Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did other conservative figures react to Candace Owens' Holocaust comments?
Executive summary
Conservative reaction to Candace Owens’ July 2024 comments minimizing the Holocaust ranged from sharp public rebukes and distancing to defensive pushes back — with several prominent conservative figures and institutions saying they would not platform her while others criticized critics as censorious [1] [2]. Governments and advocacy groups’ responses — including Australia’s visa denial citing her Holocaust downplaying and New Zealand’s follow-up ban — became focal points of the fallout and amplified intra‑conservative debate [3] [4].
1. Conservative institutions publicly disowned or distanced themselves
After Owens’ episode where she cast doubt on aspects of Nazi atrocities and called some accounts “bizarre propaganda,” conservative organizations and campaigns moved to distance themselves; for example, she was removed from a Trump‑related event after internal backlash from conservative allies and Jewish supporters, and commentators within conservative circles called her inclusion “an internal test” for the campaign [1]. Media employers have also factored in her remarks: The Daily Wire had previously parted ways with Owens amid a pattern of anti‑Jewish rhetoric, a context frequently invoked by critics within the right when the new comments surfaced [2].
2. Individual conservative commentators condemned her remarks as unacceptable
Several conservative writers and think‑tank figures publicly criticized Owens’ Holocaust minimization. Jewish conservative commentators and allied figures described hosting or elevating Owens as “inexplicable” or a serious misstep and pressured campaigns and events to drop her, explicitly linking their objections to her Holocaust‑related statements rather than unrelated policy differences [1]. Those criticisms highlighted that within conservative media there is a distinct boundary many are unwilling to cross regarding Holocaust denial or distortion [1] [2].
3. Pro‑Owens conservatives framed backlash as silencing and “Zionist” influence
Owens herself and some supporters rejected the criticisms as censorship and accused “Zionist media” or pro‑Israel influence of trying to silence debate — a framing Owens used in responses posted on social platforms after the backlash [1] [5]. That defense reframed the controversy as an ideological battle over free speech and the politics of Israel rather than a factual dispute about Holocaust history [5] [6].
4. Advocacy groups and Jewish organizations led the public condemnation, pressing conservative peers
Groups such as the Combat Antisemitism Movement and numerous Jewish organizations called her comments “utterly repugnant,” directly rebutting specific denials — for example, stressing that Josef Mengele’s experiments are established historical fact — and used those condemnations to prod conservative institutions to act [7] [8]. Those advocacy reactions became a lever that influenced conservative leaders and event organizers to distance themselves [1].
5. Conservative legal and governmental consequences followed and sharpened debate
Governments’ responses — notably Australia’s decision to cancel her visa citing a capacity to “incite discord,” and New Zealand’s refusal following Australia’s move — translated intra‑conservative disputes into state action and fueled debate over free speech versus public safety and social harmony, with commentators on the right split over whether the bans were justified [3] [4]. The government rationale explicitly cited her Holocaust‑related comments as part of the basis for exclusion, raising stakes for conservative allies who had to choose between defending a provocateur or accepting official censure [3].
6. Some conservative outlets and international right‑wing media amplified or explained her remarks
Right‑leaning and international outlets reported her statements in ways that sometimes foregrounded her critique of postwar Allied conduct and her claims about “indoctrination,” which led to sympathetic or explanatory framing in parts of the conservative media ecosystem even as mainstream and Jewish outlets emphasized the denial/minimization element [8] [9]. This split coverage illustrates that within conservative media there are both cadres ready to amplify Owens’ contrarian takes and others who treat her comments as beyond the pale [9] [8].
7. Limitations, disagreements, and what the sources do not cover
Available sources document institutional distancing, advocacy group condemnations, government visa decisions, and Owens’ own defensive framing [1] [7] [3] [4]. They do not provide a comprehensive list of every conservative figure’s reaction or quantify how many conservatives supported versus opposed her; available sources do not mention a definitive tally or a systematic poll of conservative leaders’ views (not found in current reporting). Sources also vary in tone and emphasis, reflecting differing editorial choices across outlets [9] [8].
8. Bottom line for readers following the intra‑conservative fallout
Conservatives split into at least three camps: those who publicly repudiated Owens and severed ties; those who defended her on free‑speech or anti‑Zionist grounds; and outlets that contextualized or amplified her broader critique while drawing fire from Jewish groups and governments. The controversy prompted tangible consequences — event cancellations and visa denials — showing that within the conservative movement, Holocaust denial or minimization is now a flashpoint that can trigger both reputational and legal/policy responses [1] [3] [7].