In a highly charged public exchange, political commentator Candace Owens has launched a direct criticism of the Kash Patel-led Federal Bureau of Investigation, declaring that she “does not trust him at all.” The assertion comes as Owens accuses Patel of resenting the investigative efforts of Tulsi Gabbard and Joe Kent in the ongoing probe into the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated on September 10 at a university event.
Owens’ remarks followed coverage of a report in which The New York Times described Patel as being “alarmed” by Kent’s inquiry into the case. The article cited sources who said the director and senior FBI officials believed Kent was overstepping legal boundaries, encroaching on FBI responsibilities and possibly interfering with prosecution of the suspect, Tyler Robinson.
In a social-media post, Owens shared a snapshot of the article and wrote: “This article is literally about how Kash Patel is upset that Joe Kent and Tulsi Gabbard are trying to do their jobs and solve the Charlie Kirk murder case.” She added, “It’s like Kash Patel wants to be the sole point person on this—why? I do not trust him at all.”
According to the referenced report, Patel was “troubled” that Kent accessed FBI documents tied to the Kirk case and that these developments were discussed at a White House meeting attended by Patel, Kent, Gabbard as well as senior officials including Vice President JD Vance and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.
Owens has also taken a more aggressive stance in her commentary, stating on her podcast that she is seeking a “war” with Turning Point USA and others who were present at Kirk’s event on the day of the assassination. She said she is determined to uncover “what the hell happened on September 10th” and has advocated for renewed scrutiny of the investigative process and associated personalities.
The backdrop of this dispute is the broader investigation into Kirk’s murder, which has attracted significant public and political attention. The suspect, Tyler Robinson, is alleged to have carried out the fatal shooting, and Kent’s inquiry into FBI‐held material, along with Owens’ assertions of potential evidence suppression, have deepened the controversy.
Patel, who assumed the directorship of the FBI earlier this year, brings to the role a history of political involvement and prior intelligence‐community ties. His leadership in the Kirk case is now being scrutinised by conservative voices and former associates who question his transparency and motives.
Owens’ accusations reflect a growing fracture within conservative circles regarding how the investigation is being managed. Her public distrust of Patel underlines a broader concern: that internal conflicts within national security and intelligence-investigative structures may be spilling into partisan turf battles, thereby complicating efforts to determine facts in a high-profile murder case.
Observers note that the Kirk case is now viewed not just as a criminal investigation, but as a potential flashpoint in Washington between law-enforcement leadership and politically motivated actors claiming to assist the probe. Owens’ contention that Patel is blocking others from doing their jobs amplifies questions about the proper roles of oversight, transparency and jurisdiction in complex investigations.
In calling on the investigative team to reveal what she characterises as unresolved issues surrounding September 10 and the events leading up to Kirk’s death, Owens frames her commentary as part of a broader demand for accountability. Her language, however, also raises concerns about conflating political activism with law-enforcement oversight, especially given her prominent platform and outspoken style.
The tensions revealed between Owens and Patel, alongside Kent’s involvement and Gabbard’s engagement, suggest that the Kirk murder investigation may remain politically charged for the foreseeable future. Whether those involved can bridge differences and prioritise a clear investigatory path remains uncertain, but the public dispute is certain to keep the matter in the spotlight.
