Candace Owens TARGETED by ‘Influencer Bounties’
Conservative commentator and podcast host Candace Owens has claimed she is the target of a coordinated, paid smear campaign on social media. According to Owens, influencers are being offered money to produce negative content about her and allies such as Tucker Carlson.
In a June 2025 episode of her podcast, Owens stated that a tip from an influencer revealed payments of up to $1,000 (for micro-influencers) to create anti-Owens and anti-Carlson videos. She suggested the effort was funded by a wealthy individual—possibly a billionaire—as part of a broader disinformation campaign. This allegedly included false claims that she and Carlson were backed by foreign entities like Qatar.
In response, Owens announced a $10,000 “bounty” for anyone who could provide concrete proof—such as emails, contracts, or payment records—of being paid to attack her or Carlson. She emphasized that the offer would stand regardless of whether the person had already posted critical content, with no questions asked.
This accusation aligns with Owens’ recurring narrative that much of the online criticism she receives is not organic but orchestrated, often featuring similar talking points recycled across multiple accounts. As of early January 2026, amid her ongoing legal battles—including a U.S. defamation lawsuit related to comments about French First Lady Brigitte Macron—and her commentary on major events like the Maduro capture and the death of Charlie Kirk, Owens has continued to describe these attacks as incentivized rather than genuine.
While no public evidence has surfaced confirming widespread paid bounties against her, Owens’ $10,000 reward offer generated significant attention and sparked discussions about authenticity, incentives, and influence in online media ecosystems. The claim continues to fuel debate within conservative circles and beyond.


Fascianting look at how financial incentives can totally shape online discourse. The $10,000 counter-bounty for proof is a smart move tbh because it creates a paper trail incentive that could expose the whole sytem. I've seen similar patterns in marketing where coordinated micro-influencer campaigns feel organic but are completley orchestrated through agencies. Whether it's happening here or not, the broader implication is kinda unsettling for authenticity in digital spaces.
She’s being targeted for being a Conservative?