Candace Owens publicly pushed a string of outlandish theories about Charlie Kirk’s death, including claims he thought he was a time traveler, suggested he was monitored by mysterious “agents,” and floated implications that donors or foreign actors were involved — remarks that drew swift ridicule and concern across the right and the wider media.
Candace Owens surprised and alarmed a lot of observers by taking a hard turn into conspiracy on her show, making claims that stretched beyond the usual political rhetoric. Her comments about Charlie Kirk mixed dramatic speculation with pointed insinuations about who might have been involved and why. This wasn’t a throwaway line; her words were repeated and amplified in posts and clips, and they have kept the story alive in conservative circles.
Owens proposed an unlikely origin story for Kirk’s later statements and death in a way that sounded like a plot from a TV drama. She directly questioned elements of his behavior and motives, saying, “Why did Charlie think he was a time traveler?” Owens asked. “He said, as I showed you in earlier messages, that he was a time traveler and he had to find me. Is that just something people are saying to their homies in text messages? And again, nothing that I would have placed so much emphasis on, back when he was saying it. But it came to fruition, the other parts. He did die young. Why did he think that his dying young was necessary in order to change things?”
He did die young. It is related to Turning Point USA, in some way or another. At the very least, we can all agree that it’s related to him speaking at a campus event for Turning Point USA. I’m totally occupied by this. I read these messages, and I’m going ‘what is this? What is reality actually?’ And Charlie died, yes, like I said, it was related ot this organization, and I think we would all agree that his death and in the manner that they did it, changed the world in ways that I don’t think we can fully realize. Certainly not in a way I can articulate.
She went further, suggesting a campaign of surveillance and control that followed Kirk for years, including a striking line attributed to her by someone on X. According to a user on X, Owens said “that he had ‘<span class=”r-b88u0q r-36ujnk” data-pasted=”true”>AGENTS'</span> (yes, like the <span class=”r-36ujnk”>Matrix</span>) monitoring him from childhood – and that he was killed because he tried to <span class=”r-b88u0q r-36ujnk”>DISTURB</span> <span class=”r-b88u0q r-36ujnk”>space-time continuum</span>. No, I’m not kidding.”
You just cannot pretend that all of this is one big unhappy coincidence. It is entirely plausible, I think plausible, that they knew something about Charlie, and that’s why they had him marked and had him monitored and had him likely followed since he was young. And maybe they thought, the agents think, that if they swarmed him and they stayed with him and they pretended to be his friend, that ultimately they could control Charlie and perhaps change an outcome. They could literally change an outcome related to Charlie.
So when, for the first time in his life, as I do believe he was managed, I mean, I’ve always said I was handled. I didn’t recognize that I had agents. And for the first time in his life, Charlie peaks his head up and starts to push back, in a meaningful way. They couldn’t stop him from becoming bigger that semed to be inevitable, but they panicked, but they seem to have panicked. Right? I mean, this is just starting to happen within a year. When Charlie’s going like ‘hey man, I don’t actually think this, I don’t actually believe this.’ And then he goes, you know what, take the money. Take the money out of the organization. And they panicked, they freaked out. And there soulution was: ‘No, no, no, just kill him. Just kill him, we can’t have this.’
“If you heard someone muttering like this on a subway … what would you think you were dealing with?” CNN’s Scott Jennings said of the clip on X.
That blunt reaction from a mainstream commentator landed and spread quickly, because the rhetoric was so extreme it invited mockery and concern in equal measure. On the right, there’s real frustration that such conspiratorial language distracts from serious policy fights and makes the movement look unserious to swing voters. Many conservatives still revere Charlie Kirk for the work he did building a campus audience, and they see these allegations as harmful to the cause he helped expand.
Owens’ claims also touched a raw nerve with their insinuations about donors and foreign actors, territory that can veer into ugly stereotyping if left unchecked. The coverage noted that she repeatedly flagged Jewish donors to Turning Point USA as being frustrated with Kirk toward the end of his life and has hinted that those tensions played a role. Those claims accused everyone from Israel, to Erika Kirk herself, to President Trump of orchestrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
Earlier this year Owens and Erika Kirk reportedly had a private, constructive conversation that was supposed to settle some of the conspiratorial chatter. Despite that exchange, Owens has shown no sign of backing away from her outrageous claims. For Republicans who want to keep attention on policy and winning elections, the episode is a reminder that sensationalism can undercut credibility, and that the party needs disciplined voices that stick to facts and fair criticism.
