Watch Megyn Kelly’s Face Change When Ben Shapiro Explain What Candace Owens Said About Charlie Kirk
.
.
Megyn Kelly’s Face Changes When Ben Shapiro Explains Candace Owens’ Accusations Against Charlie Kirk
The landscape of conservative media often presents a united front, but a recent on-stage exchange between commentator Ben Shapiro and host Megyn Kelly exposed a raw, deep fissure regarding the limits of ideological solidarity—particularly in the face of morally questionable behavior.
The confrontation centered on Candace Owens, whose recent public statements, highly critical of the late Charlie Kirk and his wife, had become a defining moment of internal conflict within the right-wing ecosystem. Shapiro, appearing on Kelly’s tour, forced a conversation that many in the conservative movement preferred to avoid, challenging Kelly’s stance of neutrality.
The tension was immediate, with Shapiro—known for his rapid-fire delivery and sharp intellect—adopting a notably critical posture.
The Accusation: “It Is Evil What She Is Doing”
The exchange began with Shapiro addressing the topic of Candace Owens and the escalating public attacks she had mounted. Shapiro did not mince words, immediately escalating the critique beyond political disagreement.
BEN SHAPIRO: “I think that what Candace Owens is doing right now is evil. It is evil what she is doing right now.”
Megyn Kelly, whose expression subtly shifted as Shapiro spoke with such moral certainty, maintained a stance of cautious detachment, reflecting the widespread discomfort among media figures who had previously championed Owens.
MEGYN KELLY: “But my position is it’s really none of my business.”
Shapiro immediately challenged this claim, striking at the heart of the media’s self-imposed neutrality.
BEN SHAPIRO: “Why is it none of your business? I mean you comment on these things for a living. If this were on the left, and somebody were accusing Charlie Kirk of—of his wife having murdered him, I assume that you would be talking about it.”
Kelly paused, clearly trying to verify the extremity of the claim.
MEGYN KELLY: “Is that what Candace is accusing Erica [Kirk] of?”
BEN SHAPIRO: “Yes. Of murdering her own husband. She’s accusing TPUSA insiders and other members of the right-wing, including Seth Dillon, of being involved in the murder of Charlie Kirk.”
The revelation of the specific and explosive nature of Owens’ claims—allegations of murder against Kirk’s widow and senior figures in the conservative movement—served as a crucial turning point in the conversation, shattering the comfort of neutrality.
The Challenge of Moral Accountability
Shapiro used the moral gravity of the situation to underscore his central philosophy: friendship and political alignment should not supersede moral accountability.
He directly addressed the conflict between professional necessity and personal relationships, a struggle familiar to many figures in the media landscape.
“Friendship should not trump our manifest requirement to speak out when people do and say things that are both detrimental to conservatism and morally wrong,” Shapiro contended.
The dynamic revealed a key ideological pressure point within the modern conservative movement: the extent to which figures are obligated to defend or condemn actions taken by their allies, even when those actions cross lines of basic decency and factual reporting. Shapiro argued forcefully that silence in this instance constituted a moral failure, equating Candace Owens’ behavior to a betrayal of conservative values themselves.
He acknowledged the difficulty of criticizing friends publicly, noting his own past personal connections to Owens, including sharing meals with her. However, he maintained that the professional obligation to address damaging falsehoods and moral outrages must take precedence.
“I have a job to do, and if I don’t address the things sometimes that I don’t want to, then I’m probably not very good at my job,” Shapiro stated, implicitly drawing a line of professional integrity that Kelly seemed to reluctantly acknowledge.
The Critique of Soft-Glove Media
Shapiro’s critique extended beyond Owens’ specific attacks, touching upon a broader media culture that prioritizes comfort and avoidance over confrontation. He specifically criticized the tendency to address soft targets while avoiding uncomfortable internal disputes.
“It’s very easy for anyone to criticize Meghan Markle and then just be like, ‘Oh, well, Candace is saying things and I’m just not going to say anything about it.’ That’s the most soft-glove way,” Shapiro argued.
The underlying message was clear: maintaining silence on moral outrages within one’s own sphere of influence undermines the credibility of the entire movement. By forcing Kelly to acknowledge the gravity of the accusations—allegations of murder against a grieving widow—Shapiro sought to elevate the discourse above the usual level of political sniping.
The exchange served as a public confrontation with the principle that moral courage requires addressing evil wherever it surfaces, even—and especially—when it comes from within one’s own political or social circle.
.
