UK journalist Piers Morgan confronted conspiracy theorist and once respected conservative commentator Candace Owens in a heated interview for profiting from conspiracy theories she pushed surrounding the assassination of Charlie Kirk. She has accused no less than President Trump, Israel, Charlie's widow, Erika Kirk, and employees of Turning Point USA.
JUST IN: Sparks fly as Piers Morgan confronts Candace Owens about previous comments she made about TPUSA.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) December 17, 2025
Morgan: When you say that somebody at TPUSA was complicit in his murder, who? Who was?
Owens: I believe that there were multiple people at Turning Point who are, as I have… pic.twitter.com/2haVtDtIXS
"I just know you’re saying a huge amount of stuff, it’s making you very wealthy, you’re getting millions and millions of people coming in," Morgan said as Owens interrupted him.
"What is this idea that it’s making me wealthy? Can you actually explain that slowly for people? It’s just, like, a talking point," Owens said.
Morgan said he would be happy to.
"When Sandy Hook happened, and Alex Jones began weaponizing the Sandy Hook tragedy, and weaponizing the grief of the poor parents who lost their children… it turned out he had been spewing deliberate lies and every time he spewed them, they found he made hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars… he made himself extremely rich," Morgan said.
"He ended up with a billion-dollar defamation finding against him," Morgan continued. "There [are], as you know, a lot of people… who say that’s exactly what you’ve been doing with Erika Kirk."
"Everyone saying that I’m making more money cannot say how I am making more money, because it’s just not true," Owens said.
Morgan then asked if Erika Kirk believed any of her assassination theories were convincing. The two women had met on Monday to discuss Owens' theories about Charlie's death. Both of them said the 4.5 hour conversation was productive.
"Did she think that Israel was involved? Did she think that there were French paratroopers involved? Did she think the Egyptian planes were complicit? Did she think that Turning Point employees were involved? Which of the many theories did she think has actually got any merit to it?" Morgan asked.
"That wasn’t the nature of the meeting that we had. I shared information with her, and told her what the feds were ignoring, these are the things that I’m looking into, and obviously, explained to her about the Egyptian planes and this bizarre connection to Turning Point faith events and tours," Owens said. "If I actually knew who shot Charlie Kirk, I would be instantly publicizing it."
"You have to follow the clues until you arrive at a conclusion," she continued. "Of course, I cannot confidently state that it was, you know, John Smith who shot Charlie Kirk… I don’t know that."
Owens said that she told Erika Kirk to look into two Tunring Point USA employees who might've known beforehand that Charlie was going to be shot. When Morgan asked for evidence that they had prior knowledge, Owens admitted she didn't have any "concrete evidence" and therefore wasn't going to name them.
"You've got no evidence, but you're telling the widow that these two people may have been involved in the murder," Morgan said. "You see the problem."
"That's called an investigation, Piers," she retorted, continuing to argue that there were several "lies" surrounding the investigation
"We had a conversation, and I was not asked throughout that conversation to stop," Owens said. "I will not stop."
"My guess, Candace, for what it’s worth, is it will turn out none of that is true, and it was Tyler Robinson," Morgan said before asserting that he doesn't even believe Owens believes her own theories.
.@PiersMorgan tells Candace Owens he does not believe a word of what she is saying and that he thinks she is a liar. pic.twitter.com/BzNySxOkCo
— Ian Miles Cheong (@ianmiles) December 18, 2025
When Morgan told her she was "spewing bullsh*t to the public," she shot back
"No. Nice try, it's not. It's you by saying, ‘Why are you asking question?’"
It’s one thing to ask a question; it’s another entirely to embed a speculative, baseless theory into that question, one that is counterfactual and deliberately undermines trust in someone like President Trump.
Questions should illuminate an issue, not cloud it. When someone like Owens cloaks accusation as curiosity, it's just a form of misdirection, not useful to anyone but the perpetrator.
She's not seeking truth; she's spreading doubt. That’s not journalism, that's not useful, that’s deliberate misinformation for personal gain.
