In the span of a decade, Candace Owens has completed one of the most remarkable—and disturbing—transformations in American political commentary. The woman who once electrified conservative audiences with sharp campus debates now peddles French assassination plots and Holocaust revisionism. This isn’t mere controversy. It’s a case study in how algorithmic incentives, institutional enabling, and personal ambition can corrupt reasonable conservatism into conspiratorial extremism.
David Manney’s recent PJ Media article correctly identifies this deterioration, but the full story demands deeper investigation into how someone who began as a liberal blogger criticizing the “bat-shit-crazy antics of the Republican Tea Party” became the conspiracy theorist now banned from multiple countries and sued for defamation by a sitting head of state.
PJ Media: How Candace Owens Turned Paranoia Into A Business Model
Candace Owens once served as a defiant voice on hostile campuses: a conservative willing to fight for ideas under fire. However, over the last couple of years, Owens’ record has become a parade of conspiracy theories, visa bans, defamation lawsuits, and now an alleged international hit list that supposedly targets her.
Behind all the noise, sit the victims of jokes about the Holocaust, denials of sexual atrocities, and a first lady subjected to obsession over her gender. Algorithms push the loudest voice, wildest claim, and the scariest possibility: a structure Owens didn’t invent, but simply embraced harder than most who came before her.
The Origin Story: Opportunism Over Ideology
In 2015, Owens ran Degree180, a marketing agency featuring a blog where she wrote critically of conservative Republicans, stating “the good news is, they will eventually die off (peacefully in their sleep, we hope), and then we can get right on with the OBVIOUS social change that needs to happen, IMMEDIATELY”. The blog also featured an article mocking Donald Trump’s penis size, and Owens acknowledged having no interest in politics whatsoever before 2015.
What changed? In 2016, Owens launched SocialAutopsy.com, an anti-cyberbullying website that drew intense criticism for privacy concerns and led to her being doxxed online. With scant evidence, she blamed progressives for the doxing and found unexpected allies among conservative Gamergate supporters, including Milo Yiannopoulos and Mike Cernovich.
On “The Rubin Report,” Owens declared: “I became a conservative overnight. I realized that liberals were actually the racists, that liberals were actually the trolls”. This wasn’t ideological evolution born of careful study—it was tactical repositioning following online conflict.
The speed and completeness of this conversion should have raised red flags. As the American Enterprise Institute noted, she went from unknown college dropout to conservative media star by posting provocative videos with titles like “I Don’t Care About Charlottesville, the KKK, or White Supremacy”—content designed to generate outrage and attention rather than advance coherent arguments.
The Campus Years: When Provocation Had Purpose
From 2017 to 2019, Owens served a legitimate function in conservative discourse. She joined Turning Point USA as director of urban engagement in November 2017, traveling college campuses with Charlie Kirk to debate progressive students. Her arguments about Black political independence from the Democratic Party, while controversial, fell within the boundaries of reasonable political debate.
During this period, Owens demonstrated genuine rhetorical skill. She articulated criticisms of identity politics, challenged assumptions about systemic racism, and forced liberal audiences to defend their positions. Whether one agreed with her conclusions, the methodology was recognizable political discourse: claim, evidence, argument.
But even then, warning signs emerged. In February 2019, at a London conference, Owens discussed Hitler and nationalism, saying: “If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well — OK, fine. The problem is he had dreams outside of Germany”.
When Rep. Ted Lieu played this clip during April 2019 Congressional testimony on white nationalism, Owens accused him of deliberately creating “a different narrative,” claiming Hitler was actually “a homicidal, psychopathic maniac that killed his own people”. Yet her original comment had been captured on video. Eileen Hershenov of the Anti-Defamation League, also testifying, confirmed that such comments “feed into white nationalist ideology”.
Several Turning Point USA chapters called for her resignation. She left in May 2019.
USA Today, Nicole Russell: Candace Owens’ spiral is a warning to my fellow Republicans.
