In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, popular podcaster Candace Owens has chosen to seize the spotlight for herself instead of keeping the focus on a man she has repeatedly insisted was her close friend up until his last day on earth. Pushing a flurry of claims about Israel, Charlie’s stance on Catholicism, and even the federal government’s role in the tragedy, she has forced his closest friends and colleagues to address her bombardment of implications about who was truly behind the plot to end his life instead of allowing them time to grieve their loss. What should have been a moment of mourning has instead tragically turned into a bitter fight over truth, legacy, and conspiracy.

Owens, a former Turning Point USA ally who has long courted controversy, has suggested that Kirk was pressured by pro-Israel figures shortly before his death. On her podcast, she claimed that a meeting in the Hamptons turned into an “intervention” wherein billionaire Bill Ackman and others allegedly tried to strong-arm Kirk into toning down his questions about Israel’s role in the war with Hamas. She further alleged that Kirk was offered large sums of money to visit Israel, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself tried to “re-educate” him, and that Kirk refused.

Her so-called evidence? A source she will not name, her personal interpretation of how Charlie must have felt based on her own past experiences, and the fact that Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon didn’t return her text messages about this quickly enough.

Ackman wasted no time rebutting her story in a lengthy statement. He stated that Owens’s account was a fabrication, emphasizing that the August gathering was merely a policy discussion with young conservative influencers. “At no time have I ever threatened Charlie Kirk, Turning Point, or anyone associated with him,” Ackman wrote, adding that his relationship with Kirk was “cordial and respectful.” To back up his account, he released texts from Kirk after the event that read like the opposite of a man feeling cornered. Kirk thanked Ackman, said he’d enjoyed their time together, and suggested making dinner plans on their next visit.

Andrew Kolvet, Kirk’s longtime producer, also rejected Owens’s story. In his own public statement, he recalled Kirk describing the Hamptons event as “productive” and flatly denied that any pressure campaign occurred. Even Kirk’s pastor, Rob McCoy, weighed in: “I only wish at this tragic time of mourning that she would be the friend to Charlie that he was to her.”

Yet Owens didn’t stop there. She has floated the idea that Kirk was secretly preparing to convert to Catholicism, claiming he prayed the rosary and attended mass. The implication is that Kirk’s supposed shift in faith coincided with his evolving views on Israel. But Kirk himself, in past remarks, explicitly rejected Catholic teachings on Mariology, suggesting Owens’s latest claims are either exaggerated or entirely misinterpreted — perhaps for self-serving purposes, to back up what seems to be a desire to create a foundation for an unproven narrative.

Her statements have been met with disbelief not only by Kirk’s friends and colleagues but also by members of his own organization. A Turning Point USA board member told reporters that Kirk had distanced himself from Owens years ago, doubting she had any meaningful relationship with him or his wife in recent years.

Other conservative figures have expressed frustration that Owens is using Kirk’s death to advance her narratives. Vice President JD Vance cautioned the Right to focus on honoring Kirk before descending into speculation. “For now,” Vance argued, “let’s celebrate our friend, remember his impact, and save the debate for after his funeral.”

Owens’s critics see a familiar pattern, reminding the public of the many projects and platforms that she has burned through, and describing her history of shifting political positions, pushing half-baked ventures, and frequently leaning into inflammatory rhetoric. She launched a failed doxxing site, a short-lived liberal marketing firm, and then joined TPUSA for a short while as a debate partner for Charlie Kirk after being supposedly red-pilled and quickly leaving her history as a raging liberal behind.

She’s also been publicly criticized for repeatedly downplaying Adolf Hitler and his crimes against the Jews, questioning whether or not he was as evil as we’ve been led to believe.

A stint at PragerU sputtered, and her tenure at The Daily Wire ended in acrimony amid accusations of anti-Semitism. Her own track record is what makes many on the Right so wary of her now. To them, this latest round of conspiracy theorizing about Kirk follows an increasingly familiar pattern. And as usual, others have been roped in to go on the defense and dispute the wild claims being asserted by a woman with a mic, an obvious grudge, a knack for storytelling, no evidence, and far too large an audience.

Some of her detractors within TPUSA have reportedly claimed to be “livid” over her hijacking of Charlie’s death to further her personal agenda.

The deeper irony is that Owens frames herself as Kirk’s most faithful friend — his confidant and defender in death — yet the evidence points to the opposite. Kirk himself, according to multiple accounts, had distanced himself from her, while those closest to him recall a man who, despite the questions he was asking, was not on the verge of breaking ties with his faith or being strong-armed by shadowy Israeli operatives. Instead of honoring that reality, Owens is crafting her own version — one that advances her long-running feud with Israel, amplifies her outsider persona, and keeps her at the center of attention.

For Kirk’s grieving family and friends, that may be the cruelest part. The man is not here to clarify, to rebut, or to defend himself. And yet his name is being weaponized to wage battles he likely would have never endorsed.

Candace Owens has built a career on provocation, reinvention, and controversy. But in this case, her eagerness to spin conspiracies has left her even more isolated — which is hard for a narcissist. Kirk’s allies are calling her out, his pastor is pleading for restraint, and even the vice president is desperately trying to get through to her, requesting peace during a tragedy that’s already hard for the majority of the country. Whether Owens will double down, as she so often has in the past, or eventually retreat remains to be seen. What is clear for now, however, is that her narrative is collapsing under the weight of facts, testimony, and common sense. In doing so, she risks more than her own reputation — she risks distracting from the real issues at hand, such as the rise of leftist ideology and antifa activity, while also putting Jewish people in greater danger by linking them to crimes and threats without evidence. And the assassination of Charlie Kirk shows how dangerous that can be.

By casting Israel — and Jews more broadly wherever they live — as the constant villain, Owens is employing the same tactic the political Left often uses against conservative Christians: targeting an entire community with sweeping, hostile rhetoric, with no evidence that they are the threat they’re being painted as. This not only distorts reality but also risks inflaming her most extreme supporters, potentially inspiring the very kind of violence against those she is insinuating are the real problem that Charlie’s assassin carried out against him.

Yes, free speech is a right, but it also comes with responsibility — more so now than ever. Yet Owens is showing little of either responsibility or care with her platform, a failure made all the more shocking in light of recent years, and especially in light of the tragedy that claimed her friend’s life.