On April 5, Candace Owens publicly invited her former Daily Wire colleague Ben Shapiro to a debate about "Israel and the current definition of antisemitism." It was Owens' criticisms of U.S. financing of Israel, and her criticisms of Israel's war in Gaza, that caused her departure from the Daily Wire two weeks earlier.

Both Shapiro and Daily Wire CEO Jeremy Boreing responded by saying they would like to arrange the debate requested by Owens. That night, Shapiro appeared to accept her offer, writing on X: "Sure, Candace. I texted you on February 29th offering this very thing." The Daily Wire co-founder added: "Let's do it on my show this Monday at 5pm at our studios in Nashville; 90 minutes, live-streamed."

After Owens objected to the format and timing, she and Boreing exchanged several tweets in which they appeared to be negotiating, and then agreeing to, the terms and format for the debate. Owens had suggested the debate be moderated by Joe Rogan or Lex Fridman. Shaprio said he wanted no moderator. They ultimately agreed to the terms, with Boreing offering a series of conditions, including a no-moderator debate, and with Owens publicly accepting. 

Two weeks later, many readers of both Shapiro and Owens noticed, and complained, that the debate had not yet happened. On April 24, Owens addressed those inquiries by explaining that the Daily Wire had yet to propose dates, while reiterating her strong desire to ensure the debate happened.

But the debate was never going to happen. That is because the Daily Wire -- in secret and unbeknownst to its readers -- sought a gag order to be placed on Owens after she had called for a debate. They did this under the cover of secrecy, before a private arbitrator, at exactly the same time that they were claiming in public that they wanted this debate and were even negotiating the terms with her. To this date, the Daily Wire has not informed its readers, seeking to understand why the much-anticipated debate had not yet happened, that they had sought and obtained a gag order against Owens.

When seeking a gag order to be imposed on Owens, the Daily Wire accused her of violating the non-disparagement clause of her agreement with the company. To substantiate this accusation, the company specifically cited Owens' initial tweet requesting a debate with Shapiro as proof of this disparagement, along with concerns she voiced that Shapiro appeared to be violating the confidentiality agreement between them by publicly maligning Owens's views to explain her departure from the company. While the company claimed before the arbitrator that it did not object in principle to a "healthy debate," it urged the imposition of a gag order on Owens by claiming that the way she requested the debate constituted disparagement of Shapiro and the site.

To justify the gag order it wanted, the company also cited various criticisms of the Daily Wire and Shapiro on X that Owens had "liked." This proceeding took place as part of an exchange of legal threats between the parties after the public agreement to debate about Israel was solidified. Those threats arose from the fact that various Daily Wire executives and hosts, in both public and private, were castigating Owens as an anti-Semite. On March 22, Daily Wire host Andrew Klaven published a one-hour video that hurled multiple accusations, including anti-Semitism, at Owens. The Daily Wire cited Owens' response to that video -- her defense of herself from those multiple accusations -- as further proof that she needed to be gagged.

The initial tweet from Owens not only requested a debate, but also included a video from the popular comedian Andrew Schulz, who had mocked the Daily Wire for firing Owens over disagreements regarding Israel, and specifically mocked Shapiro for his willingness to debate only undergraduate students. The tweet underneath Owens's original debate request included a summary of Schulz's mockery of Shapiro which stated: Schulz now "realizes Ben Shapiro is only good at debating college liberals & can’t win debates against serious competition." 

After the prior restraint hearing sought by the Daily Wire and Shapiro, the arbitrator sided with them and against Owens. The arbitrator agreed with the Daily Wire that Owens' call to debate Shapiro, and her follow-up negotiations of the debate, constituted "disparagement" of the company and Shapiro. The company argued that any further attempt by Owens to debate, as well her suggesting that the debate would expose the Daily Wire's real "priorities," constituted criticisms of the site and of Shapiro, criticisms that the arbitrator concluded Owens was barred from expressing under her contract with the company.