I am loath to give any exposure to a far-right grifter who has whipped up outrage by discussing outlandish conspiracy theories, but Candace Owens continues to cross lines, gain followers and curry favor with the conservative far right − and that is a problem.
Owens is a classic grifter, producing nothing, discovering nothing, exposing nothing in real life. She just rants online via podcasts, posts and videos. But it’s paying off. She has amassed over 5.6 million subscribers on YouTube, 7.4 million followers on X and 6.5 million followers on Instagram.
What’s as disturbing as Owen’s grift is how many people seem to buy it − or at least, window-shop in the corners of the conspiratorial right web.
Untethered from reality, unable to display a modicum of discipline and self-respect, Owens is the worst of the online far right, not just because she is a grifting, antisemitic, blathering fool, but because she is doing it under the guise of political commentary, under the pretense of conserving something.
The Daily Wire Era: Mainstreaming Extremism
The Daily Wire hired Owens in 2020 to host her own show, viewing her as the perfect conservative controversialist: young, Black, hip, and adept at working across new media platforms. For a time, this partnership worked. Owens delivered culture war content that drove engagement and subscriptions.
But by March 2024, the relationship ended after months of escalating public conflict with co-founder Ben Shapiro over her commentary on Israel and allegations of antisemitism. Owens had criticized U.S. support for Israel, referenced “political Jews,” and suggested “Jews are going to be blamed” if TikTok was banned.
The Anti-Defamation League noted that white supremacist Nick Fuentes was praising Owens’s “vitriolic antisemitism,” adding that “when bigoted people come together to push an antisemitic agenda, it adds fuel to the fire of hate”.
The Daily Wire’s decision to sever ties represents a crucial inflection point. When even a conservative outlet known for provocative content determines someone has crossed the line, that judgment matters. Andrew Klavan of The Daily Wire explained the company “does not claim to be perfectly objective” but “wants to promote a specific set of values, and if any host wants to push an idea contrary to the Daily Wire’s beliefs, that host would have to leave”.
Post-Daily Wire: The Descent Into Full Conspiracy
Free from institutional constraints, Owens’s rhetoric accelerated into territory that no longer resembles conservatism in any recognizable form. Consider the trajectory:
Holocaust Revisionism: In July 2024, Owens released a video titled “Literally Hitler. Why Can’t We Talk About Him?” in which she called Josef Mengele’s torturous experiments on concentration camp prisoners “bizarre propaganda,” questioning whether Nazi atrocities actually occurred. She stated: “Some of the stories, by the way, sound completely absurd… Why would you do that? Literally, even if you’re the most evil person in the world, that’s a tremendous waste of time and supplies”.
The Combat Antisemitism Movement called these comments “utterly repugnant,” noting that “it is an established fact that SS officer Josef Mengele performed deadly experiments on Jewish twins during the Holocaust”. Owens’s response? She blamed the “Zionist media” and claimed Holocaust education amounted to “indoctrination.”
This isn’t conservative skepticism of government narratives. It’s a denial of documented genocide.
Jewish News Syndicate (JNS): Candace Owens is a cautionary tale about platforming ignorance
Owens’s latest bid for publicity involves her embrace of Holocaust denial in which she uses her popular videos and X posts to speak as if the horrors of Auschwitz, including the bestial medical experiments of Dr. Josef Mengele, is mere “propaganda.” On top of that, she has the chutzpah to speak of the Germans as if they were the true victims of World War II and that the Allies who defeated Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime were the true axis of evil.
We can hope that this latest entry in an increasingly long list of antisemitic rants is the one that finally leads to a situation where she will, like some other hatemongers before her, sink into well-deserved obscurity where her mad utterances will draw no further notice from the general public.
Brigitte Macron Conspiracy: In March 2024, Owens brought a years-old French conspiracy theory to American audiences, claiming France’s First Lady Brigitte Macron was born male—a theory that originated in far-right French publication Faits & Documents and was spread by self-proclaimed psychic Amandine Roy.
