Let’s take a page out of Candace Owens’ own playbook and start by asking questions. Not accusations, just questions. The same way she does.
Because at this point, it’s hard not to wonder: what exactly is going on with Candace Owens?
For years, she built her reputation as one of the fiercest defenders of conservative values. We watched her dismantle bad arguments in real time. We saw her stand before Congress and refuse to be intimidated. She was sharp, fearless, and absolutely in command of the facts. She earned her credibility the hard way, by showing up and fighting.
So why does her recent behavior feel so… off?
Some people used to whisper that she wasn’t really a conservative, that she was some kind of plant. Back then, that sounded ridiculous. She had the receipts. She had the moments. She had the fire. If anything, she seemed like one of the most effective voices the movement had.
But now? Watching her go after TPUSA and tear into Charlie Kirk’s legacy with such intensity, it raises questions. Not conclusions. Just questions. If someone were trying to infiltrate a movement, how would they do it? They’d build trust. They’d prove themselves. They’d become indispensable. And then, when the moment was right, they’d strike. Again, this is not an accusation. It’s simply applying Candace’s own method of inquiry to Candace herself.
And her recent behavior is, frankly, curious. The sudden shift on Israel was the first red flag for many. After years of working with two of the most pro‑Israel organizations in the country, PragerU and The Daily Wire, she pivoted sharply. Not toward nuanced criticism, but toward emotionally charged commentary, questionable sources, and even repeating historically dangerous myths. That alone created a fracture in the conservative movement between pro Israel voices and those newly emboldened to oppose the nation.
Then came her current war against TPUSA. With the tragedy of Charlie Kirk still fresh, she launched into a sweeping, conspiratorial narrative suggesting that people close to him were somehow involved in his murder. Not based on evidence, by her own admission, but on her “gut.” In here ow words she “doesn’t know know, but she knows.”Suddenly, ordinary actions by TPUSA staff were framed as suspicious. A yawn. A scratch. A cough. A movement. A glance. All spun into a web of insinuation.
And now she’s attacking Erika Kirk, who is trying to navigate unimaginable grief while stepping into leadership. Owens’ commentary has unleashed a wave of hostility toward Erika, accusations, insults, and wild speculation, none of which is grounded in anything but Candace’s own suspicions.
The result? TPUSA is forced into a defensive crouch at the exact moment they should be unified and focused.
Candace says she’s doing all this because Charlie was her friend. But her narrative requires believing that Charlie Kirk was surrounded by traitors, deceived by his own wife, and blind to the people he trusted most. That’s a heavy claim to hang on nothing more than intuition.
So again, in the spirit of Candace’s own rhetorical style, we ask: Is this simply a case of someone going off the rails or a new set of convictions. Or did she embed herself in major conservative institutions, build major goodwill, and then uses that influence to fracture the movement from within. Remember now. This is not an accusation, just a question, the same kind she would ask.
Crithinkalreview 