In the ever-evolving landscape of American independent media, few figures are as polarizing or as closely watched as Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owens. The past week has seen these three conservative commentators thrust into the center of a heated debate about Israel, U.S. foreign policy, and journalistic integrity—a debate that has exposed fault lines not only within the media but also among pro-Israel circles and the broader political right.
On September 26, 2025, Megyn Kelly, known for her unwavering support for Israel and her outspoken stance against antisemitism, found herself the subject of pointed criticism from within the very community she champions. During her show, Kelly read aloud a message from Abe Greenwald, executive editor of Commentary Magazine, dripping with sarcasm. Greenwald praised her for her "stellar work" in amplifying what he called "the paranoid conspiracy theory of a well-known lunatic Jew-hater"—a not-so-subtle jab at Candace Owens. According to Commentary Magazine, Greenwald’s message was both a rebuke and a warning, casting Kelly as complicit with figures like Owens and Tucker Carlson, who have been accused of spreading conspiratorial narratives about Israel.
The incident has highlighted a deeper tension in right-leaning media: the challenge of balancing personal relationships, political alliances, and the responsibility to challenge misinformation. Kelly, whose reputation was built on her willingness to "call things as they are," now faces scrutiny for not holding her friends to the same standard of accountability she applies to others. As Commentary Magazine noted, "Kelly blurs that distinction by sometimes withholding the sharp scrutiny she otherwise applies so well."
This criticism is not without basis. When Tucker Carlson, another heavyweight in conservative commentary, makes claims about Israel or U.S. foreign policy that Kelly herself considers questionable, she has often chosen not to press him. Instead, she frames his positions as rooted in a deep aversion to war, shaped by the legacy of the Iraq conflict. Yet, as Commentary Magazine observed, "Carlson’s fear, while indeed rooted in the Iraq War, has long since hardened into paranoia. His deep mistrust of U.S. military action has curdled into conspiracy thinking, reinforced week after week by obsessively anti-Israel guests."
The stakes rose dramatically on September 28, 2025, when Carlson posted a video accusing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of wielding excessive influence over former President Donald Trump. In the video, Carlson claimed, "Bibi’s running around — this is a fact, I’m not guessing about this because I talked to people he said it to — is running around the Middle East, his region in his own country and telling people point blank, just stating it, ‘I control the United States. I control Donald Trump.’ He’s saying that — and again I’m not guessing at all, that’s a fact. I dare them to say that’s not true because it is true. They know it’s true." Carlson’s remarks were personal and direct, aimed squarely at Netanyahu. He added, "The secular Prime Minister of a country is doing immense harm to Donald Trump's presidency, to the United States, and to the world. This is an unbalanced person who is meddling in an extensive way in American politics; he is loathed by the entire world, he needs the United States, and at the same time, has this patronizing attitude towards Donald Trump, demeaning Trump to people Trump knows."
Carlson did not stop there. On the System Update podcast, he broadened his criticism to include American leaders, stating, "I’m attacking my leaders who are allowing my nation of 350 million people to be forced into doing things that are bad for me and my children because of some other country." The implications were clear: Carlson believes that the relationship between U.S. and Israeli leadership is not only unbalanced but also detrimental to American interests.
Netanyahu, for his part, swiftly rejected these claims in an interview with Fox News. He argued, "President Trump does what he does because he decides what's in America's best interest. I've said this often, I don't decide a thing for President Trump. He is the most independent and amazing leader I've seen in all my years." Netanyahu’s rebuttal was unequivocal, seeking to put to rest any suggestion that he manipulates or controls U.S. policy.
While the Carlson-Netanyahu exchange dominated headlines, Candace Owens also found herself at the center of controversy. In the days following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Owens seized the moment to claim that Kirk had been bullied by billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman over his support for Israel. She presented a narrative in which Kirk was supposedly wavering in his support for Israel, a narrative that, according to Commentary Magazine, "lacked evidence" and did not reflect reality. Kelly, in turn, defended Owens by referencing her own August conversation with Kirk, suggesting it supported Owens’s version of events.
This defense was challenged on air by journalist Michael C. Moynihan, who pointed out that even in the August conversation, Kirk was not wavering on Israel. Instead, he was lamenting the way some pro-Israel voices respond to criticism of the Jewish state. As Moynihan argued, "That distinction matters: it’s the difference between Owens reporting and Owens making things up." Despite this, Kelly did not acknowledge Moynihan’s point, raising further questions about her willingness to push back against misinformation from her friends and colleagues.
For many observers, the controversy is not about whether Kelly should associate with people who hold contrarian or even unpopular views about Israel. Rather, it is about journalistic responsibility. As Commentary Magazine put it, "It is unfair to chastise Kelly for associating with people who don’t like Israel. But it is entirely fair to criticize her for failing to challenge commentators in her orbit when they promote baseless nonsense – something Carlson and Owens do regularly. There’s no problem platforming them, but for it to be journalism, she must also push back. Failing to do so warrants disappointment. Invoking Tucker’s friendship won’t – and shouldn’t – cut it."
The broader context is a media environment where personal loyalties, ideological alliances, and the specter of "cancel culture" often make it difficult for commentators to hold each other accountable. Kelly’s instinct to avoid "unhelpful infighting on the political Right" is understandable—perhaps even admirable, as some have suggested. But as the events of this week have shown, neither friendship nor political sensitivity can excuse letting falsehoods go unchallenged, especially on matters as consequential as U.S. foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the responsibility of independent journalists and commentators to challenge misinformation—regardless of the source—remains as vital as ever. The credibility of the media, and the trust of its audience, depend on it.
