From Fringe to Front Page: How Megyn Kelly’s Comments on Fuentes and Owens Exposed the New Mainstreaming of Antisemitic Conspiracy

By: Fern Sidman

For years, documentation has existed on how antisemitic conspiracy theories once confined to anonymous message boards have migrated into mainstream political conversation. Yet even against that bleak backdrop, the remarks made last week by Megyn Kelly during a video interview with Tucker Carlson stunned veteran observers, as was reported on Monday by The Algemeiner. The former network anchor did not merely reference extremist figures. She expressed sympathy for two of the most controversial personalities in the current far-right constellation—white nationalist Nick Fuentes and provocateur Candace Owens—both of whom have trafficked in Holocaust denial and conspiratorial narratives targeting Jews and Israel.

The controversial interview in it’s entirity above

The exchange, circulated widely on social media and analyzed in detail in The Algemeiner report, has since become a case study in how rhetorical boundaries are eroding in contemporary political media, allowing dangerous ideas to be repackaged as “questions” or “provocations” rather than what they are: ideological accelerants with real-world consequences.

The controversy ignited when Kelly and Carlson discussed the aftermath of the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last year. In the days following Kirk’s killing, Owens promoted an unfounded theory alleging Israeli involvement—a claim Carlson himself had amplified.

“And then came Candace Owens,” Kelly said during the interview, prompting audible snickers from Carlson. “She really drives people crazy. She drives them crazy.” Kelly went on to acknowledge that she had not confronted Owens about implying Israeli culpability. “Well, I didn’t call her out because I was totally fine with those questions being raised.”

She then raised her open palm to her face and declared, “And still am!”

For analysts at The Algemeiner, this moment was pivotal. There has been no evidence linking Israel or any Israeli-aligned individuals to Kirk’s murder. Prosecutors have charged 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, whose alleged motive was reportedly rooted in personal grievances involving his transgender roommate and Kirk’s public anti-trans rhetoric—not geopolitics. Yet Kelly’s comments effectively re-legitimized a conspiracy theory that Jewish organizations had already warned was fueling harassment and threats.

The danger of such insinuations is not theoretical. In October, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced charges against Nicholas Ray of Spring, Texas, accused of issuing death threats under an X account labeled “zionistarescum.” According to court filings cited in The Algemeiner report, Jewish conservatives targeted in those threats had been publicly identified by Owens as allegedly connected to Kirk’s murder.

The case illustrated how speculative rhetoric, when repeated by high-profile influencers, metastasizes into direct intimidation. The pattern is now familiar: a vague allegation, amplified online, morphs into a perceived justification for harassment or worse.

Kelly’s discussion of Nick Fuentes provoked equal alarm. Fuentes—who has praised Adolf Hitler and popularized extremist slogans among his “Groyper” followers—was described by Kelly as “very interesting” and “very smart.”

“And on a lot of things there is value to be derived from that guy’s messaging,” she said. “I’m sorry, but he actually has a lot of things he talks about that you’re like, ‘that’s not a bad point about our country.’”

To The Algemeiner, the issue was not Fuentes’ ideology, which has been extensively chronicled, but Kelly’s rhetorical laundering of his persona. By praising his supposed insights while disclaiming his bigotry, she invoked a familiar tactic: extracting “value” from an extremist’s critique while bracketing the hate as incidental.

Later, when right-wing influencer Ian Miles Cheong shared a clip of her remarks, Kelly erupted on X, accusing him of misrepresentation and insisting she had not endorsed Fuentes’ views on Jews or minorities. Yet, as The Algemeiner report noted, selective disavowal often fails to undo the original signal sent to audiences—that Fuentes is a figure worthy of intellectual engagement.

Fuentes’ growing visibility is not merely the product of organic enthusiasm. In December, the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) released a study revealing that his social-media reach has been significantly amplified by inauthentic activity from anonymous accounts in countries including India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

The research found that in a sample of 20 posts, 61 percent of Fuentes’ first-30-minute retweets came from accounts that simultaneously amplified multiple messages—a pattern strongly suggestive of automation or coordination. The Algemeiner report emphasized that these findings reposition Fuentes from a marginal provocateur to a beneficiary of transnational disinformation networks.

In this context, Kelly’s praise takes on added gravity. It is no longer a matter of platforming a controversial voice; it is the inadvertent validation of a figure whose influence is being artificially inflated on a global scale.

The trajectory of both Owens and Fuentes has increasingly veered toward a globalized conspiratorial worldview. Earlier this month, Owens blamed “Zionists” for inspiring President Trump to capture Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro—a claim that dovetailed with Fuentes’ own posts celebrating the idea of seizing Venezuela’s oil and forcibly “remigrating” migrants.

Fuentes went further, tweeting “Your oil, our choice. Forever,” a phrase that echoed his earlier appropriation of “your body, my choice.” The following day he fantasized about deporting Venezuelans en masse and “taking the oil,” a vision of foreign policy that The Algemeiner report characterized as imperial banditry masquerading as populism.

On Sunday, Fuentes turned his attention to Iran, asserting that the country’s unrest was “totally astroturfed by Israel and the US”—a narrative recycling long-standing antisemitic tropes about Jewish orchestration of global upheaval.

Megyn Kelly is not an anonymous provocateur. She is a former Fox News and NBC anchor whose career was built on confrontational but rigorous journalism. Her voice still carries institutional weight. When she refuses to condemn figures like Owens or describes Fuentes as intellectually “valuable,” she sends a message that antisemitic conspiracies are simply another genre of dissent.

The Algemeiner report observed that this rhetorical shift is part of a larger pattern in American political media: calls for accountability are reframed as censorship; antisemitic narratives are repackaged as “hard questions”; and Jewish advocacy is dismissed as authoritarian control.

Kelly herself mocked those urging her to denounce Owens, suggesting they believed that “one more voice” might finally “control” her. But Jewish leaders interviewed by The Algemeiner stressed that the issue is not control—it is consequence.

The publication has long warned that there is a causal chain linking language to harm. When public figures legitimize conspiracies, they furnish extremists with moral cover. When they praise ideologues for their “insight,” they offer recruitment propaganda in digestible form.

The rise of Fuentes—from obscure live streamer to internationally amplified agitator—illustrates how swiftly the boundary between fringe and mainstream can collapse when influential voices blur it.

Kelly’s exchange with Carlson was therefore not a singular lapse. It was emblematic of a deeper erosion in political discourse, where grievance hardens into ideology and speculation is elevated to evidence.

Whether the backlash will prompt reflection remains to be seen. What is already clear, however, is that the cost of normalization is mounting. Each time a prominent commentator reframes antisemitic conspiracy as legitimate inquiry, the moral architecture of public debate shifts.

The danger is not only what is being said—but what is becoming sayable.