What caused the public feud between Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro in 2024?

1. How a Gaza disagreement escalated into a rupture of conservative alliances

The first major strand traces to Owens’ public condemnation of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which she described in terms that many colleagues found unacceptable and which some outlets and Daily Wire leadership characterized as antisemitic. Ben Shapiro, a vocal defender of Israel, publicly criticized Owens’ remarks as “absolutely disgraceful,” framing the dispute as a values and policy rift within the right‑wing media ecosystem rather than a mere personal spat ^{[4] [1]}. This clash over Israel became a focal point for wider tensions because it engaged deeply held identity politics—Shapiro’s Jewish identity and Owens’ growing willingness to challenge conservative orthodoxy—transforming a policy disagreement into a reputational crisis that implicated The Daily Wire’s leadership decisions and public positioning ^{[5] [1]}.

2. The role of alleged antisemitic comments and organizational fallout

A second strand emphasizes that Owens’ remarks and subsequent backlash precipitated her exit from The Daily Wire in March 2024, which some reports described as a dismissal and others as a departure amidst months of friction. The company cited a series of controversial comments as part of the rationale for severing ties or distancing itself, while internal actors and some public statements tried to manage legal and PR exposure—there were conflicting claims about gag orders and formal disciplinary steps. This organizational fallout framed the disagreement as a management and culture clash as much as an interpersonal feud, complicating narratives that reduce the dispute solely to two personalities ^{[5] [1]}.

3. The fabricated iMessage controversy that reignited hostilities

A third and highly publicized trigger involved Owens posting images she said were 2018 iMessage screenshots from the late Charlie Kirk accusing Ben Shapiro of undermining conservative careers. Analysts and media quickly flagged the images as likely fabricated or manipulated, noting UI inconsistencies and using technical comparisons to authentic messages. That episode shifted the conflict into questions of evidence and honesty: Shapiro publicly accused Owens of making baseless claims, and Owens denied the characterization, accusing Shapiro of lying after his media appearances. This authenticity dispute intensified mutual distrust and broadened the feud beyond ideological disagreement into allegations of deliberate misinformation ^{[2] [6]}.

4. Leaked messages, jealousy narratives, and competing agendas

Leaked messages attributed to Charlie Kirk circulated with interpretations that Ben Shapiro harbored jealousy of Owens’ rising profile, a narrative pushed by some commentators and outlets. These leak narratives served multiple agendas: allies of Owens portrayed her as a target of intra‑movement gatekeeping, while critics used the same materials to question her credibility and judgment. The competing takes reflect partisan incentives—supporters wanting to delegitimize institutional conservative figures, opponents framing Owens as a destabilizing actor whose behavior justified pushback. The disagreement over motives—jealousy, policy, or reputation management—remains unresolved because available accounts emphasize different actor interests and selective document releases ^{[7] [8]}.

5. What the record shows and what remains disputed

Summing the evidence, the feud cannot be reduced to a single cause: policy disagreement over Israel, accusations of antisemitism, disputed evidentiary claims about leaked texts, and internal Daily Wire tensions all contributed. Sources agree Owens’ comments on Gaza and related controversy preceded significant ruptures, that authenticity questions about texts inflamed public exchanges, and that her departure from The Daily Wire was a key inflection point—yet they diverge on chronology, motive, and culpability. The record shows multiple convergent triggers rather than a single smoking gun, and ongoing partisan framing suggests that interpretations often reflect the agendas of commentators and institutions involved ^{[4] [2] [3]}.