The shocking assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has already unleashed a torrent of grief, speculation, and conspiracy theories. Now, a new claim from commentator Candace Owens threatens to intensify the storm. Owens says that Kirk was subjected to “threats” during a tense “intervention” with billionaire financier Bill Ackman in the Hamptons just weeks before his death.
She further alleges that Kirk was experiencing a “change of heart” regarding Israel, that he had been directly contacted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and that “a ton of money” was offered to keep him aligned with certain positions.
Ackman has flatly denied the allegations, calling them “totally false.” But Owens’ intervention raises profound questions: Was Kirk under pressure to adjust his views on Israel? Was his death connected to those pressures? Or is this a case of opportunistic conspiracy in the wake of tragedy?
<
Candace Owens’ Explosive Claims
Speaking in a livestream watched by hundreds of thousands, Owens alleged:
“Threats were made. Charlie was sat down in an intense intervention with Bill Ackman in the Hamptons just weeks before he was killed. And I know for a fact that he was starting to have a change of heart about Israel. He even told people that Bibi Netanyahu contacted him. And I know Charlie was offered a ton of money in this moment. A ton of money…”
Owens framed the alleged intervention as coercive, suggesting Kirk was being pressured to remain a staunch supporter of Israel at a time when he was beginning to question U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Bill Ackman Responds
Ackman, a billionaire hedge fund manager and outspoken supporter of Israel, immediately dismissed Owens’ version of events.
“These claims are totally false. I never threatened Charlie Kirk, and I never offered him money for his positions. This is reckless and deeply irresponsible commentary at a time when people should be mourning, not spreading conspiracy theories.”
Ackman’s denial has done little to silence speculation, particularly among Kirk’s grassroots supporters who distrust mainstream narratives. For them, Owens’ comments resonate because they align with their sense that Kirk’s assassination was “bigger” than the lone-gunman story put forward by authorities.
Charlie Kirk’s Changing Tone on Israel
Owens’ claims are not without context. In the months before his death, Kirk did appear to distance himself from Owens publicly — particularly when she was accused of antisemitic tropes in her criticisms of U.S. foreign policy and “obsession” with Israel.
When asked specifically about Owens during a Turning Point USA event, Kirk replied:
“The obsession over Jews and Israel is demonic. It is not healthy, and it is not coming from God.”
That remark was widely interpreted as a veiled rebuke of Owens, signaling a rift between two of the most recognizable young voices in the conservative movement.
Yet behind the scenes, according to Owens, Kirk may have been wrestling with doubts of his own — doubts that powerful allies and donors wanted to squash.
The Netanyahu Factor
Perhaps the most striking part of Owens’ story is her assertion that Prime Minister Netanyahu personally reached out to Kirk.
Kirk had long been an outspoken supporter of Israel, often framing the U.S.-Israel alliance as central to the survival of Western civilization. For Netanyahu to contact him directly would not be unusual — Kirk’s influence over young conservatives was significant.
But Owens’ framing suggests the contact was more about discipline than camaraderie. If true, it would mean Kirk’s shifting tone had been noticed at the highest levels of Israeli leadership.
No evidence has been provided to substantiate Owens’ claim, and Netanyahu’s office has declined to comment.
A Rift Between Candace and Charlie
The public falling-out between Owens and Kirk is an important backdrop. For years, the two were allies, often appearing at the same events and defending one another in the face of media attacks.
But by mid-2025, the alliance had frayed. Kirk publicly distanced himself from Owens after she made controversial remarks about Israel’s role in American politics. His sharp language — describing such obsessions as “demonic” — was seen as a clear disavowal of Owens’ direction.
For Owens, Kirk’s assassination appears to have reignited her desire to frame herself as the truth-teller willing to say what others will not. Yet for critics, her sudden embrace of conspiracy fuels suspicion about her motives.
Was There Pressure?
Regardless of Owens’ claims, it is no secret that conservative leaders face immense pressure regarding Israel. Donor networks, political action committees, and foreign policy lobbies all exert influence over rising figures.
Kirk, whose Turning Point USA organization relied heavily on donors, would not have been immune. A sudden change of tone on Israel could have triggered alarm among financial backers — including figures like Ackman.
The question is whether such pressure crossed into the realm of “threats,” as Owens alleges.
The Assassination and Its Aftermath
Charlie Kirk was fatally shot on September 10, 2025, while speaking at Utah Valley University. Authorities have arrested 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, who is accused of acting alone. Investigators say Robinson was radicalized through left-wing networks and targeted Kirk for his conservative politics.
Yet from the beginning, many of Kirk’s allies have doubted the lone-gunman explanation. Owens’ latest remarks have added fuel to those suspicions, suggesting Kirk’s death may have intersected with high-stakes political and financial disputes.
Supporters See a Pattern
For Kirk’s supporters, Owens’ narrative fits a broader pattern: prominent conservative figures being targeted, silenced, or pressured when they challenge entrenched powers.
“This is way bigger than what they’re telling us,” one Turning Point alumnus wrote online. “Charlie wasn’t just some activist — he was influencing millions of young people. If he started questioning the narrative on Israel, that would have shaken the whole conservative movement.”
Critics Warn of Dangerous Speculation
Not everyone agrees. Some argue that Owens’ claims are reckless, distracting from the real tragedy and potentially endangering innocent people.
“Candace Owens thrives on conspiracy,” one conservative columnist wrote. “She has a history of pushing narratives that gain her attention but don’t hold up to scrutiny. Kirk’s death is devastating, but dragging Bill Ackman into it without proof is irresponsible.”
The Spiritual Frame
Beyond politics, Owens has cast the issue in stark spiritual terms. She insists that Kirk’s assassination — and the forces behind it — represent a battle between good and evil.
“He was starting to see things clearly,” she said. “And when you start to see the truth, the enemy comes for you.”
This framing resonates deeply with Kirk’s Christian base, many of whom believe his death was not merely political but spiritual warfare.
What Comes Next
Will Owens provide evidence for her claims? Thus far, she has offered no documents, recordings, or witnesses. Her credibility will hinge on whether she can substantiate the story of threats, money, and Netanyahu’s alleged involvement.
For now, the competing narratives stand:
-
Authorities insist Kirk was killed by a lone extremist.
-
Ackman denies all allegations of threats or financial offers.
-
Owens argues that Kirk was under pressure from powerful figures tied to Israel.
The truth may take months or years to sort out — if it ever comes fully to light.
Conclusion: Bigger Than the Narrative
Whether one believes Owens or not, her comments highlight a larger reality: Charlie Kirk’s death has become more than a murder investigation. It is a flashpoint in the culture war.
For supporters, the assassination confirms their belief that powerful forces will go to any length to silence voices of truth. For skeptics, Owens’ allegations are another example of conspiratorial distraction.
But one fact is undeniable: Charlie Kirk died a polarizing, influential figure whose reach extended far beyond politics. His legacy — and the questions surrounding his death — will continue to divide America.
As Owens put it: “The truth will be revealed.” The question is whether the country is ready for whatever that truth may be.
