Candace Owens Sued for Defamation Over Claims Security Chief Conspired to 'Assassinate Charlie Kirk'

A fresh legal battle has pulled Candace Owens into the spotlight following a defamation lawsuit from Charlie Kirk's former head of security, Brian Harpole. The complaint involves public remarks made by the commentator regarding the tragic 2025 shooting of the Turning Point USA founder.

This courtroom clash now centres on whether viral allegations crossed the line from personal opinion into damaging falsehoods.

The political landscape shifted violently last September when Kirk was killed during an event at Utah Valley University, marking a brutal peak in national division. In the aftermath, Owens—once a close associate of the activist—has faced backlash for pushing fringe theories regarding the tragedy. These claims have fuelled a bitter public row between her and Kirk's inner circle, most notably involving his widow, Erika Kirk.

This case adds to a growing list of courtroom battles for Owens, who is already dealing with separate legal action over her comments regarding Brigitte Macron, the French first lady.

Legal Complaint Targets Assassination Claims

Acting for Harpole, solicitor Matt Sarelson of the Dhillon Law Group submitted the case involving the man who headed Kirk's protection on the day he was killed. The suit specifically targets Owens for allegedly making the false claim that Brian Harpole was involved in a plot to murder Charlie Kirk.

The legal papers detail various conspiracy theories that surfaced after the attack, particularly those alleging Harpole worked alongside the US government to coordinate Kirk's death.

'Owens is the most high profile spreader of baseless Charlie Kirk conspiracy theories, but she is not the only one. Her actions have encouraged and emboldened and otherwise given cover to other people to jump on the Charlie Kirk conspiracy bandwagon,' the complaint reads.

Military Tip and Base Meeting Allegations

The filing draws attention to a series of remarks from Owens, specifically her characterisation of Kirk's protection detail as 'shady'. It further notes her claim of receiving a 'credible' tip from a military source, which suggested Harpole attended a secret briefing with top government figures at a US Army base, a gathering she described as the kind typically organised 'ahead of an operation.'

'The claim that Harpole was present at Fort Huachuca on September 9, 2025, for an alleged meeting is verifiably false, as Harpole's travel records plainly place him in Dallas, Texas. There would also be records showing Harpole's access to the base,' the complaint reads.

The lawsuit also highlights a post on X from 12 December, where Owens stated: 'Brian Harpole has already been caught lying about what transpired on that day. Did he also lie about having placed a 911 call? Did no one from their team call 911 after Charlie was shot?'

Unanswered Messages and Continued Podcast Coverage

According to the filing, Owens tried to contact Harpole on 17 December for an 'off the record discussion,' but he never replied. She later cast doubt on his silence and, as the complaint states, spent several weeks focusing on Harpole during her podcast episodes.

The legal claim contends that Harpole's private and professional standing has been ruined, resulting in missed commercial ventures and causing him to endure 'a great deal of emotional distress.'

'All of Owens's statements are either false on their face or create a false meaning reasonably conveyed by the published words. They are not protected opinions, rhetorical hyperbole, or questions without defamatory implication. It is simply false that Harpole knew Charlie Kirk was going to die or was involved in the planning, commission, or alleged cover-up of the assassination,' the complaint reads.

During a November appearance on the Shawn Ryan Show, Harpole spoke out against the various fringe theories circulating around the assassination.

Owens Welcomes Legal Subpoena Power

During a podcast episode this Thursday, Owens spoke about the legal action, noting that the case grants her 'the power of subpoena.' She mentioned that she and her legal team were first notified about the lawsuit over the past weekend.

'How curious,' she said. 'What do you mean? You never communicated with me. You never spoke. You never issued any sort of retraction demand. You never answered me when I reached out. This is not at all how it normally goes. I'm pretty accustomed to how lawsuits work.'

Owens argued that competence 'is a matter of opinion.' Posting to X on Thursday, she added: 'It's certainly an interesting claim that Brian Harpole is losing clients/contracts because of me—and not like, you know, how his last job ended.'