The arbitrator thus imposed a gag order of prior restraint on Owens. Among other things, the order banned Owens from saying or doing anything in the future which could tarnish or harm the reputation of the Daily Wire and/or Ben Shapiro. Given that the Daily Wire had argued, and the arbitrator agreed, that Owens' offers to debate Shapiro about Israel and anti-semitism were themselves "disparaging," the Daily Wire has ensured that the debate with Owens that they publicly claimed to want could not, in fact, take place. Any such debate would be in conflict with the gag order they obtained on Owens from expressing any criticisms of the site or of Shapiro.

When asked for comment to be included this story, Owens replied: I "wish I could comment on this but I can’t." She added: "can neither confirm nor deny."

Boreing said: "your story is inaccurate to the point of being false," though he did not specify a single inaccuracy, nor did he deny that the Daily Wire had sought and obtained a gag order on Owens at the same time they were publicly posturing as wanting a debate with her. The confirmation we obtained of all these facts is indisputable. Boreing added: "I’m sure you can appreciate how fraught a high profile break-up like this is. For that reason, we are trying to resolve our issues with Candace privately."

It certainly seems true that the Daily Wire is attempting to achieve all of this "privately." Nonetheless, Ben Shapiro has constructed his very lucrative media brand and persona based on his supposed superiority in debating, a reputation cultivated largely as a result of numerous appearances at undergraduate schools around the country where he intrepidly engages with students who are often in their teens or early twenties. Both Shapiro and the Daily Wire have also predicated their collective media brand on an eagerness to engage in free and open debate with anyone, and to vehemently oppose any efforts to silence people, especially those in media, from expressing their political views.

It was the imperatives of this media branding that presumably led the Daily Wire and Shapiro to publicly agree to a debate with Owens over Israel and anti-semitism in the first place. Indeed, when it became apparent early after the start of Israel's war in Gaza that Owens had major differences with Shapiro, Boering responded to calls from Israel supporters for Owens to be fired by proclaiming in November: 

[E]ven if we could, we would not fire Candace because of another thing we have in common - a desire not to regulate the speech of our hosts, even when we disagree with them. Candace is paid to give her opinion, not mine or Ben’s. Unless those opinions run afoul of the law or she violates the terms of her contract in some way, her job is secure and she is welcome at Daily Wire.

But a mere four months later, Owens, despite being of one of the company's most popular hosts, was out. The company had concluded that her increasingly vocal criticisms of Israel, opposition to U.S. financing of it, and her views on anti-semitism were incompatible with the Daily Wire's policies.

All of those issues would likely have been the subject of the public debate that Owens sought, and that the Daily Wire claimed to want. Instead, the Daily Wire has succeeded in obtaining a gag order that, on its face, prevents Owens, in advance, from questioning or criticizing both the Daily Wire or Shapiro in any way.

Become a Supporter

Watch the full episode here: 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google

Good evening. It's Wednesday, May 15. 

Tonight: Professor Jeffrey Sachs is a renowned economist and policy analyst, who has held many positions at Columbia University, where he is currently a professor. He has served as Special Advisor to the U.N. Secretary General, is credited with guiding several countries out of major debt crises, and has become one of the nation's most influential scholars on international relations. He has been on System Update several times before – he is, for good reason, one of our audience's most popular guests, and we are always delighted to talk to him.

We spend significant time in our discussion on what has now become the obvious fact that Ukraine is now losing this war to Russia—exactly as many, including Professor Sachs, have long predicted, only to be accused of being a Russian agent for doing so. We also examine what U.S. motives are still driving the Biden administration to continue to fund a futile war, as well as the increasingly unhinged panic in many NATO states over what appears to be the inevitability of a Ukraine and NATO defeat—including French President Emmanuel Macron recently musing that NATO may need to deploy combat troops to fight along the Ukrainians against the Russian Army. 

We also delve deeply into the ongoing support, financing and arming of Israel's war in Gaza by the Biden administration, and where this war is headed. We talk about whether Biden's temporary suspension of the transfer of some weapons constitutes a genuine restriction on the Israelis, or whether it's just an empty, theatrical gesture. He offers a lot of insightful analysis about where the war goes from here and offers a particularly concise and illuminating explanation about all the incentive schemes in Washington that ensure the U.S. will always be heavily involved in various wars. Given that he is at Columbia, one of the campuses most affected by student protests against the war in Gaza, we discuss whether the crackdown on those protests is a threat to free speech. We conclude the interview by talking about China and its relationship with the U.S. As we reported last night, earlier this week, Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán met with Chinese President Xi and emphasized how central that partnership is for Hungary's future growth and prosperity – something we are seeing in more and more countries around the world, in regions the U.S. once dominated. Professor Sachs analyzes why this is, and how the U.S.'s foreign policy is unwittingly fueling and strengthening China's standing in the world.

