We can officially add Megyn Kelly to the insane clown posse.
None of this should surprise anyone, though I’ll admit I held out a sliver of hope that her defense of Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens was rooted in personal loyalty rather than genuine sympathy for their growing flirtation with unhinged, grievance-driven radicalism.
That hope now looks naïve. What’s clear is that Kelly hasn’t just tolerated this descent—she’s embraced it:
Kelly: “I am sick of this ********! I am allowed to have questions about what if, anyone, aligned with Israel or from Israel might have had to do with Charlie's death.”
She’s gone, folks. Stop giving her the benefit of the doubt.
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) January 8, 2026
No sane person believes the claim that Israel had anything to do with the supposed assassination of Charlie Kirk. For one thing, Israel is already fully occupied dismantling Hamas—an organization that has openly sworn to murder Jews and erase the Jewish state. Conspiracy fantasies don’t survive first contact with basic reality.
Enjoying our conservative reporting and commentary? Make sure to share and tell your friends about us!
And even setting that aside, Israel isn’t exactly known for amateur hour. This is a country that spent the better part of a year meticulously planning a pager-based strike against Hezbollah. The idea that they’d outsource something like this to a mentally unstable, furry-obsessed lone gunman with a bolt-action rifle at a university—on camera, in front of the world—is laughable.
Megyn Kelly mocks her fans who think she should stand up for Erika Kirk and TPUSA against the nonstop attacks from Candace Owens. pic.twitter.com/qEHZEAA9ZH
— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) January 8, 2026
Kelly is being fundamentally dishonest when she trots out the tired “they’re trying to cancel me” routine—whether it’s over defending Owens’ credibility or maintaining her friendships with Owens and Carlson. That’s not the issue, and she knows it. What matters is her implicit endorsement of their bats**t-crazy theories and their comfort with people and movements that are openly, unmistakably Nazi-adjacent:
If you think Nick Fuentes is brilliant I'm honestly impressed that you have enough brain function to remember to breathe. https://t.co/dYV8fCdd2a
— Benjamin Domenech (@bdomenech) January 8, 2026
While Kelly stops short of explicitly endorsing Nick Fuentes’ most overtly racist remarks, she leans hard on the claim that she merely disagrees with his tactics—even as she goes out of her way to praise his intelligence and perspicacity. That distinction is doing an awful lot of work.
It’s the same sleight of hand Democrats use when they say, “I don’t endorse violence, but…” The disclaimer is meant to reassure, not to clarify. It creates just enough distance from what repels normal people while quietly affirming the underlying worldview.
Meanwhile, Kelly has now decided to take Nicolás Maduro’s side—using the same dishonest tactic, just flipped on its head. Sure, Maduro is a narco-terrorist, but he’s a sovereign narco-terrorist, and apparently that means he gets a veto because he can export gangs across the border.
By this logic, Tren de Aragua now sets U.S. policy:
Megyn Kelly: Trump should not have removed Nicolas Maduro from power because Americans should be afraid of what Tren de Aragua could do to retaliate pic.twitter.com/SYzz2fa7k9
— Ryan Saavedra (@RyanSaavedra) January 8, 2026
She keeps inching right up to the line of endorsing the worst people—then pretending she hasn’t crossed it. Jews control the media, you see. That’s apparently why society is forced to shun “misunderstood” Nazis like Nick Fuentes and why inconvenient facts—such as Israel supposedly plotting to assassinate Charlie Kirk—must be heroically suppressed.
It’s the same paranoid mythology every time, just laundered through irony and implication. She doesn’t have to say it outright when she’s perfectly willing to signal it—and let the audience connect the dots she’s already drawn:
? Megyn Kelly suggests that the media is controlled by Jews who are not "telling the truth about Israel"
She then floats the theory that Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes have promoted that Jews are responsible for people not liking Muslims pic.twitter.com/AFoGlGtF2E
— Ian Miles Cheong (@ianmiles) January 8, 2026
Challenging “the Narrative” can be a good thing—but only because the Narrative is often an assault on the truth. When the conventional view is wrong, skepticism is healthy. When it’s right, reflexively opposing it isn’t courage; it’s contrarian cosplay.
Yes, men landed on the moon. Yes, flying jetliners into skyscrapers can bring them down—especially when those buildings were designed like the World Trade Center. And no, Israel did not assassinate Charlie Kirk.
“Just asking questions” stops being innocent the moment the questions are absurd and asked for no purpose other than to seed resentment and stoke hatred. At that point, it isn’t skepticism—it’s malice hiding behind faux curiosity.
Rejecting Nick Fuentes should be effortless. Scoffing at Candace Owens’ unhinged speculations should be automatic. These are not close calls or brave dissenting views; they’re obvious dead ends.
Megyn Kelly isn’t being victimized, no matter how much she insists otherwise. She’s being criticized for a choice—specifically, the choice to elevate dangerous, paranoid, and plainly nutty theories.
