Why Critics Say Candace Owens Refuses to Let the Charlie Kirk Story Go

At the center of the growing backlash surrounding the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination is a question that refuses to go away: who is telling the truth—and who is cashing in?

Critics argue that the answer becomes clear once the money is examined.

“Stop” Was the Message—But It Was Ignored

Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk’s widow, has repeatedly asked commentators and content creators to stop amplifying conspiracy theories about her husband’s death. In public remarks, she made clear that the relentless speculation has generated death threats, kidnapping threats, and relentless harassment toward her family and members of the Turning Point USA organization.

Her message was simple:
Call me what you want. Criticize me if you must. But stop dragging my family and my team into conspiracy narratives—especially when you’re making hundreds of thousands of dollars per episode doing it.

That appeal, critics say, was directed squarely at Candace Owens.

Owens had previously claimed that if Erika Kirk ever asked her to stop, she would. Yet when that moment came, critics argue Owens carefully avoided acknowledging the request at all.

A Profitable Silence

Instead of addressing Erika Kirk’s plea directly, Owens pivoted—defending herself, dismissing critics, and framing the controversy as yet another example of people trying to silence her for “seeking truth.”

But numbers tell a different story.

Before Charlie Kirk’s death, Owens’ YouTube content related to him generated roughly 40 million views. After his death, 26 videos about Charlie Kirk pulled in 88 million additional views, representing a 117% increase. Those figures do not include revenue from X, Instagram, TikTok, Rumble, sponsorship reads, or extended episode runtimes packed with ads.

Critics say the incentive is obvious:
controversy pays—and closure doesn’t.

Avoiding the Hard Facts

The sharpest criticism centers on what Owens has chosen not to cover.

When Shawn Ryan released a detailed interview with Brian Harpole, a key member of Charlie Kirk’s security team, the discussion included specific, verifiable details about the shooting—bullet trajectory, catastrophic injuries, emergency medical response, and blood loss.

These details directly contradicted several conspiracy narratives that had been circulating online.

Owens acknowledged the interview existed. She said she intended to watch it. Five days later, she admitted she still hadn’t seen it in full—yet dismissed it anyway as “not that convincing,” focusing instead on a brief clip that supported her skepticism.

Critics say this pattern is deliberate: address fragments, ignore facts, and preserve doubt—because doubt keeps audiences watching.

Selective Truth-Seeking

Owens often presents herself as a fearless investigator, a “digger” unafraid to challenge powerful institutions. But critics argue that true investigation requires confronting inconvenient facts, not sidestepping them.

The absence of commentary on:

forensic medical evidence

first aid testimony

bullet ballistics

FBI-held footage

has fueled accusations that Owens avoids conclusions that would end the story—and the revenue stream that comes with it.

“Stop Making Money Off This”

According to critics, Erika Kirk’s frustration was never about criticism. It was about profiteering.

Turning Point USA, they note, raised over $100 million after Charlie Kirk’s death—much of it from supporters devastated by the loss. Meanwhile, online creators monetized speculation, outrage, and unverified claims under the banner of “just asking questions.”

Owens’ critics argue that when speculation becomes a business model, it crosses from commentary into exploitation.

The Cost of Not Stopping

Owens has said the conspiracies will not stop because she won’t be silenced. Her critics counter with a harsher assessment:
they won’t stop because they’re too profitable.

Death threats. Harassment. Trauma. These, they argue, are externalities—acceptable collateral damage in an attention economy that rewards outrage over resolution.

A Final Reckoning

In the end, this controversy may not hinge on ideology or loyalty, but on integrity.

Critics aren’t asking Candace Owens to abandon her platform. They are asking why she refuses to confront evidence that could definitively close the narrative—and why she avoids acknowledging the one request she said she would honor.

As one commentator put it:
“A small part of why I do this is money. But I will never sell my soul.”

The accusation now facing Candace Owens is that she already has—and that the price was paid in views, clicks, and silence where the truth should have been.