On October 15, 2025, the Australian High Court delivered a decisive ruling: American conservative commentator Candace Owens would not be allowed entry into Australia. The unanimous decision, covered by Reuters and multiple outlets, capped a year-long legal and political battle that drew in questions of free speech, national security, and the boundaries of public discourse in a democracy. For Owens, a polarizing figure in the U.S. media landscape, the verdict marked the end—at least for now—of her ambitions to take her speaking tour Down Under.
Owens’ troubles with Australian authorities began in October 2024 when she applied for a visa to headline a multi-city speaking tour. The request was swiftly denied by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke under the "character test" provision of the country’s Migration Act. Burke cited what he called Owens’ “extremist and inflammatory comments” targeting Muslim, Black, Jewish, and LGBTQIA+ communities, warning that her presence could “incite discord in the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community.” Burke argued that allowing Owens into the country would not be in the national interest, noting that her rhetoric might amplify grievances and potentially lead to increased hostility or radical action.
Owens, never one to back down from a fight, challenged the visa rejection in court. Her lawyers contended that the denial “unjustifiably burdens” the implied freedom of political communication—an important, if limited, constitutional protection in Australia. But the High Court, led by Justices Stephen Gageler, Michelle Gordon, and Robert Beech-Jones, was unmoved. In their joint judgment, the justices wrote, “The implied freedom is not a ‘personal right,’ is not unlimited and is not absolute.” The court found that while the Migration Act’s provisions indeed placed a burden on political communication, they served a “legitimate and justifiable purpose in protecting the Australian community from visitors who would stir up or encourage dissension or strife on political matters.”
Justice James Edelman, delivering a separate opinion, was even more blunt, stating that Owens’ legal arguments should be “emphatically rejected.” The court ordered Owens to pay the government’s legal costs, underscoring the finality of the decision. According to Politico and Reuters, Owens’ lawyers did not respond to requests for comment, and Owens herself has yet to issue a public statement regarding the ruling.
The case has reignited debate in Australia over the limits of free speech, especially as it pertains to controversial foreign visitors. Unlike the United States, Australia’s constitution does not explicitly guarantee freedom of speech. Instead, the High Court has interpreted an “implied freedom of political communication,” but as this case demonstrated, that freedom does not override immigration controls or the government’s responsibility to protect public order. “Inciting discord might be the way some people make money, but it’s not welcome in Australia,” Burke told Reuters after the verdict. “Australia’s national interest is best served when Candace Owens is somewhere else.”
Owens’ exclusion is not without precedent. Earlier in 2025, rapper Ye (formerly Kanye West) saw his visa canceled after Australian officials determined his recent work promoted Nazi ideologies and antisemitic themes. “We have enough problems in this country already without deliberately importing bigotry,” Burke said at the time, echoing his rationale for Owens’ case. New Zealand initially followed Australia’s lead by denying Owens a visa, though it later reversed the decision, citing the importance of free speech.
Central to the controversy surrounding Owens are her evolving and often incendiary public positions on issues of race, religion, and international politics. Once a darling of mainstream conservative circles and a vocal supporter of Israel, Owens has undergone a dramatic transformation since the October 7, 2023 attacks in Israel. Her rhetoric has shifted sharply; she now accuses Israel of “genocide” and “indiscriminate murder” in Gaza, questions its democratic credentials, and alleges undue influence by Jewish interests in U.S. politics and media. These statements have drawn fierce criticism from organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and StopAntisemitism, who classify her recent commentary as “antisemitic.”
This public break from pro-Israel orthodoxy contributed to her highly publicized departure from The Daily Wire in March 2024, following internal disputes over her increasingly controversial remarks. From late 2023 into 2025, Owens has continued to escalate her critiques, hosting outspoken Israel critics on her podcast, denouncing the Antisemitism Awareness Act as a threat to free speech, and even ironically accepting an “Antisemite of the Year” award, claiming the label is used to smear critics of Israel’s Gaza campaign. In her words, as reported by 5Pillars, “We’re not gonna shut up... You’re not going to bully us. Frankly, I find this all to be irresistible and delicious.”
Owens’ relationship with Islam and Muslims has also evolved. Early in her career, she made statements widely condemned as Islamophobic, including support for Trump’s “Muslim ban” and defending other politicians’ use of anti-Muslim rhetoric. After the Christchurch mosque shootings in 2019, her name appeared in the shooter’s manifesto, and she was accused of tokenistic outreach when she announced plans to “host a Muslim that has defected from the religion.” However, by 2023 and 2024, Owens began to publicly reject anti-Muslim prejudice, apologizing for her post-9/11 views and calling the idea that “every Muslim was a terrorist” both “damaging” and a product of fear-mongering. She has since positioned herself as an ally against Islamophobia, at least in certain contexts.
Her commentary has not been limited to the Israel-Palestine conflict or Islam. Owens’ record includes attacks on LGBTQIA+ figures and communities, accusations of “pretending to be gay for clicks,” and inflammatory statements about transgender people and public figures. She has also been embroiled in a high-profile legal dispute with French First Lady Brigitte Macron, who sued Owens for defamation after Owens promoted conspiracy theories about Macron’s gender identity. Owens has denied many of the claims in Macron’s suit, but the controversy has only added to her notoriety.
For Australian authorities, the cumulative effect of Owens’ record was decisive. Burke and the High Court concluded that her presence would risk “amplifying grievances among communities and lead to increased hostility and violent or radical action.” As the judges put it, the country’s migration laws exist in part to prevent the importation of strife and to protect social cohesion—a value they deemed more important than the right of a foreign speaker to address Australian audiences in person.
While Owens’ supporters argue that the ban represents an overreach and a chilling effect on political discourse, Australian officials maintain that the decision is about safeguarding the community, not silencing dissent. As the dust settles, the case stands as a vivid illustration of the tensions between free expression and social harmony in an era of globalized controversy—one where the boundaries of acceptable speech are constantly being tested, both at home and abroad.
For now, Candace Owens’ speaking tour of Australia is off the table, with the High Court’s ruling leaving little room for further appeal. The debate over who gets to cross borders—and what ideas they bring with them—shows no sign of fading away.