Candace Owens’ Tenuous Relationship With the Truth

During last Friday’s live debate over the assassination of Charlie Kirk, hosted by Patrick Bet-David, Andrew Wilson asked Candace Owens point-blank, “Do you have any evidence that Erika Kirk or TPUSA participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk?” Candace immediately fired back: “I’ve never said they participated in the murder of Charlie Kirk.”

This response is emblematic of Candace’s tenuous relationship with the truth. In Episode 318 of her podcast, for example, Candace played an interview clip involving Erika. As soon as the clip ended, Candace averred: “Evil. She is evil.” And a little later on: “That right there is why it is impossible for me to think that Erika Kirk is not complicit somehow.”

About a month before that, Candace opened Episode 305 of her podcast with a lengthy tirade:

Someone once commented beneath this show that if the situations were reversed, and there were this many verifiable lies that Charlie told regarding the murder or assassination of his wife, Charlie would be in prison awaiting trial. And I actually agree with that assessment. We are way beyond coincidence. This is now a full-blown conspiracy…. Look, I have seen enough, ladies and gentlemen. I’ve seen enough. Erika Kirk should be dragged into a police precinct for questioning.

Consider next the analysis that Candace has provided for what happened in Charlie and Erika’s home the night before the assassination. In an interview, Erika explained that Charlie was excited to begin his college campus tour, and he woke up around 3 a.m. to grab a snack. According to Erika, they lived in a small space and their daughter was woken up by the sound of movement, so Charlie went and slept in their daughter’s room while their daughter came to share the bed with Erika. In the morning, Charlie woke up early, came into the bathroom to retrieve his wedding ring, and left the house.

In Episode 306 of her podcast, Candace asserted that Erika’s version of events “doesn’t make any sense.” Candace based her skepticism on four key considerations (and no, I am not making these up). First, Candace considered it unthinkable that Charlie could have expressed excitement about beginning his college tour. (Specifically, Candace felt “offended” by Erika’s suggestion that Charlie had used the words, “I can’t wait. It’s going to be the best.”) Second, Candace found it implausible that the Kirks’ daughter could have woken up at 2:45 a.m., since at that hour a toddler “should be in the REM stage of sleep.” Third, Candace was incredulous that Charlie would sleep with his wedding ring off. Fourth, Candace observed that Erika behaved suspiciously in interviews insofar as she appeared “exceedingly uncomfortable discussing Charlie’s final day.”

Based on these reasons, Candace proceeded to concoct an alternate narrative out of thin air and to relay this narrative to her millions of listeners. What really woke up the Kirks’ daughter, we are told, was not the noise of Charlie getting a snack but rather the noise of Erika and Charlie having an argument. And this argument was apparently so bad that it prompted Charlie to remove his wedding ring.

Of course, it could just be that Charlie is one of the many people who choose to remove their rings at night, particularly during the summer months. But no, for Candace the alternative explanation is more compelling: Charlie and Erika had a loud blow-up the night before he died, and Erika has deliberately concealed the truth…while for some reason still including the detail about the wedding ring. If she was lying, wouldn’t it make more sense to leave that part out? Similarly, when Candace points out that Erika is uncomfortable talking about Charlie’s last day, wouldn’t it be more suspicious if Erika wasn’t uncomfortable publicly discussing her husband’s precious final few hours on earth?

At this juncture I feel the need to clarify that my purpose in rehearsing the details of Candace’s sordid commentary is not to test the reader’s patience but rather to showcase how Candace operates. Let’s recall just some of the ways that Candace has characterized Erika in recent months:

• Erika had a falling out with her husband the night before he died (Episode 306).
• Erika “lies pathologically” (Episode 311).
• Erika is an “E-list actress” and “everything about her screams fraud” (Episode 311).
• Erika is “evil” (Episode 318).
• Erika is “positively deranged” (Episode 340).
• Erika is someone about whom there is something “deeply wrong and evil” (Episode 346).
• Erika “comes across as inauthentic and dishonest” (Episode 346).
• Erika is “a manipulative psychopath” (Episode 348).

