How has the Israeli government responded to Candace Owens' allegations?

1. Denials from Israeli-linked organizations: a direct rebuttal

Ohr Torah Stone, the Modern Orthodox network Owens singled out, responded through a spokesperson to Jewish Telegraphic Agency inquiries saying the email Owens posted “isn’t from the organization,” and its leadership explicitly denied engaging in the sort of payments Owens described; the group’s public message framed Owens’ post as a smear and distanced Rabbi Riskin from the allegations ^[1].

2. The public posture: “we don’t spend time thinking about Candace Owens”

Ohr Torah Stone’s statement went further than a narrow factual denial, saying Rabbi Riskin and the organization “don’t spend time thinking about Candace Owens” and insisting they “do not engage in smear campaigns,” a rhetorical move intended to undercut both the factual basis and the motive Owens claimed ^[1].

3. Broader context: Owens’ claims have split the U.S. conservative movement

Outside Israel, Owens’ wider string of allegations — including claims about Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA, and supposed Israeli influence — have intensified infighting in the MAGA and broader conservative ecosystem; some allies accused Owens of fabrication while others amplified her, forcing public rebuttals from figures tied to Kirk and TPUSA ^{[3] [2]}.

4. U.S. organizations and operatives pushed back publicly

TPUSA and associated spokespeople publicly rejected Owens’ implications that the organization or its leaders accepted foreign money, saying board rules bar accepting foreign funds and calling her claims untrue; a TPUSA spokesperson and others explicitly disputed any Israeli payment or influence narrative directed at Charlie Kirk or the group ^[2].

5. Media and opinion voices show polarized reactions

Coverage and commentary reflect divided reactions: mainstream outlets and Jewish organizations published fact-driven denials and contextual pieces, while partisan outlets and some commentators treated Owens’ claims as part of a broader right-wing reorientation on Israel; reporting highlights how social media has amplified these disputes among right-wing influencers ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

6. What sources report — and what they do not

Available reporting documents organizational denials and internal pushback against Owens’ postings ^{[1] [2]}. Available sources do not mention any independent forensic verification that the email Owens posted was fabricated beyond the organizations’ denials, nor do they report any Israeli government statement directly addressing Owens’ allegations; that absence is significant for assessing official Israeli government involvement ^[1].

7. Why the denials matter politically

The denials from Israeli-linked groups and U.S. conservative institutions matter because they aim to protect reputations and blunt charges that would reframe pro-Israel influence as covert or transactional. Reporting shows the effect: Owens’ allegations have not only generated rebuttals but also widened fissures in conservative support for Israel, a trend noted by analysts and polling referenced in coverage of the broader debate ^{[3] [4]}.

8. Competing narratives and the reader’s takeaway

Two competing narratives are evident in the sources: Owens asserts covert Israeli-paid campaigns to discredit her and allies; organizations she names deny the emails are authentic and frame her claims as smear campaigns ^[1]. Readers should note that current reporting contains organizational denials but does not supply independent forensic proof either confirming Owens’ claims or proving fabrication beyond those denials ^[1].

Limitations: this briefing relies only on the supplied reporting; it does not include subsequent investigations, forensic email analyses, or any direct statement from the Israeli government because those items are not present in the sources provided ^[1].