Owens produced an eight-part YouTube series titled “Becoming Brigitte” repeating these allegations, prompting the Macrons to file a defamation lawsuit in Delaware in July 2025. She told listeners she would “stake her entire professional reputation on this” and told the Macrons, “on behalf of the entire world, I will see you in court”.
This phenomenon, known as “transvestigation,” targets cisgender public figures with fake pseudo-scientific evidence, with the underlying implication that being transgender is bad. Michelle Obama, Kamala Harris, and Jacinda Ardern have faced similar attacks. It’s misogyny dressed in conspiratorial language.
Moon Landing Denial: In December 2024, Owens hosted filmmaker Bart Sibrel on her podcast to discuss “how we faked the moon landing,” presenting alleged evidence and discussing “broader implications of the conspiracy”. Owens had previously tweeted that the 1969 moon landing was “completely faked,” claiming “nothing about it makes sense,” particularly NASA “accidentally erasing” original footage.
Dr. David Grimes of Oxford University has demonstrated that if Apollo had been faked, with approximately 411,000 people involved, the truth would have been exposed within 3.7 years. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has photographed the landing sites, including astronaut footprints. Yet Owens presents century-old conspiracy theories as brave truth-telling.
The Assassination Claim: In November 2025, following the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, Owens claimed on X that a high-ranking French government whistleblower told her that President Macron and his wife had authorized a contract on her life, allegedly hiring an assassination squad that included an Israeli operative.
She provided zero verifiable evidence. The National Gendarmerie Intervention Group told French media these allegations are fake news. France’s Ministry of Armed Forces contradicted her specific claims about French Foreign Legion training at Camp Riley in Minnesota.
Owens later claimed the White House had “confirmed receipt” of her report—a meaningless statement indicating only that someone acknowledged receiving her complaint, not that anyone validated its contents.
The Australia Ban: International Consequences
In October 2024, Australian Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke denied Owens a visa on character grounds, finding she had made extremist and inflammatory comments toward Muslim, Black, Jewish, and LGBTQIA+ communities, which generate controversy and hatred. Burke specifically cited her downplaying the Holocaust with comments about Mengele and claims that Muslims started slavery.
The High Court unanimously upheld this decision in October 2025, with Justice James Edelman stating that “Ms Owens Farmer’s submissions should be emphatically rejected”. New Zealand subsequently refused her visa on the basis of Australia’s rejection.
These aren’t partisan American media outlets making judgment calls. These are democratic governments with robust free speech traditions, which have determined that her rhetoric poses risks to social cohesion.
Brutal Honesty: The Departure from Reasonable Conservatism
Reasonable conservatism, even in its most provocative forms, maintains certain standards:
Evidence-based argumentation: Claims require supporting documentation. Extraordinary assertions demand extraordinary proof.
Intellectual consistency: Positions should flow from coherent principles, not whatever generates maximum engagement.
Moral boundaries: Some topics—genocide denial, baseless accusations of murder conspiracies—are beyond acceptable political discourse.
Good faith engagement: Debate assumes the other side operates from honest motives, even when wrong.
Owens violates every standard systematically:
Her assassination claims reference anonymous sources with impossible-to-verify credentials. Her Holocaust revisionism dismisses mountains of documented evidence as “propaganda.” Her Brigitte Macron obsession relies on debunked far-right French conspiracies. Her moon landing denial rejects scientific consensus without understanding basic physics.
As the American Enterprise Institute observed, Owens has moved from “reactionary takes on Democrats, obese celebrities, and George Floyd” to “raging, out-and-out anti-Semitism”. This isn’t ideological evolution—it’s moral collapse.
The conservative movement faces a stark choice: Does it want to engage in good-faith policy debates about taxation, regulation, foreign policy, and cultural issues? Or does it want to indulge conspiracy theorists who deny historical genocides and fabricate international assassination plots for attention?