That is not all. In Episode 1 of her “Bride of Charlie” series, Candace quotes approvingly from—and describes as “objectively brilliant”—an 𝕏 post arguing that Erika married Charlie not because she loved him but because she viewed him as “her ticket to power.” Erika “saw a brand with Charlie” and “she was not missing that ride.” In fact, what Erika was looking for in Charlie was the same thing Hillary Clinton was looking for in Bill, and in both cases “[n]o one in this world can say that those two love each other.”

We might also mention Candace’s decision to interview Mitch Snow in an episode that aired on December 19, 2025. In that exchange, Snow claimed he was “95–99%” certain he had seen Erika Kirk on a secretive military base called Fort Huachuca the day before Charlie died. Now one would think Snow’s credibility might be in question after he shared on 𝕏 on December 1, 2025, that he believed his father to be the Zodiac Killer. But this didn’t deter Candace, who confessed in Episode 277 of her podcast, “I have spoken to [Snow] and I very much trust what he is saying. I think he is very credible.” In fact, at the beginning of their interview Candace even went so far as to frame their meeting as being an answer to prayer:

Obviously you know the story of how I instantly got the email from one of your friends that just said, “You should call Mitch,” after I prayed and said, “I’m missing a piece of this. Please, God, give me a piece of the story.” And the first email I see when I get back from church on a day of holy obligation is this email.

Last but not least, we shouldn’t forget Candace’s March 18 episode, in which she drew a series of parallels between Erika Kirk and Kouri Richins, a woman from Utah who was eventually found guilty of murdering her husband after spending several years posing as a bereaved widow. In that episode, Candace helpfully pointed out, “The reality is that you’re most likely to be murdered by someone you know. That’s just a fact of life.” Candace then proceeded to repeat her viewpoint that Erika is not a true grieving widow.

Let us attempt to tie these various threads together. In Friday’s debate, Candace bristled at the suggestion that she has said that Erika Kirk participated in the murder of her husband. And it’s quite true that Candace has never looked at a camera and used the words, “Erika participated in Charlie’s murder.” But as we’ve seen, that’s not how Candace operates. Candace rarely states things as they are. Instead, she employs old-fashioned sophistry and deceptive techniques of associative reasoning that allow her to constantly tease a particular viewpoint without ever committing herself to it.

Candace has never used the phrase “Erika participated in Charlie’s murder,” but Candace has said that Erika is “complicit” (in what exactly?). Candace has said that Erika should be in prison awaiting trial (for what crime?). Candace has said that Erika and Charlie had a major argument the night before he died. (Why is this relevant to anything and what does it imply?) Candace has demonized Erika to an extraordinary degree and led her audience to believe that Erika is capable of all manner of wicked deeds. Candace has endorsed the view that Erika was never in love with Charlie and that she only ever married him for power. Candace has lent credence to the idea that Erika was skulking around a military intelligence installation the day before her husband was murdered. And Candace has taken the time to highlight detailed parallels between Erika Kirk and a woman convicted of murdering her husband.

When Candace is confronted over her unscrupulous approach, she typically resorts to a textbook motte-and-bailey fallacy. The fallacy is named after a type of Medieval castle, and Wikipedia defines it as a form of argument “where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend [the motte] and one much more controversial and harder to defend [the bailey].” Specifically, the fallacy occurs when the arguer states or insinuates the more controversial position, but as soon as they are challenged they retreat into the motte and insist that that is the only position they were advocating.

An example of this occurred when Candace defended her characterization of Mitch Snow after Brian Harpole (Charlie Kirk’s former head of security) sued her for defamation. In her defense in Episode 331, Candace claimed that all she meant when she described Snow as credible and trustworthy was that “he was where he was when he said he was.” Or again, there was a moment in Friday’s debate when Wilson confronted her over her claim that Erika is “complicit.” Once more, Candace fell back to her motte: “[S]he’s complicit in trying to fool the public into thinking this is some open and shut case.”

