Candace Owens has strongly rejected Erika Kirk's reported claim that she built her brand on Charlie Kirk's death, arguing she was already globally recognized before his assassination. In a lengthy response, Owens accused Erika of profiting from Charlie's legacy through trademarks and merchandise while defending her own business practices. She insisted her company sold no Charlie Kirk memorabilia, added no new advertisers, and ran its biggest tribute episode without ads or sponsorships.Candace Owens has publicly responded after comments attributed to Erika Kirk accused her of using Charlie Kirk's death to grow her platform and profit from the tragedy. The latest exchange has deepened an already public rift, with Owens rejecting the allegation and turning the criticism back toward Charlie Kirk's widow. Her lengthy response revisited business decisions made after Kirk's death and challenged the narrative surrounding her role in the aftermath.Candace Owens rejects Erika Kirk's brand accusation Owens opened her response by directly addressing the remarks reportedly made by Erika Kirk through a family member. She insisted her public profile and business were already well established long before Charlie Kirk's assassination and argued that the accusation ignored years of work that had built her audience. She said: Owens framed those points as evidence that she had no need to capitalize on Charlie Kirk's death to gain recognition or expand her reach.Candace Owens defends business practices after Charlie Kirk's death The second half of Owens' remarks focused on how her media company operated after Charlie Kirk's death. She maintained that her business neither increased advertising revenue nor launched merchandise connected to him, contrasting that with what she claimed others did during the same period. She continued: The exchange marks another escalation in the increasingly public dispute surrounding Charlie Kirk's legacy. While Owens firmly rejected the accusations and defended her business record, the competing claims made by both sides remain matters of public dispute, with no independent findings presented to substantiate the allegations raised in the exchange.