Two important notes: 

I need to correct an inaccurate statement I made last night as part of our report on this new bill pending in the House that would cut off funds for the U.S. Defense Department, U.S. State Department, and other agencies of the government unless and until President Biden reversers his temporary suspension of the transfer of some weapons transfer to Israel. 

We said that this bill, introduced by GOP House member Ken Calvert of California, was also supported by Democratic House Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. That was inaccurate: Jeffries opposes the bill – primarily because it denounces Biden – and is concerned that many House Democrats will vote for it and enable it to pass.

Secondly, The Prime Minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico, was targeted by an assassination earlier today, having been shot 5 times and is in critical condition. Prime Minister Fico is one of the most interesting figures in EU politics. Formerly a conventional left-liberal in his two prior stints as Prime Minister, last year, he ran on a campaign based on ceasing all further aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia, as well as opposing core EU dogma on immigration and health policy. For that reason, we covered his victory last year. No information is yet known about who the assassin was or what motivated the attack, so we will cover this tomorrow night once more is known.

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update and our interview with Professor Sacks starting right now.

Watch the full episode here: 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google

Good evening. It's Tuesday, May 14. 

Tonight: One of the most remarkable aspects of U.S. politics in the post-October 7 world is watching how vital and central Israel is to so many U.S. politicians in both political parties. Ever since Mike Johnson proclaimed immediately upon being elected House speaker that the very first thing he would do in his new speakership was to pass a bill to help “our dear friend Israel,” it is hard to deny that D.C. officials have devoted more time, more energy, and more passion to defending the interests of this one foreign country in Tel Aviv than they have to any other issue, including ones that actually affect the lives of American citizens. 

Seemingly, every week brings new ways of elevating Israel and its interest over the interest of the U.S. and the lives of American citizens, however, the House, led by both political parties, really outdid itself this week. Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, of New York, today announced his support for a bill—and I'm not kidding—that would cut off funding for various operations in the U.S.—Pentagon, the U.S. Department of State and other American agencies—unless the Biden administration announces a reversal of its decision to temporarily suspend the transfer of some weapons to Israel. In other words, Congress, both political parties, is prepared to proclaim that a condition for funding our own government and our own country's defenses is that President Biden first must vow that he will give everything Israel wants and demands without any conditions at all. 

I know this is hard to believe. I read the bill. I thought I was reading it wrong. So we will show you the bill and the statements in Congress supporting it, the obvious clarity that this bill will be enacted and approved on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, and will examine how this illustrates the broader, bizarre climate of Washington when it comes to prioritizing the needs and desires of this foreign government above our own government and the people our government nominally represents. 

Then, over the weekend, dozens of students at Duke University protested and walked out on the speech delivered by the commencement speaker, Jerry Seinfeld. Many fanatic Israel supporters, eager to continue their moral panic that the U.S. is facing an anti-Semitism crisis, insisted that this episode constituted further proof of anti-Semitism, even though the reason these students were protesting is that Jerry Seinfeld and his wife have been vocal defenders of the Israeli war in Gaza, and have even financed the pro-Israel counterprotest at UCLA, which turned violent when attacking pro-Palestinian protesters. Not because he's Jewish. We will examine this endless attempt to create a victimhood narrative for American Jews in the United States by absurdly claiming to find bigotry where it so plainly does not exist. 

And then finally, Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban has become somewhat of a folk hero among the populist wing of the American right and populists around the Western world. For that reason, it has been somewhat disorienting and confusing for many of them to see that Viktor Orban is continuously strengthening Hungary's relationship with China, both financial, cultural and even political, and continues to insist on doing so even further, building stronger relations with China is vital to Hungary's interest. It’s worth examining why this is and what it says about how the U.S., through its policies, is doing more than anyone to help China's ascension in the world. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.