A high-profile feud between two conservative influencers is exposing deep tensions over loyalty, truth, and responsibility inside the movement.
Story Snapshot
- Megyn Kelly is publicly unpacking the escalating feud between Candace Owens and Erika Kirk after shocking allegations surfaced on tour.
- A tense exchange with Ben Shapiro over claims about “orchestrating Charlie’s murder” pushed Kelly to investigate what Owens actually said.
- Kelly reveals she helped facilitate a behind-the-scenes meeting between Owens and Kirk in hopes of defusing a damaging conservative civil war.
- The clash highlights how personality-driven drama can distract from bigger fights over the border, free speech, faith, and the Constitution.
Megyn Kelly Steps Into a Growing Conservative Feud
Megyn Kelly is now directly addressing an increasingly bitter clash between conservative commentators Candace Owens and Erika Kirk, a dispute that has quietly simmered for some time but recently burst into public view. She explains that the conflict, which she calls a “feud” for lack of a better term, has been building in the background while the right is already battling leftist attacks on faith, family, and free speech. Kelly’s decision to speak comes after weeks of mounting pressure from her audience.
Kelly recounts that the controversy intensified during a tour appearance when Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro confronted Candace Owens over what he described as an accusation that Erika Kirk had “orchestrated Charlie’s murder.” Kelly says she was taken aback by that phrase because she had not heard Owens make such a claim before Shapiro repeated it publicly. That moment, she explains, triggered her responsibility instinct as a journalist to verify exactly what had been said, by whom, and in what context.
Why Ben Shapiro’s Charge Forced a Deeper Look
After the exchange with Shapiro, Kelly instructed her staff to comb through Owens’ prior comments to determine whether the accusation, as phrased, matched the record. She emphasizes that she did not want a claim as heavy as orchestrating a murder “hanging out there” if it was not supported by Owens’ actual words. By the time she returned to the stage the next night, she had done her homework and was prepared to address the issue, but she insists her follow-up did not come from a planted audience question or choreographed setup.
Kelly says someone in the audience “just happened” to ask about the feud the very next evening, giving her an opening to share what her research had uncovered. She underscores that the moment was organic, not engineered, because she understood the gravity of the allegation raised by Shapiro and believed her viewers deserved clarity. Her explanation reflects a concern many conservatives share: that serious charges, once spoken publicly, can destroy reputations and fracture coalitions even if they later prove inaccurate or exaggerated.
A Behind-the-Scenes Meeting Between Owens and Kirk
Beyond fact-checking the rhetoric, Kelly reveals she had a behind-the-scenes role in bringing Owens and Kirk together for a private conversation. She indicates that, given the personal nature of the dispute and the pain involved, an off-camera meeting was the only responsible path forward. The goal, as she describes it, was not to force anyone to agree on every detail, but to reduce the temperature, clear up misunderstandings, and keep the broader conservative movement from tearing itself apart over personal grievances.
Kelly’s involvement signals how seriously senior voices on the right take the risk of internal warfare at a time when Americans face skyrocketing costs of living, lingering inflation from the last administration’s spending, and a renewed push by the left for censorship and gender ideology in schools. While she does not minimize the hurt felt by either woman, she frames the meeting as an attempt to restore focus on shared priorities: defending children, securing the border, resisting globalist overreach, and supporting a Trump agenda built on law and order and constitutional rights.
Drama, Responsibility, and the Conservative Brand
Kelly also responds to critics who claim she is either fanning the flames or playing referee in a way that benefits ratings more than truth. She counters by stressing that, once such grave words are uttered in public, silence is not neutrality; it becomes complicity if the underlying claim is false or distorted. For an audience already exhausted by media smears against conservatives, she argues, accuracy inside the movement matters just as much as pushing back on lies from mainstream outlets.
The unfolding Owens–Kirk episode offers a warning to the right: personality clashes and online grudges can quickly drown out core issues like border security, fiscal sanity, parental authority, religious liberty, and the Second Amendment. Kelly’s behind-the-scenes role and her insistence on checking the record underscore a broader lesson for Trump-era conservatives. If the movement wants to roll back the damage of past woke and globalist policies, it cannot afford to let internal drama replace disciplined, fact-based advocacy for American families.
Sources:
Megyn Kelley Reveals How She Brought Feuding Paid Together
