Which conservative commentators criticized Candace Owens after she left TPUSA and what were their main criticisms?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Several conservative commentators publicly criticized Candace Owens after she broke with Turning Point USA (TPUSA), chiefly accusing her of spreading conspiracies about Charlie Kirk’s death, profiting from tragedy, and behaving inconsistently or theatrically; critics named in reporting include Steven Crowder, Tim Pool, and a range of TPUSA figures and right‑wing commentators who derided her statements and tactics (examples: Crowder and Pool; criticism of “exploiting Kirk’s death” and “bat‑guano” theories) [1] [2] [3]. Media coverage also highlights complaints that Owens backed out or contradicted herself over a proposed TPUSA livestream and that her allegations about TPUSA finances and leadership lack sourcing [4] [5] [6].
1. Who publicly pushed back: familiar MAGA podcasters and TPUSA-aligned voices
Reporting points to prominent right‑wing podcasters and commentators — Steven Crowder and Tim Pool among them — as vocal critics who accused Owens of exploiting Charlie Kirk’s death for views, and TPUSA insiders and allied conservative commentators who rebutted her claims and questioned her motives [1] [7]. Conservative outlets and columnists also mocked or condemned Owens, describing some of her claims as “bat‑guano” or “craziness,” signaling a broad pull from across the conservative media ecosystem [3] [7].
2. Core criticisms: conspiracies, profiteering, and inconsistent behavior
Critics coalesced around three main charges: that Owens trafficked in unfounded conspiracy theories about Kirk’s assassination (including alleging Israeli, military or internal TPUSA involvement) without evidence; that she was monetizing or otherwise profiting from sensationalism after a colleague’s death; and that she contradicted herself when challenged about participating in a TPUSA livestream, creating the appearance of drama rather than substantive inquiry [2] [3] [4] [5].
3. Examples of the language used by critics — from “roasted” to “grift”
Coverage records sharp language. Some outlets relayed public roasting for Owens “running scared” from a livestream she initially boasted she’d win, while conservative commentators labeled her recent output as “bat‑guano craziness” and accused her of implying TPUSA figures were involved in the murder — language that frames her claims as both irresponsible and extreme [4] [3] [7]. Other stories say Erika Kirk and TPUSA accused Owens of profiting from unfounded claims and called on her to stop [8].
4. Procedural disputes amplified the substantive critique
A separate strand of criticism focused less on the content of Owens’ allegations than on process: reporters covered a public dispute over whether Owens agreed to TPUSA’s livestream terms and then backed out, with TPUSA saying it would go ahead without her and Owens saying the group changed the terms and was insincere — an exchange that critics used to portray Owens as inconsistent or performative [5] [9] [10].
5. Financial and managerial accusations raised by Owens — and the pushback they drew
Owens herself raised questions about TPUSA finances and leadership — claims of delayed filings and large transfers, and that Erika Kirk’s rapid appointment as CEO was a “managerial error” — but critics and some outlets characterized these assertions as unsourced or conspiratorial, noting Owens presented no clear documentation in the pieces cited [6] [11]. Reporting indicates those allegations contributed to the broader condemnation from conservative peers [12] [7].
6. Debate within the right: pity, scorn, and calls to stop
Not all conservative responses were identical; some commentators expressed pity or suggested Owens was “distraught,” while TPUSA’s Erika Kirk publicly urged Owens to “stop” spreading conspiracies and announced a private meeting intended to de‑escalate the feud — a sign that, within the movement, reactions range from personal concern to sharp repudiation [7] [13] [8].
7. Limitations and what the sources do not say
Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, named roster of every conservative commentator who criticized Owens; reporting highlights certain figures (e.g., Steven Crowder, Tim Pool) and many TPUSA‑adjacent voices but does not list an exhaustive set of critics or provide complete transcripts of private conversations [1] [3] [7]. Sources also do not substantiate the conspiracy claims Owens made; coverage characterizes them as unfounded or lacking proof rather than presenting corroboration [2] [3] [13].
8. Why this matters — movement cohesion and credibility risks
The dispute exposes a key tension in contemporary conservative media: when a prominent figure levels sensational accusations against a major conservative organization, allies fracture between defending institutional reputation and policing what they see as dangerous misinformation. Critics say Owens’ tactics risk eroding credibility and fueling internecine warfare inside the MAGA ecosystem; supporters of Owens frame her as pressing necessary questions — but the sources show the predominant public response among mainstream conservative figures has been to distance themselves from her most explosive claims [1] [7] [8].