A little earlier in the debate, Wilson again pressed Candace on whether she believed Erika to have played a part in the assassination. Any reasonable person would immediately answer this question by saying they don’t believe Erika was involved because there is zero evidence that she was involved and because the a priori likelihood of her being involved is extraordinarily small. But not so for Candace:

Andrew Wilson: Do you actually believe that anybody in TPUSA or Erika Kirk…actually participated, had foreknowledge of, or facilitated the murder of Charlie Kirk?

Candace Owens: I’m not going to get myself into a legal pickle here. Everything I’ve said is on my podcast. I think firmly that if I was the investigating officers…I would seat them all and I would ask questions…. I think it was not a sufficient investigation into what is—what we know to be true of 80% of homicides. It’s usually conducted by someone you know.

Candace later conceded that she had no idea whether or not Erika had been questioned as part of the investigation.

What are we to make of all of this? The Catechism speaks of three sins that cause unjust injury to the reputation of one’s neighbor. Rash judgment occurs when we assume as true, without sufficient evidence, a moral fault in another person. Detraction occurs when, without an objectively valid reason, we disclose another person’s faults and failings to people who previously did not know them. Calumny occurs when we share falsehoods that harm someone’s reputation and cause others to make negative judgments about them.

All of this means that we must take care not to malign Candace’s own reputation unjustly. Indeed, supporters of Candace quite rightly point out that she has many excellent qualities. She’s open about her Catholic faith, she opposes toxic feminism, and she showed courage in speaking out against the totalitarian madness that accompanied the Covid pandemic. In addition, it is certainly not my intention to suggest that her opponent in Friday’s debate is some kind of angel of light; he manifestly is not. Nor for that matter am I taking issue with Candace’s reasonable inquiries into whether Tyler Robinson acted alone.

What I do take issue with is the fact that Candace Owens is a high-profile Catholic who has repeatedly committed egregious public sins of speech against a fellow Christian. Since Charlie’s death, Candace has consistently used her enormous platform to engage in all manner of rash judgment, detraction, and calumny, thereby causing permanent damage to Erika’s good name in the eyes of millions of people.

That is bad enough, but the way Candace goes about her character assassinations makes her conduct all the more objectionable. Although Candace is known for her pugnacious style, she evinces a level of intellectual dishonesty that verges on cowardice. Instead of coming out and saying what she really thinks, she routinely trades in precisely the kinds of fabrications, half-truths, and verbal sleights of hand that have enabled her to amass so much fame and fortune. And when you actually take the time to investigate her more specific (and bizarre) claims—for example, that Erika lied about her dating history, or about her beauty pageant background—her case tends to fall apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Needless to say, the most immediate victim of Candace’s crass profiteering is Erika Kirk. Here is a mother of two young children whose husband was brutally murdered on camera, and who had no plausible motive whatsoever for wanting her husband to die. In spite of the excruciating ordeal that she has been through, Erika has demonstrated immense dignity, bravery, and grace. It’s difficult to think of another occasion in American public life over the past twenty years that has left so many grown men in tears as the moment when Erika chose to forgive her husband’s alleged killer on live television just days after the assassination.

Regular listeners of Candace’s show will know that she loves to mock Erika for presenting herself as a grieving widow, but in doing this Candace is playing a spiritually dangerous game. When a woman is widowed, it is our solemn obligation as Christians to support, cherish, and care for her. Perhaps the one case where this wouldn’t apply is one where it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the widow in question was complicit in her husband’s death. But since that level of proof is categorically lacking in the case of Erika Kirk, Candace and her cheerleaders ought to feel a sense of trepidation at the severe words of Scripture:

You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you do afflict them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. (Exodus 22:22-24)

A second victim of Candace’s many canards is Charlie Kirk himself. It is darkly ironic that Candace’s relentless vitriol toward Erika has unwittingly ended up slandering the very man whom Candace says she adored so much. By her own account, Charlie was stupid enough to marry an evil, manipulative, psychopathic, dishonest woman who never loved him and who planned from the outset to use their relationship solely for personal gain.

And so we’re left with a dilemma. Either Candace’s armchair detective work has successfully uncovered a sinister side to Erika’s character that Charlie remained spectacularly unaware of even after four years of marriage, or else Candace is talking nonsense and committing grave sins of speech in the process.