Full story
Lawsuit in Nashville
A defamation lawsuit filed in federal court in Nashville, Tennessee by Brian Harpole, the former head of security for Charlie Kirk, has pulled conservative podcaster Candace Owens and her podcast guest Mitchell Snow into a legal fight over conspiracy claims tied to Kirk’s killing.
“Brian Harpole filed a federal defamation lawsuit on April 30, 2026”
Harpole filed the case on April 30, 2026, accusing Owens, her media companies and Snow of falsely tying him to a plot to assassinate Kirk and then broadcasting the claim across social media and her show.
The suit seeks more than $75,000 in damages, and it names multiple counts including defamation, false light invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy to defame, according to NewsNation.
Harpole’s complaint says Owens boosted what he calls a “completely and obviously fabricated” story that he secretly met with “Army intelligence officers and Erika Kirk, Charlie’s now widow, at Fort Huachuca” the day before Kirk was killed.
Harpole alleges that the Fort Huachuca narrative started with Mitchell Snow, and that Owens leaned on Snow’s account even after, the complaint says, she saw travel records placing Harpole in Dallas on the day in question.
The underlying killing occurred on September 10, when Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at an event and debating students at Utah Valley University, and police arrested Tyler Robinson, who has been charged with murder.
The lawsuit’s framing is that Owens treated Harpole’s alleged role as factual rather than speculative, and it asserts Owens acted with “actual malice,” a defamation standard requiring proof she knew the claims were false or recklessly ignored whether they were true.
The Fort Huachuca claim
Central to Harpole’s lawsuit is Owens’s allegation that he met with military personnel at Fort Huachuca in Arizona the day before Charlie Kirk was shot.
Harpole says Owens and her podcast guest Mitchell Snow claimed he met with “Army intelligence officers and Erika Kirk, Charlie’s now widow, at Fort Huachuca” to plan the killing, and Harpole’s attorneys argue the Fort Huachuca narrative began with Snow.
The complaint further asserts that Owens leaned on Snow’s account even after she saw travel records placing Harpole in Dallas on the day in question, and Harpole says the meeting never occurred.
Forbes reports that Harpole denied he was at any such meeting, claiming travel records show he was in Dallas, Texas at the time, and that his purported evidence does not prove any government conspiracy to kill Kirk, “let alone Harpole’s presence at Fort Huachuca or involvement in such a conspiracy.”
Newsweek similarly quotes the complaint’s position that the claim Harpole was present at Fort Huachuca on September 9, 2025 is “verifiably false” because “Harpole’s travel records plainly place him in Dallas, Texas.”
The dispute also includes Owens’s characterization of Kirk’s security team as “shady” and her claim that she received a “credible” tip from a military source about Harpole attending a classified meeting at a U.S. Army base.
Harpole’s filing says Owens’s statements are not protected opinions or rhetorical questions, and it argues, “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.”
In the same legal narrative, the suit points to a December 12 post to X in which Owens asked, “Did no one from their team call 911 after Charlie was shot?” and it says Owens reached out to Harpole on December 17 for an “off the record discussion,” which Harpole says he did not respond to.
Owens fights back
Owens has responded to Harpole’s lawsuit by portraying it as a tactic that gives her “the power of subpoena,” and she has argued that Harpole never asked her for a retraction or issued a demand before filing.
“responded to the lawsuit in a podcast episode titled “Brian Harpole Sues Me!” saying the suit gives her the “power of subpoena.””
In a podcast episode titled “Brian Harpole Sues Me!,” Owens said the suit gives her “the power of subpoena” and she framed the case as something that will force information into the open.
Owens also said, “You never issued any sort of attraction demand. You never answered me when I reached out. This is not at all how it normally goes,” and she added, “I’m pretty accustomed to how lawsuits work.”
In the same response, Owens challenged the premise that Harpole is a private citizen rather than a public figure, and Forbes reports that she disputed Harpole’s version of how events unfolded and said he made himself a public figure by appearing on “The Shawn Ryan Show.”
Owens also pushed back on the idea that Harpole is a private citizen rather than a public figure, and Forbes reports that she disputed Harpole’s version of how events unfolded and said he made himself a public figure by appearing on “The Shawn Ryan Show.”
Owens also pushed back on the idea that her statements were factual allegations, saying, “Confidence is a matter of opinion. Brian, I don’t believe you can sue people for thinking that you’re stupid,” according to NewsNation.
The Tennessean reports that Owens called the lawsuit “poorly organized” and “demonstrat(ing) incompetence,” and it quotes her saying, “Competence is a matter of opinion,” and “I don’t believe that you can sue someone (for opinions).”
She also posted on social media that it was “certainly an interesting claim that Brian Harpole is losing clients/contracts because of me—and not like, you know, how his last job ended.”
Broader political right
The defamation case is being described by local reporting as part of a wider internal conflict among factions of the American right, with the lawsuit framed as a new volley in a dispute that has roiled conservative politics since Charlie Kirk’s death.
The Salt Lake Tribune says the lawsuit highlights “a growing tension among factions of the American right,” and it places the case in a political landscape shaped by issues including “the war against Iran; President Donald Trump’s economic and immigration policies; and the circumstances around the killing of Kirk.”
It also notes that Owens has placed herself at the center of many disputes, especially those involving Kirk, and it says she has made his killing a primary focus of her podcast.
The Tribune reports that Owens has framed the killing “without evidence as the product of a far-reaching conspiracy involving Israel, France and the U.S. military,” and it says Israeli officials have denied that.
The same reporting says Owens has repeatedly suggested to her nearly 6 million YouTube subscribers that Erika Kirk, the activist’s widow, was involved in an elaborate cover-up.
The Tribune also says Utah’s Department of Public Safety commissioner has said that Tyler Robinson acted alone, while Trump and others have broadly accused “the radical left” with inciting the violent act.
In the legal filings, Harpole’s suit alleges Owens and others spread false content that Kirk was betrayed by individuals close to him, that the government orchestrated a cover-up, that Turning Point USA was implicated, and “advancing numerous additional conspiracy theories suggesting that somebody other than Tyler Robinson was involved in the murder,” according to NewsNation.
The Tennessean adds that Harpole’s filing says the accusations escalated after Owens relied on Snow, and it describes the suit as one of the first seen across the country arising from the “rampant online conspiracy theories” surrounding Kirk’s death.
Consequences and next steps
Beyond the courtroom fight between Harpole and Owens, the broader consequences of the Kirk case are playing out alongside the criminal prosecution of Tyler Robinson, who police arrested after Kirk was shot and killed on September 10 at Utah Valley University.
“Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.”
Newsweek reports that Robinson is in custody on charges including aggravated murder, obstruction of justice and felony discharge of a firearm, and it says prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.
The same reporting says Robinson’s legal team asked to delay a preliminary hearing scheduled in May so they could review an “enormous amount of material,” including a recent ballistics report described as “inconclusive.”
It also says an analysis conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) could not definitively determine whether a bullet fragment was fired from a rifle authorities allege Robinson used in the attack.
The criminal case is therefore moving on a separate track while the defamation case seeks damages and discovery, with Harpole’s complaint described as aiming to force Owens and Snow to turn over sources and travel records.
Hoodline reports that the suit escalates a months-long fight inside right-wing media and could turn online accusations into sworn testimony and document production about how Snow’s story spread and what, if anything, Owens had to back it up.
The Tennessean adds that Harpole is seeking damages and also the removal of statements he says are defamatory on Owens’ various social media platforms.
Owens, for her part, has welcomed the chance to subpoena more information as the lawsuit moves forward, and she has argued that “Competence is a matter of opinion.”
