When it comes to internet drama, few names seem to appear as often as Candace Owens. Whether you love her or can’t stand her, there’s no denying she has mastered the art of controversy. But lately, her behavior has gone from bold commentary to what some might call calculated chaos — especially regarding her theories about Charlie Kirk’s death and the ongoing Israel debate.
In numerous online discussions between conservative commentators, many are trying to unpack Owens’s latest allegations, her so-called “receipts,” and why her ongoing crusade may be doing more harm than good — not just to the conservative movement, but to the pursuit of truth itself.
First, there was her story about a meeting between Bill Ackman and Charlie Kirk, where she alleged that Ackman had threatened Kirk because of his shifting views on Israel. Multiple people who attended that meeting, including Ackman himself and Kirk’s producer, Andrew Kolvet, said her summary of the event was patently false.
Owens also made strong suggestions about Charlie’s personal faith journey, insinuating that he was on the verge of converting to Catholicism. Another idea denied by close friends, and contradictory to Kirk’s only public statements on the matter.
Then came her bizarre fixation on Tyler Robinson — the man accused of killing Charlie Kirk. Her skepticism of him being the right suspect is based on a supposed photo where Robinson appeared calm at a Dairy Queen hours after the brutal murder. Owens doesn’t believe he could have been responsible for the crime because he changed his clothes and ordered ice cream. That claim, too, quickly fell apart after people pointed out that her narrative about the timeline was flawed, first of all, and that having an appetite for dessert after taking the life of an innocent man is not “proof” that a person is incapable of committing a heinous act.
Despite repeated corrections, Owens continues to push forward, pretending that those corrections have not been made or dismissing them as lies. And now, for the first time, she’s produced what she referred to as her “receipts” to back up her assertions.
Owens recently released a set of private group messages, claiming they proved that Charlie Kirk was abandoning the “pro-Israel cause” and, by extension, turning on Israel completely. In one message, Charlie allegedly expressed frustration with “Jewish donors” trying to pressure him into canceling Tucker Carlson, saying he wouldn’t be bullied. And in that moment, he vented with a comment of feeling like he had no other choice but to leave the pro-Israel movement altogether.
For Owens, this was the smoking gun she’d been waiting for. Proof, in her view, that Charlie was distancing himself entirely from Israel, seeing them for the “demonic” nation that she believes they are, and aligning more with her own rhetoric.
But here’s the problem Owens keeps running into: context matters.
Andrew Kolvet, who hosted Charlie’s show and was in the message thread, later confirmed that the texts were real, but he made it very clear that Owens was misrepresenting them. He explained that Charlie wasn’t abandoning Israel at all; he was simply venting frustration. Like other pro-Israel conservatives, he was angry about being labeled “anti-Semitic” for simply questioning aspects of the Israeli government or its handling of the war.
Kolvet also said that Candace had shared private messages that were never meant to be public, especially not after Charlie’s death. As to why he did not share the messages himself, he said, “I wanted to not betray my friend’s trust in that way.” A quiet but sharp rebuke of Owens, who seemed to be taking advantage of Charlie not being here, and therefore able to imply that he would support her choice to do so.
Even more telling was Josh Hammer’s account of his last conversation with Charlie, which took place after the exchange in the private discussion. Hammer, who was included in the same group chat Owens quoted, revealed that he spoke with Charlie on a Zoom call just hours before his death. Far from abandoning Israel, Charlie was asking for help crafting better messaging about it. He was planning how to explain the issue more effectively to young conservatives and wanted Hammer’s advice on how to do it.
That doesn’t sound like a man renouncing the cause. It sounds like one trying to bridge divides, which is the exact opposite of what Owens is doing now.
Yes, Charlie was frustrated. Yes, he was under pressure to please political allies and donor groups with differing opinions. But ultimately, he never abandoned his mission, his values, or his friends.
That’s why Candace Owens’s behavior has been so alarming to many who stood by Kirk for years, working toward the same goals. It demonstrates the opposite of what he stood for, based on what we know of him as a person. He would never have allowed anyone to speak for him or assign beliefs to him that he could not approve or deny himself.
By contrast, Candace’s entire approach mirrors the same tactics conservatives have long criticized on the Left: emotional manipulation, selective facts, and outrage-driven narratives that exploit division.
For years, conservatives mocked “Trump Derangement Syndrome” — the Left’s unhinged hatred of Donald Trump that has created an inability or even unwillingness to see the truth. But now, as many are starting to notice, the Right may have developed its own version of this crippling mindset: “Israel Derangement Syndrome.” As the Left loses its mind at the mere mention of Trump’s name, for a few on the Right, the mention of Israel seems to have the same effect. People lose their grip on reason, buying into half-baked conspiracies with no evidence to back them up and accepting propaganda under the guise of “asking questions.”
The only standard for these groups to go along with the narrative is to have a great storyteller with a talent for painting their thoughts as valid theories that must be explored.
Owens knows exactly how to play into that. She positions herself as the brave truth-teller asking forbidden questions, while her critics are “afraid” to face reality, which, according to her, is why her comments and demands go largely ignored.
The problem? Many of the people she accuses — from Charlie’s close friends and family, to TPUSA staff — literally cannot respond. They’ve been sensibly instructed not to discuss the ongoing FBI investigation to avoid jeopardizing the case.
Entertaining Owens’s public demands of producing “proof” that she’s wrong, every time she concocts another theory of what happened and who’s to blame, could actively harm the investigation into Charlie Kirk’s death. In any ongoing criminal case, investigators keep evidence sealed and witnesses quiet to preserve a fair trial. Owens’s demands for public comments and instant transparency from Charlie’s loved ones and associates aren’t just unrealistic — they’re reckless. She likely knows this, and as such, she uses their silence as “proof” that she’s right.
It’s manipulation 101.
Yes, asking questions and expecting transparency — even demanding it — is justified. The world lost a deeply loved and respected figure, and no one wants anything less than a thorough, honest investigation with the right person held accountable. However, by sowing doubt about the FBI’s investigation, spreading unverified claims, and urging followers to “question everything,” Owens risks muddying the waters of actual justice. Worse, she’s cultivating a narrative where if the eventual verdict doesn’t fit her theory, it must be a cover-up.
And behind it all, there’s a darker motive at play — money and influence. Owens has now produced a string of videos on the topic, teasing new revelations with each episode, turning a man’s death into endless — and therefore very lucrative — clickbait.
She also seems all too eager to take advantage of this tragedy to absorb Charlie’s audience, especially the portion that was more skeptical of Israel, and lead them to her deeply anti-Semitic way of thinking.
At the end of the day, this isn’t just about Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk, or Israel. It’s about what happens when people let emotions, ego, and online outrage replace facts and reason. Things that have caused division between the Right and the Left for years are now fracturing the Right into groups increasingly fighting each other.
The conservative movement once prided itself on being grounded in truth and logic — standing firm when the Left lost itself to hysteria. But now, the same cycle of propaganda and personality cults seems to be poisoning those who were once thought to be immune to their influence.
Owens’s theories may get clicks, but they’re costing something far greater: unity, credibility, and the trust of an audience that deserves better.
Because asking hard questions is one thing.
Selling chaos as truth is another.
