A former top security aide to slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk is taking Candace Owens to court — accusing the firebrand commentator of pushing wild conspiracy theories that ruined his reputation.
Brian Harpole, who served as Kirk’s security chief the day he was assassinated at Utah Valley University last September, filed a defamation lawsuit Thursday claiming Owens falsely accused him of being involved in the killing.
According to the complaint, Owens “falsely accus[ed] Brian Harpole of conspiring to assassinate Charlie Kirk,” amplifying baseless claims that he was tied to a shadowy plot involving the U.S. government.
“Owens is the most high profile spreader of baseless Charlie Kirk conspiracy theories,” the lawsuit states. “Her actions have encouraged and emboldened…others to jump on the Charlie Kirk conspiracy bandwagon.”
Harpole’s legal team points directly to Owens’ public comments — including claims that Kirk’s security team was “shady” and suggestions that Harpole attended a secret pre-operation meeting at a U.S. Army base the day before the shooting.
The lawsuit flatly rejects that claim.
“The claim that Harpole was present at Fort Huachuca…is verifiably false,” the complaint reads, noting travel records place him in Dallas at the time — with no evidence he ever accessed the base.
Owens didn’t stop there.
In a December post on X, she questioned whether Harpole had been truthful about what happened in the chaotic moments after Kirk was shot, even asking whether anyone from his team had called 911.
She later requested an “off the record discussion” with Harpole — a request he ignored — before continuing to discuss him on her podcast for weeks, according to the filing.
Now, Harpole says the damage is real.
The lawsuit alleges he has lost business opportunities, suffered severe emotional distress, and seen both his personal and professional reputation take a hit.
“All of Owens’s statements are either false on their face or create a false meaning,” the complaint states. “It is simply false that Harpole knew Charlie Kirk was going to die or was involved in the planning…of the assassination.”
Owens, for her part, is not backing down.
Addressing the lawsuit on her podcast Thursday, she brushed it off — and even suggested it could work in her favor.
“This will give me the power of subpoena,” she said, questioning why Harpole never demanded a retraction or responded to her outreach before filing suit.
On X, she added another jab: “It’s certainly an interesting claim that Brian Harpole is losing clients/contracts because of me—and not like, you know, how his last job ended.”
The lawsuit marks the latest legal headache for Owens, who has also faced litigation tied to comments about French First Lady Brigitte Macron.
Meanwhile, the case against Kirk’s accused killer is still unfolding.
Authorities arrested 22-year-old Tyler Robinson days after the shooting, alleging he confessed to his father. He now faces charges including aggravated murder, with prosecutors seeking the death penalty.
But the case has hit complications.
Robinson’s defense team is pushing to delay a key May hearing, citing a mountain of evidence — including a recent ATF ballistics report that was deemed “inconclusive” on whether a bullet fragment came from the rifle allegedly used in the attack.
They’ve also pointed to DNA from multiple individuals found on items at the scene, arguing further testing is needed.
Prosecutors insist that doesn’t change the case.
“When the results…come back as inconclusive, that means only that the fragment did not contain enough detail,” a spokesperson said.
As the criminal case grinds forward, Harpole’s lawsuit opens a new nuisance — one that could drag Owens into a high-stakes legal battle over just how far commentary can go before it crosses the line.
