Candace Owens Has a Serious New Legal Headache
There might be consequences to accusing people of abetting murder . . . maybe.
Candace and Desist
POPULAR FAR-RIGHT PODCASTER Candace Owens has, more than anyone, capitalized on the murder of her friend Charlie Kirk by spreading conspiracy theories about it. She regularly racks up millions of YouTube views with claims that Israel was involved in Kirk’s assassination, or even that a bee-themed cult did it.
It got so bad that Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, agreed to a private meeting to try and cool down the rhetoric. But Owens was unbowed and Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, saw its annual convention in December consumed with in-fighting over Owens and her theories.
Now the organization is getting more aggressive.
On Wednesday, Owens published portions of a cease-and-desist letter she said she had received from TPUSA’s lawyers, warning her to retract her claims and stop saying that TPUSA and its officials “knew about the assassination beforehand, participated in the assassination day-of, or covered up the truth about the assassination after the fact.”
In one portion of the letter published by Owens, TPUSA’s lawyers said that they had asked her for retractions in a prior letter sent on December 2. The lawyer also writes that they had held video calls with Owens on December 4 and December 15—that latter discussion taking place the same day as the Owens–Erika Kirk peace summit.
The letter also hints at why this might end up being so problematic for Owens: She has a prior agreement with TPUSA not to make “any disparaging, false, misleading, or otherwise defamatory comment(s) about TPUSA, and/or its employees, agents, directors, officers, affiliates, programs, or services.”
TPUSA didn’t respond to a request for comment. But Owens herself said on Wednesday that the nondisparagement agreement with TPUSA lasted up until early December 2025—an arrangement she potentially could have breached with her numerous allegations about TPUSA’s supposed complicity in Kirk’s assassination.
It raises two obvious questions: Why on earth did she pick this fight in the first place? And how much trouble is she actually in? Let’s dive into that.
Join Bulwark+ to unlock the rest
Become a paying member of The Bulwark to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content. A subscription gets you:
- Unlimited access to articles and newsletters including The Triad by JVL and Receipts by Catherine Rampell.
- Ad-free editions of our shows (with transcripts) and member-only shows like The Secret Podcast.
- Plus community chats and commenting features. Your support helps keep our work sustainable and available to those who cannot afford a membership. Cancel anytime.