Candace Owens blasts Andrew Kolvet for ‘lying’ over Charlie Kirk-Netanyahu conversation: ‘Told me explicitly that…’

Candace Owens Confronts Andrew Kolvet Over Netanyahu Conversation Claims

Candace Owens blasts Andrew Kolvet for lying about a conversation involving Charlie Kirk, the late founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The dispute erupted on X (formerly Twitter) on July 4, as Owens accused Kolvet of fabricating details about a private discussion she claimed Netanyahu had with Kirk. Kolvet, in turn, denied the allegations, insisting there was no such offer and calling Owens' account "false." The exchange highlights growing tensions between Owens and TPUSA’s leadership, particularly after Kirk’s death in 2025, and has reignited debates about the organization’s policies and donor influence.

Contradicting Accounts Spark Debate

Owens asserted that Kolvet explicitly informed her that Netanyahu had proposed to "take Turning Point to the next level" during a phone call with Kirk while he was vacationing in the Hamptons. She described the conversation as a pivotal moment, stating she had verified the details with Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk. Kolvet, however, disputed this, arguing that Owens had misinterpreted or exaggerated his statements. He emphasized that no formal offer was made and that the entire narrative was a "concoction" designed to undermine TPUSA’s credibility.

“Andrew is lying through his teeth. I would take a lie detector test on this. He told me explicitly that Bibi offered ‘to take Turning Point to the next level and Charlie said no’,”

Owens stated, underscoring her confidence in the accuracy of the information. The claim has since drawn mixed reactions, with some supporters of Owens dismissing Kolvet as a "disinformation agent," while others question the reliability of her sources.

Clarifying the Details of the Alleged Offer

Following the initial confrontation, Owens elaborated on the specifics of the conversation. She clarified that she was not told the exact financial terms of the proposal, only that Netanyahu had expressed interest in elevating TPUSA’s influence. This detail, however, has been central to the controversy, as Kolvet’s denial of the offer contrasts sharply with Owens’ assertion that the deal was significant. Additionally, Owens mentioned that a family friend of Kolvet had later shared his frustration over missing out on millions after Kirk allegedly declined the opportunity, adding a layer of personal stake to the dispute.

Kolvet’s Defiant Defense

Kolvet responded with a strong rebuttal, calling the allegations "BS" and maintaining that no such offer had ever been made. He highlighted that TPUSA had strict rules regarding foreign donations, which would have required approval from the board. “I NEVER told Candace any of this because it didn’t happen,” he wrote, challenging critics to provide concrete evidence. Kolvet also questioned the timing of the claims, suggesting Owens had used the conversation to fuel her narrative about TPUSA’s alignment with Israeli policies.

“Erika was on the phone”: Candace Owens faces backlash over fresh Charlie Kirk funeral allegation

The mention of Erika Kirk, Charlie’s widow, has added fuel to the debate, as it implies Owens had direct access to information about the conversation. While Kolvet has not yet released proof, the disagreement has intensified scrutiny on the internal dynamics of TPUSA and the trust between its members and leaders.

Broader Implications for TPUSA and Owens’ Role

The clash between Owens and Kolvet is not an isolated incident but part of a larger rift within TPUSA. Since Kirk’s passing, Owens has become a vocal critic of the organization’s direction, questioning the influence of donors and its stance on Israel. Her claims about the Netanyahu-Kirk conversation align with her broader narrative about the group’s shift toward pro-Israel policies. Kolvet, meanwhile, has defended TPUSA’s decisions, arguing that the organization remains committed to its founding principles and that Owens’ accusations are politically motivated.

As the dispute continues, both sides remain locked in a battle of narratives. With no definitive evidence presented, the conversation has become a focal point for debates about transparency, credibility, and the role of personal relationships in shaping political messaging. The ongoing conflict underscores the importance of fact-checking in public discourse, especially when high-profile figures are involved.