Megyn Kelly’s Indefensible Flirtation With the Nihilist Right

No one blinked when Tucker Carlson claimed that the late sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli intelligence asset earlier this year.

Carlson’s well-documented descent into the anti-Semitic depths of the Nihilist Right rendered his attempt to turn the controversy over the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein case into a story about Israeli malfeasance a blip on the radar. After all, it contained all of the requisite elements — money, sexual perversion, and a Jewish antagonist — to whip the gullible and malicious alike into a lather. Was there ever any doubt he would capitalize?

But to the surprise of many, Megyn Kelly also emerged as a purveyor of the conspiracy theory when she told the late Charlie Kirk that she would “guess” Epstein was connected to the Mossad, and that “it’s possible that that’s the reason everything is getting buried.”

It was, as it turned out, a sign of things to come. The following month, Kelly hosted Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) for a friendly interview during which she expressed agreement with Greene over her harsh criticism of AIPAC.

“I’ve been very pro-Israel and I’ve been very defensive of their right to defend themself. But I have absolutely no skin whatsoever in defending any lobbyist group, including AIPAC, so I would love to know what they do to get the loyalty of politicians,” said Kelly. “Because I will say, I have had multiple, multiple reach-outs to me, both from friends and from connected people in D.C., begging me to go to Israel with them, and I have said no every time.”

“I’m looking at Israel in a different way right now than I was on 10/8, that’s for sure,” she added.

And in the days since Kirk’s murder, Kelly has made a point of stressing his frustration with some pro-Israel activists, even though he counted himself among their ranks.

During one recent episode of her SiriusXM show, Kelly defended anti-Semitic shock jock Candace Owens’s post-assassination commentary, which has included false accusations against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Jewish-American billionaire Bill Ackman, as well as instructions to her followers to “Be very wary and suspicious of the people who are already telling us to stop asking questions about the Charlie Kirk assassination.”

“Candace, who’s been critical of Israel in this conflict, did not appreciate that we had a foreign leader reading part of Charlie’s letter, trying to characterize his stance on Israel without giving its full measure, because it had changed a bit in recent months. And she is not wrong about that,” insisted Kelly during a conversation with Matt Welch, Kmele Foster, and Michael Moynihan of The Fifth Column podcast about Owens’s claim that Netanyahu had taken a letter Kirk addressed to him out of context.

After Moynihan pointed out that Owens is a “very, very dodgy witness,” Kelly cut off her guest to argue that “Candace is brilliant. I realize she’s controversial, but she is very smart.”

“You don’t have to trust her. If Candace is not your cup of tea, that’s fine,” mused Kelly after another interruption. “You know, I’m not everybody’s cup of tea, she’s not everybody’s cup of tea. But I just played you a four-minute exchange of Charlie saying–”

“Charlie Kirk says something that is very different than what Candace Owens feels about this stuff,” replied Moynihan. “He says during that conversation with you that he is a stalwart Zionist. He doesn’t like people questioning his commitment to that idea.”

On Monday, The New York Post published the full text of Kirk’s letter to Netanyahu. Lo and behold, it began with the declaration that “One of my greatest joys as a Christian is advocating for Israel and forming alliances with Jews in the fight to protect Judeo-Christian civilization,” ended with the lamentation that “it pains me to see support for Israel slip away,” and detailed a comprehensive communications strategy to stop the bleeding in between.

Kelly had a strange reaction to the revelation that Owens had coopted Kirk’s death to mislead her audience about her former colleague’s letter and overall opinion of Israel.

“The Charlie Kirk letter to Bibi is interesting for obvious reasons, but if you want to hear Charlie in his own words speaking to a friend re his feelings on Israel & the pressure on him, it’s all here on Aug 6th,” she tweeted on Monday night. “No filter needed, just listen to him.”

What was the supposed “filter” in a private letter Kirk himself had authored? Why was Kelly so reticent to admit that Owens had been wrong? Why did she keep conflating Kirk’s frustration with other pro-Israel advocates’ criticism of him with him turning against Israel itself?

These were the glaringly obvious questions raised by Kelly’s post, which inspired some bipartisan backlash. After one commenter mused that “If you can’t separate yourself from Candace Owens, many of us are going to separate ourselves from you,” Kelly bristled.

“Look at this. No, I have no obligation to ‘separate’ myself from anyone. I run my own media company and my own show. That show is where I express my own opinions and I will decide what/what not to opine on. If you need me to condemn Candace or Tucker for their opinions in order to listen to me, then I may not be for you,” she shot back. “He’s a close friend and she is under enough pressure w/o gratuitous shots from me. My fight is with the left, not these two.”

Folks, would it be “gratuitous” to criticize a millionaire commentator for using her supposed friend’s murder to benefit a years-long anti-Semitic crusade? What if you yourself — another millionaire commentator — had previously amplified an erroneous suggestion they had made?

This is the latest example of what is at this point a well-established pattern. Kelly amplifies an inaccurate claim, promotes a meritless theory, or praises a mendacious peer, and then cries victim when she’s called on it.

“The more one insists that I say what one demands me to, the more committed I get in my refusal,” she told Konstantin Kisin after inquired about her reaction to the Kirk letter. That’s all good and well; no one should be cowed into saying something they don’t believe.

At some point, though, shouldn’t Kelly address the merits of what people like Owens and Carlson are doing?

Was Owens right or wrong about the letter?

Should Carlson have used the occasion of Kirk’s memorial to intimate — in a “sleazy, feline way,” as he himself might put it — that the Jews killed Jesus?

Is the “brilliant” Owens a credible source on Israel, given the fact that she believed at the outset of the conflict in Gaza that Jerusalem’s historic Muslim Quarter was a ghetto where the city’s Muslims were confined?

Was Carlson’s targeting of Ben Shapiro over his response to Hamas’ October 7 attack fair?

What about when Owens suggested that there was a “small ring of specific people” in Hollywood and “potentially” Washington, D.C. who are “using the fact that they are Jewish to shield themselves from any criticism”?

What should one make of Carlson’s softball interview with an anti-Semitic pastor? Or his being starstruck by World War II and Holocaust revisionist Darryl Cooper?

And finally, does she see a worldview articulated by Carlson and Owens that goes beyond the euphemisms she’s so fond of? Do they merely take issue with Israeli government policy, or is something else afoot?

Kelly feels she has been unfairly maligned, including as an anti-Semite.  To be sure, there is a militant contingent of pro-Israel advocates eager to browbeat anyone who might break ranks on any issue. It is, as she and Kirk have previously pointed out, a counterproductive exercise. No one ought to try to “cancel,” or “silence,” or “bully” Kelly into saying something she doesn’t believe, or doing something she doesn’t want to. And no one with the power to do so is actually threatening her ability to speak; Kelly is one of the most powerful, influential figures in all of the Fourth Estate.

That hardly excuses herself from criticism over her elevation of bad actors and questionable claims, though, many of which concern the Jews and the only country in which they constitute a majority.

And her willful blindness to the role Carlson and Owens have played in mainstreaming Jew hatred, as well as her indignant, substance-free reaction to any questioning of her association with them, is increasingly indefensible.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.