on stopping conspiracy theories and protecting staff from slander; outlets document both positions — Owens accusing silence and possible cover-up, Erika demanding that speculation stop and rejecting the text allegation [3] [6]. That contrast has political and reputational stakes: accusations of betrayal within a major conservative organization and claims of grieving-widow disinformation have fueled intense intra-movement conflict [4] [11].
6. What the available sources do and do not show
Available sources document Owens’ claim about a purported text and Erika Kirk’s categorical denial that such a message exists on Charlie’s phone [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention any independent confirmation of the alleged message or public forensic evidence proving the content Owens described [9]. Likewise, reporting shows Owens moved from a narrowly stated claim about a message to broader allegations — including assertions of betrayal and even military or foreign involvement — but those later claims are presented in the media without substantiating evidence in these reports [7] [5].
7. Why context matters and how to read these claims
This controversy unfolded in a high-emotion environment after a prominent assassination; the parties involved have competing incentives: Owens has a platform and has amplified theories that draw attention, while Erika Kirk seeks to protect staff and her late husband’s legacy [9] [6]. Reporters emphasize the absence of corroboration for the most explosive factual claim (the alleged “they are going to kill me tomorrow” message), and coverage shows Owens shifting to broader accusations rather than producing independently verifiable proof [1] [3].
Limitations: reporting in the supplied sources is contemporaneous and relies on public statements; no source here provides independent forensic verification of the alleged message or of the broader conspiracy assertions [9] [1].