By: Fern Sidman

A new round of intramural conflict has erupted within the American conservative movement, exposing deepening fissures over Israel, antisemitism, and the limits of ideological solidarity. At the center of the controversy is SiriusXM host Megyn Kelly, whose remarks in a Vanity Fair interview published Tuesday have drawn sharp scrutiny across the political spectrum. As reported on Tuesday by The Daily Caller, Kelly accused prominent pro-Israel conservatives of “fueling the rise of antisemitism” in the United States—a claim that has stunned allies and critics alike and intensified an already volatile debate.

Kelly’s comments did not emerge in a vacuum. They followed a public clash with Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro, who criticized Kelly for declining to condemn conspiracy theories circulated by conservative commentator Candace Owens in the aftermath of the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. That exchange, which unfolded during and after the AmFest conference in Phoenix, has since metastasized into a broader ideological confrontation, one that The Daily Caller noted is reshaping alliances and antagonisms on the right.

In her Vanity Fair interview, Kelly moved beyond defending her own actions and leveled a sweeping indictment of conservatives she described as “Israel first,” singling out Shapiro and CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss. According to the information provided in The Daily Caller report, Kelly argued that their insistence on aggressively challenging anti-Israel rhetoric within conservative circles has paradoxically contributed to rising antisemitism by alienating younger conservatives and stifling debate.

“They are making antisemites,” Kelly said, contrasting them with figures such as Tucker Carlson, whom she insisted bears no responsibility for fomenting antisemitic sentiment. “Tucker is not making antisemites. They are.”

The framing of that claim has proven incendiary. Critics contend that it shifts blame away from those who propagate or tolerate antisemitic conspiracy theories and places it instead on those who seek to confront them. As The Daily Caller has reported, this rhetorical inversion has unsettled many observers who view antisemitism as a phenomenon driven by extremist ideologies rather than by advocacy for Israel.

Ben Shapiro’s role in the controversy is central. Following Owens’ remarks at AmFest—which some critics interpreted as veiled references to conspiracy theories—Shapiro publicly rebuked Kelly for refusing to condemn the rhetoric. He also criticized Tucker Carlson and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon for declining to denounce Owens.

Carlson responded from the AmFest stage, telling attendees he was not inclined to “denounce and deplatform” speakers at an event honoring Kirk. Kelly, for her part, escalated the dispute by declaring that she no longer considered Shapiro a friend, a personal rupture that The Daily Caller described as emblematic of the movement’s broader fragmentation.

Kelly’s portrayal of Shapiro as “Israel first,” however, has raised eyebrows even among conservatives sympathetic to her broader critiques of cancel culture. By framing Shapiro’s advocacy for Israel as a divisive obsession rather than a principled stance, Kelly appeared to question not merely his tactics but his loyalties—a line of argument that some critics argue risks echoing longstanding tropes historically weaponized against Jewish public figures.

Kelly extended her critique to Bari Weiss, whose outlet, The Free Press, published an adapted version of Shapiro’s speech under the headline “Ben Shapiro: Only Cowards Tolerate Conspiracy Theorists.” According to the information contained in The Daily Caller report, Kelly accused Weiss of hypocrisy, arguing that despite building a reputation as an opponent of cancel culture, Weiss was now tacitly endorsing efforts to ostracize dissenting voices within conservatism.

“Bari in particular has made her career on the anti-cancel culture thing,” Kelly said. “Meanwhile, she’s never been canceled.”

The charge resonated with some segments of Kelly’s audience, but others saw it as a selective reading of Weiss’s record. As The Daily Caller has observed, Weiss’s work has often focused on institutional pressures within progressive spaces, not on insulating conservative figures from criticism. The conflation of critique with cancellation, critics argue, risks diluting the very concept Kelly claims to defend.

One of Kelly’s more consequential assertions was her claim that younger conservatives are increasingly “turning on Israel,” and that figures such as Shapiro are exacerbating that trend by making support for Israel a litmus test for conservative authenticity. This observation has sparked debate over causality.

Reporting from The Daily Caller suggests that generational shifts within conservatism are complex, shaped by foreign policy fatigue, social media radicalization, and a broader skepticism of international entanglements. To attribute these trends primarily to the behavior of pro-Israel conservatives, critics argue, oversimplifies a multifaceted phenomenon and risks absolving influencers who flirt with or mainstream antisemitic narratives.

Candace Owens looms large over the controversy, even as Kelly sought to downplay her role. Kelly revealed that Turning Point USA CEO Erika Kirk had contacted her weeks before AmFest to facilitate a meeting with Owens—a request Kelly said she accepted. While Kelly has not endorsed Owens’ conspiracy theories, her reluctance to condemn them outright has been interpreted by some as tacit permission.

As The Daily Caller report noted, the conservative movement has long struggled with how to address internal provocateurs whose rhetoric generates attention and engagement but courts reputational damage. Kelly’s stance appears rooted in a libertarian instinct against “denounce and deplatform” campaigns. Yet critics argue that neutrality in the face of inflammatory claims can function as a form of complicity, particularly when antisemitism is at issue.

To her defenders, Kelly is raising uncomfortable but necessary questions about free speech, ideological conformity, and the risk of factionalism. To her critics, she is engaging in rhetorical deflection—redirecting scrutiny away from antisemitic speech and toward those who challenge it. The Daily Caller has chronicled how this dynamic has left many conservatives uneasy, caught between a desire for unity and a recognition that some boundaries must be enforced.

What is striking, observers note, is Kelly’s apparent confidence that her position represents the center of gravity within conservatism. Yet polling and grassroots reactions suggest a movement deeply divided, with no clear consensus on how to balance free expression against moral responsibility.

The Kelly-Shapiro dispute may ultimately prove less significant for the personal relationships it has fractured than for what it reveals about conservatism’s current trajectory. As The Daily Caller has emphasized in its coverage, the debate is not merely about Israel or antisemitism, but about who gets to define the movement’s values and enforce its norms.

Kelly’s assertion that pro-Israel conservatives are “making antisemites” stands as one of the most provocative claims to emerge from this period of soul-searching. Whether it will age as a prescient warning or as a rhetorical misstep remains to be seen. What is clear is that such language carries risks—of alienation, misinterpretation, and the inadvertent legitimization of the very forces it purports to oppose.

In a movement already grappling with generational change and ideological drift, the controversy underscores a sobering reality: internal battles over identity and loyalty can be as destabilizing as external opposition. And as The Daily Caller report indicated, the conservative coalition now faces a defining question—whether it can confront antisemitism without fracturing, or whether those fractures have already become part of its political DNA.