Just when you think the discourse surrounding Charlie Kirk's tragic assassination cannot get any more bizarre, Candace Owens finds a way to top herself. It is a pattern we have seen before, but this latest twist takes the cake.
For months, the right-wing ecosystem has been fractured by conspiracy theories following the fatal shooting of Kirk at Utah Valley University in September 2025. Prosecutors have built a massive, detailed case against Tyler Robinson, the man currently facing aggravated murder charges. They have presented surveillance footage, DNA evidence, and text confessions. But Owens is not buying any of it. Instead, she has spent her energy constructing an alternate universe where the feds are lying, the evidence is planted, and the real plot is much darker.
Her latest theory? Charlie Kirk was killed because he refused to assassinate her.
Yes, really. In her mind, Kirk’s death was not actually about him at all. It was about her.
The Hamptons phone call and the BB Net and Yahoo theory
To understand how Owens arrived at this mind-boggling conclusion, you have to look at the specific narrative she laid out on social media and her show. She pointed to a trip Kirk took to the Hamptons, specifically staying at billionaire Bill Ackman’s house. According to Owens, a phone call took place during this visit. She alleges that Benjamin Netanyahu—whom she phonetically refers to or has had auto-transcribed as "BB Net and Yahoo"—was on the other end of the line.
She claims Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, acknowledged that a call occurred but shrugged it off as Kirk following up on a letter he wrote in May. Owens rejects that explanation entirely.
Instead, she publicly asked if it is plausible that Kirk was asked to "kill Candace Owens" during that call. She questioned whether Kirk refused, became a liability to powerful international figures, and was subsequently eliminated.
It is a theory that sounds like a poorly written political thriller. By suggesting Kirk died because he protected her, Owens transforms herself from a commentator on the sidelines into the ultimate target, a heroic figure dodging shadowy global assassins. Critics were quick to point out how incredibly self-serving this narrative is.
Why the conservative movement is turning on Owens
For a long time, the online right has been highly tolerant of conspiracy theories. But Owens seems to have crossed a line that many of her former allies are unwilling to tolerate. The backlash has been swift, severe, and remarkably public.
Ben Shapiro, who has been in a long-standing feud with Owens, did not hold back. He accused her of spending months attacking Kirk’s grieving widow, friends, and colleagues while using the tragedy to farm engagement and views. Andrew Kolvet, the spokesperson for Turning Point USA—the organization Kirk founded—made similar accusations, stating that Owens is actively using Kirk’s death to draw attention to herself.
Even other online commentators who usually swim in the same populist waters have expressed disgust. Turning Point USA producer Blake Neff and activist Laura Loomer both publicly called out Owens for her stance on the case. Loomer accused Owens of acting like she is willing to help the defense of Tyler Robinson, the man charged with pulling the trigger.
It is easy to see why those close to Kirk are furious. While his family is trying to navigate a painful trial and secure justice, Owens is telling her millions of followers that the trial is "fed slop" and the accused killer is a "total patsy".
What the actual evidence against Tyler Robinson shows
While Owens spins tales of international hits and secret tunnels, the actual courtroom in Utah tells a very different, much more grounded story. The preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson has laid out a mountain of forensic and digital evidence.
First, there is physical evidence. Investigators recovered a rifle near the scene of the shooting. They found Robinson's DNA on a towel used to wrap that rifle and his fingerprints on a screwdriver nearby.
Second, the surveillance footage is difficult to argue with. Prosecutors introduced video showing Robinson on the Utah Valley University campus four separate times on the day Kirk was killed. This directly contradicts Owens’ claims that Robinson was not even on campus when the shooting happened.
Third, the digital trail is extensive. Prosecutors presented text messages between Robinson and his roommate, Lance Twiggs. In these texts, Robinson seemingly confessed to the shooting and attempted to coordinate retrieving his rifle. There was also a physical note recovered where Robinson allegedly wrote that he had "the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk".
Despite this, Owens continues to tell her audience that the text messages are suspicious and that law enforcement never collected the phone. She dismissed the prosecution's entire presentation as a manufactured setup.
The danger of the conspiracy grift
This is not just an online drama or a petty feud between influencers. The real-world consequences of these theories are highly damaging.
A report by the Network Contagion Research Institute recently found that Owens' public statements about Kirk's death caused a statistically significant surge in death threats and targeted harassment against Erika Kirk. Kirk’s widow has had to publicly beg Owens to stop spreading these theories. She even met with Owens privately to try and clear things up, but it clearly did not work.
When a prominent voice with millions of followers tells people that a grieving widow is complicit in a cover-up, or that a murder was orchestrated by foreign governments, the audience does not just listen. A subset of that audience acts. They send threats, they harass, and they make the lives of traumatized survivors a living hell.
Owens' response to this has been deflection. Her spokesperson suggested that the media is only concerned about Erika's safety, claiming that Owens’ family has also received threats. But there is a massive difference between receiving unsolicited internet hate and actively directing a highly motivated, suspicious audience toward a specific grieving individual.
Where does the case go from here
The preliminary hearing in Utah is wrapping up. Judge Tony Graf is tasked with deciding if there is enough evidence to send Tyler Robinson to trial. Given the sheer volume of forensic, physical, and digital evidence presented by the prosecution, it is highly likely the case will proceed.
For the general public, the lesson here is about media literacy in the influencer age. It is vital to separate actual evidence presented under oath from speculative monologues designed to generate clicks, sell subscriptions, and keep a commentator at the center of the news cycle.
The next step is to watch how the Utah court rules on the preliminary hearing. Pay attention to the verified court transcripts and physical evidence, not the late-night social media threads.
