How have Jewish organizations responded to Candace Owens’ statements on antisemitism?
Executive summary
Jewish organizations and voices have uniformly pushed back against Candace Owens’ recent claims about Jews and Jewish texts—ranging from formal rebukes by educational institutions and advocacy groups to published refutations by religious writers—while some conservative Jewish commentators have sought to parse intent versus impact in her rhetoric [1] [2] [3] [4]. Owens herself has dismissed some accusations and treated criticism as evidence of overbroad definitions of antisemitism, a stance that has only deepened the split between advocacy groups and her defenders [5].
1. Institutional denials and direct rebuttals: educational and communal bodies push back
When Candace Owens accused the Israel-based Modern Orthodox organization Ohr Torah Stone of bribing pastors to attack her, the group issued an explicit denial and characterized the allegation as a smear, stressing its focus on education and communal work rather than political attacks—an episode covered after JTA queried the organization [1]. Similarly, Jewish educational outlets and communal writers have published open letters and opinion pieces directly calling out Owens’ claims as false and harmful, with organizations and rabbis framing her rhetoric as part of a pattern rather than isolated provocation [6] [7].
2. Advocacy groups placed Owens at the center of condemnation and labels
Jewish advocacy organizations have not only condemned Owens’ statements but have formalized that condemnation: the activist group StopAntisemitism named Owens “Antisemite of the Year,” citing a catalogue of remarks about Hitler, Israel, and alleged Jewish control of Hollywood and media as justification for the designation, and Owens publicly mocked the award while denying antisemitic intent [2] [5]. Those formal rebukes reflect advocacy groups’ strategy of cataloguing rhetoric and using public naming to signal danger to Jewish communities [2].
3. Media and religious outlets refute factual claims and trace old tropes
Religious and communal commentators have gone beyond denunciation to rebut specifics: Jewish outlets and rabbis have explained how Owens revived discredited 19th‑century antisemitic texts and tropes—such as claims about the Talmud or Jewish control of the slave trade—and provided historical and textual context to show those claims are false or distorted [8] [3]. Publications like The Times of India and the Jerusalem Post documented broad backlash and noted that Owens urged audiences to read an explicitly antisemitic book, prompting education-focused rebuttals in Jewish media [9] [8].
4. Internal Jewish debate: intent, definitions, and how to respond
Not all Jewish voices frame the issue identically; some conservative Jewish commentators have critiqued Owens’ claims but stopped short of labeling her personally as an outright hater of Jews, arguing that evaluating antisemitism requires parsing intent, definitions, and political context—an argument advanced in interviews with figures like Dennis Prager who said Owens’ statements are dangerous but questioned whether they stem from animus toward Jews as Jews [4]. That internal debate underscores a strategic tension in the Jewish response: whether the community should emphasize public naming and censure or focus on fact‑based rebuttal and dialog where possible [4] [3].
5. Pattern‑spotting by researchers and the cumulative effect on communal responses
Beyond single incidents, institutions of Jewish policy and research have signaled alarm at a broader trend: studies cited by Jewish outlets indicate a spike in anti‑Israel and antisemitic rhetoric among certain right‑wing media figures, with Owens singled out for an increasing frequency of antisemitic content over 2025—findings that Jewish organizations use to justify escalated public warnings and coordinated rebuttals [10]. Those data points help explain why Jewish advocacy groups, religious educators, and communal leaders have moved from individual corrections to sustained campaigns of exposure and education [10] [3].
Limitations: reporting provided documents multiple Jewish institutional and advocacy responses and opinion pieces but does not include comprehensive statements from major American Jewish umbrella groups such as the ADL or AJC in this dataset, so conclusions reflect the available sources rather than a full audit of every Jewish organization's response.