The Business Model Problem
Understanding Owens’s trajectory requires acknowledging the perverse incentives of modern media. The Macrons’ lawsuit explicitly frames her campaign as designed to drive traffic and profit—an accusation supported by observable patterns.
After leaving The Daily Wire, Owens operates independently through subscriptions, donations, and advertising. Controversy generates engagement. Engagement generates revenue. The more outrageous the claim, the more attention it receives. Social media algorithms reward emotional provocation over careful analysis.
This creates a ratchet effect: yesterday’s shocking statement becomes today’s baseline, requiring tomorrow’s even more extreme position to maintain visibility. Conservative audiences who initially appreciated her campus debates now find themselves consuming Holocaust denial and assassination fantasies.
Owens maintains over 5 million followers on X and Instagram, with over 2 million YouTube subscribers. That’s a massive platform amplifying increasingly dangerous content. When the Anti-Defamation League noted that white supremacist Nick Fuentes was praising her antisemitism, warning that “when bigoted people come together to push an antisemitic agenda, it adds fuel to the fire of hate”, this wasn’t hyperbole—it was pattern recognition.
The Enabling Ecosystem
Owens didn’t radicalize in isolation. She received institutional support at every stage:
Turning Point USA employed her despite the Hitler comments. The Daily Wire gave her a platform for years before the Israel rhetoric became too extreme. Conservative conferences featured her as a keynote speaker. Republican members of Congress invited her to testify.
Each institution told itself it was providing a platform for diverse conservative voices, for questioning liberal orthodoxy, for challenging the mainstream narrative. Each rationalized the warning signs until they became impossible to ignore.
The lesson should be clear: Controversy for its own sake isn’t intellectually serious. Platforming provocateurs doesn’t strengthen conservative arguments—it weakens them by associating conservatism with conspiracy thinking and historical revisionism.
What Conservative Leadership Requires
Manney correctly observes that “the conservative movement doesn’t need to burn its credibility on carnival theatrics”. But this understates the problem. The movement actively facilitated Owens’s rise, celebrating her provocations until they metastasized into something indefensible.
Real conservative leadership means:
Setting standards: Not every critic of progressivism deserves a platform. Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories about assassination plots, and harassment of foreign officials aren’t acceptable regardless of their packaging.
Demanding evidence: Conservative skepticism of government narratives is healthy. Wholesale rejection of documented reality is pathological.
Acknowledging mistakes: Institutions that promoted Owens should explain what went wrong, not quietly distance themselves while claiming ignorance.
Offering better models: Young conservatives need intellectually serious voices, not attention-seeking provocateurs who mistake outrage for argument.
Conclusion: The Wreckage
Ten years ago, Candace Owens was a liberal blogger mocking Republicans. Five years ago, she was a conservative campus provocateur. Today, she denies the Holocaust, fabricates assassination plots, and faces defamation lawsuits from foreign heads of state.
This trajectory represents a catastrophic failure—personal, institutional, and ideological. Owens chose engagement metrics over integrity. Conservative media chose controversy over credibility. Audiences chose entertainment over truth.
The consequences extend beyond one person’s career. Charlie Kirk’s September 2025 assassination occurred during a period of unprecedented political violence in America. In this environment, Owens’s baseless claims about French-Israeli hit squads don’t merely spread misinformation—they poison the information ecosystem and make reasoned discourse impossible.
Manney writes that conservatives need “grownups,” not “screamers”. True enough. But more fundamentally, they need courage—the courage to ostracize conspiracy theorists, to demand evidence, to acknowledge when someone has moved beyond acceptable discourse.
Candace Owens represents everything wrong with modern political commentary: opportunism masquerading as principle, attention-seeking disguised as truth-telling, and moral bankruptcy wrapped in the language of courage. The conservative movement deserves better. Until it demands better, it will continue producing Candace Owenses—figures who rise quickly, radicalize predictably, and leave wreckage in their wake.
The question isn’t whether Owens will continue down this path. She will. The question is whether conservative institutions and audiences will continue enabling the journey.