Candace Owens and Laura Loomer spent Monday tearing into each other on X after Loomer accused Owens of interviewing Hunter Biden as a calculated move to influence a Delaware judge overseeing a defamation lawsuit brought by French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife. Owens fired back by mocking Loomer's reasoning and calling her a "rabid Hyena." The exchange laid bare a rift between two prominent right-of-center media figures, and raised questions neither has convincingly answered.
The dispute centers on a sit-down interview Owens conducted with Hunter Biden last Thursday, May 22. Mediaite reported the conversation was "shockingly convivial," with Biden repeatedly praising Owens and Owens apologizing for her past attacks on the former president's son. The warm tone caught attention, given Owens' history of sharp public criticism of the Biden family.
Three days later, Loomer posted a lengthy accusation on X. Her theory: Owens was "cozying up to the Biden family" roughly one month before a scheduled hearing on Owens' motion to dismiss in the Macron defamation suit, which is proceeding in Delaware Superior Court. Loomer pointed to Delaware Governor John Carney Jr., a Democrat who appointed the judge overseeing the case and who, Loomer claimed, has a relationship with Hunter Biden.
Loomer laid out her reasoning in her X post on May 25:
"This means Carney, who appointed the judge overseeing Candace Owens' defamation case, knows Hunter Biden, in addition to knowing the judge. I believe this is why Candace Owens is cozying up to the Biden family one month before her motion to dismiss hearing. She's likely hoping her closeness to the Biden family and their relationship with the former Governor of Delaware who appointed the judge overseeing her case will win her favor with the judge or win her favor in Delaware if her case goes to trial."
The allegation is, to put it plainly, speculative. Loomer offered no documentation showing that Governor Carney has communicated with the judge about the Owens case, or that the Biden family has any channel of influence over the court proceedings. She connected dots, governor appoints judge, governor knows Biden family, Owens interviews Biden, and presented the chain as a strategic conspiracy. Loomer doubled down on the claim later in the day but did not add supporting evidence.
This is not the first time Loomer has floated dramatic theories about Owens and the lawsuit. Owens referenced Loomer's earlier claims from the previous month that Owens might "flee the country" or "hide assets" at the Vatican ahead of a court hearing, allegations that also lacked supporting evidence.
Hours after Loomer's post, Owens responded on X with characteristic bluntness, though her rebuttal focused more on ridicule than substance. She wrote:
"LMAO. Can someone with an IQ above 40 explain to this rabid hyena what a jurisdictional argument is in court so that she can avoid slapping 'EXCLUSIVE!' on her mental disfigurations in the future? It may also help her understand why no one needs to 'flee the country' or 'hide assets' at the Vatican before a first hearing (last month's schizophrenic musings)."
Later in the day, Owens added another jab: "The problem with Larry Loomer isn't her mental illness. It's the stupidity paired with it."
Owens' reference to a "jurisdictional argument" suggests her motion to dismiss challenges the Delaware court's authority over the case. But she did not explain her legal strategy further or address why the Hunter Biden interview struck such a different tone from her previous public posture toward the Biden family. The apology she offered Biden during the interview, for past attacks, remains unexplained in any detail.
The underlying legal case is no small matter. In the summer of 2025, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a 22-count defamation complaint against Owens in Delaware Superior Court. The suit targets Owens' repeated public claims that Brigitte Macron was born a man, a theory Owens promoted across an eight-episode YouTube series and numerous other media appearances. The complaint also references what it describes as other conspiracy theories about the Macrons' relationship.
The Macrons are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Owens has filed a motion to dismiss, with a hearing expected roughly one month from now, approximately June 2026.
Owens has drawn criticism from multiple directions over the Brigitte Macron claims. Trump himself has publicly criticized Owens over those assertions, a notable rebuke given her long record of vocal support for the former president.
That episode was part of a broader pattern. Trump has rebuked Owens alongside other prominent right-leaning media figures when their commentary diverged from his positions, signaling that loyalty in conservative media runs in both directions, and has limits.
Strip away the personal insults and the dispute boils down to two unresolved questions.
First, Loomer's theory. She has offered no evidence that the Biden family has any influence over the judge hearing the Macron case, or that Owens' interview was anything other than a media booking. The fact that a governor appointed a judge does not, by itself, establish a corrupt pipeline. Loomer's track record of floating dramatic accusations, including the "flee the country" claim, without follow-through weakens her credibility on this point.
Second, Owens' interview. She sat down with Hunter Biden, praised him, and apologized for past attacks, all while facing a major defamation lawsuit in Delaware, the Biden family's home state. That timing is, at minimum, conspicuous. Owens has not offered a substantive public explanation for the shift in tone beyond mocking Loomer's intelligence.
The broader conservative media landscape has seen no shortage of these intra-right feuds. Tucker Carlson's own public reckoning with the costs of political endorsements illustrates how quickly alliances in right-of-center media can shift when personal stakes collide with public positioning.
Loomer and Owens have clashed publicly before. Both have histories of promoting conspiracy theories, and both have built media brands on provocation. Their Monday exchange followed a familiar script: accusation, counter-accusation, personal insults, no resolution.
For conservative audiences watching this play out, the spectacle is less informative than it is exhausting. Loomer's accusation is unsubstantiated. Owens' defense is evasive. Neither offered the kind of evidence or transparency that would settle the matter.
The real story remains the 22-count defamation lawsuit working its way through Delaware Superior Court. That case will be decided on legal merits, on whether Owens' claims about Brigitte Macron were defamatory and whether the court has jurisdiction. No amount of social media feuding between two media personalities will change those facts.
And that's the problem with this kind of public fight. It generates heat, clicks, and engagement, but it sheds no light on the questions that actually matter. Conservative media has enough real battles to fight without manufacturing new ones out of speculation and insults.
When the right spends its energy on intra-movement food fights built on thin evidence and thick egos, the left doesn't even have to show up.