After an Interview with a White Nationalist Tucker Carlson Becomes Person NonGrata with Some
 |
| Tucker Carlson speaking at the memorial service for Charlie Kirk in September.Credit... |
Reporting from Southwest Florida
New York Times
Last month, Tucker Carlson’s genial interview with the white nationalist Nick Fuentes detonated a bomb that further fractured the Trump-era conservative movement he once helped galvanize. This month, Mr. Carlson decided to escape the wreckage for weeks of bird hunting in Maine, South Dakota, Nebraska and Southwest Florida.
During three hours of interviews driving to and from a quail hunting site outside Fort Myers, Mr. Carlson was by turns indignant, reflective and seething — and thoroughly unrepentant for having roiled the conservative movement with the interview, or for his own escalating attacks on those who support Israel.
“Israel does not matter,” he said from behind the steering wheel, casually contradicting the view of Mr. Trump and every president before him, while his two spaniels sat in the back seat. “It’s a country the size of what, Maryland? It has a population of nine million. It has no resources. It’s not strategically important. In fact, it’s a strategic liability.”
Mr. Carlson expressed bafflement over the reaction to his session with Mr. Fuentes. He said he did not understand what was so problematic about his guest, beyond the fact that the conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, had depicted Mr. Fuentes as antisemitic just as he had done to Mr. Carls
“My impression is of a guy who Ben Shapiro attempted to destroy his freshman year of college for asking completely legitimate questions about the U.S. commitment to Israel,” Mr. Carlson said.
In choosing not to challenge Mr. Fuentes’s antisemitism during their discussion on his popular YouTube show, Mr. Carlson focused furious new attention on whether he was deliberately mainstreaming views that were once embraced only on the fringes of American politics — and, in particular, whether he was seeking to further inject far-right ideology into the Republican Party as it begins to think about what it will stand for after President Trump leaves office.
On one level, the debate brought into focus by Mr. Carlson is about the line between free speech and hate speech. On another, it is about whether American conservatism needs to do more to expel racism and extremism from its dialogue and policies. The fissures over those questions are growing more pronounced among Republicans, a shift that is evident in the angry reaction among many on the right to Mr. Carlson’s handling of Mr. Fuentes and his increasingly vocal criticism of American policy toward Israel.
What struck many about Mr. Carlson’s interview was what was not discussed. Mr. Carlson did not explore Mr. Fuentes’s skepticism about the Holocaust or his admiration for Adolf Hitler. He did not bring up Mr. Fuentes’s racist disparagement of Black people and the vice president’s Indian American wife.
When Mr. Fuentes volunteered during the interview that he was “a fan” of Joseph Stalin, Mr. Carlson suggested that they “circle back” to the subject but never did so. Nor did he respond when Mr. Fuentes expressed concern over “organized Jewry in America.”
 |
| Mr. Carlson’s interview with the white nationalist Nick Fuentes made him radioactive among many on the right.Credit...Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York Times |
The interview was in many ways the culmination of Mr. Carlson’s growing feud with conservative fellow travelers. Long a standard-bearer for President Trump’s “America first” mantra, Mr. Carlson, 56, openly criticized the president in June for straying from his principles and for “being complicit in the act of war” by bombing three Iranian nuclear sites in cooperation with the Israeli government.
In the months following the airstrikes, Mr. Carlson continued to question Israel’s strategic value to the U.S. In early September, after the Turning Point USA conservative activist Charlie Kirk vowed that Mr. Carlson would still be speaking at the group’s events, a pro-Israel donor angrily revoked a $2 million pledge to Turning Point.
Then came the interview with Mr. Fuentes, which instantly made Mr. Carlson radioactive among many on the right. When Kevin D. Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation conservative think tank, spoke up to defend Mr. Carlson, he was pilloried by colleagues for having done so, prompting Mr. Roberts to apologize.
While Megyn Kelly and a few other conservative influencers continued to vouch for Mr. Carlson, others, such as Mr. Shapiro and the radio host Mark Levin, condemned him. Mr. Carlson’s two good friends in the White House, Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance, have been conspicuous in their silence.
“I’ve never gotten along better with him,” Mr. Carlson said of the current status of his relationship with Mr. Trump. “He’s never been nicer.” But, Mr. Carlson conceded, his attacks on Israel, along with his gentle treatment of Mr. Fuentes, cost him friendships and led to death threats.
“I just want to be clear about this: I knew what would happen,” Mr. Carlson said of the reaction to his anti-Israel posture. “And I felt that, at this point in my life, I can take it. And it’s worth it, because I want to force a rational public conversation about what’s in our country’s interest.”
Ten minutes later in the interview, though, he returned to the subject of how his fellow conservatives had turned on him, and his unflappability gave way to outrage.
“The most dispiriting fact of the last nine months is that huge proportions of the institutional Republican Party all kind of hate free speech every bit as much as the left does,” he said. “They are every bit as censorious as some blue-haired, menopausal Black Lives Matter activist. And I just didn’t know that. And I’m disgusted. I feel betrayed. I take it personally.”
Still, Mr. Carlson has deep ties in the movement. He campaigned for Mr. Trump in 2024 and, along with Mr. Kirk, was one of the most vocal Republicans to urge Mr. Trump to select Mr. Vance as his running mate. His Fox News evening show had more than three million viewers until he was fired from the network in 2023. His podcast, “The Tucker Carlson Show,” ranked in the top 20 during the first quarter of 2025, ahead of every other conservative political host, according to Edison Research.
 |
| Mr. Carlson campaigning for President Trump at a rally last year in Georgia.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times |
If anything, Mr. Carlson’s interview with Mr. Fuentes may have increased his visibility, or, at least, it did not hurt it. According to the YouTube monitoring website VidIQ.com, his show had 1.46 million paid subscribers the week before the interview. The week after, his subscribers totaled 1.5 million.
Such numbers would seem to confirm the view held by several current and former friends that Mr. Carlson knew exactly what he was doing.
The U.S. escalates its pressure campaign on Venezuela.
Trump defends Tucker Carlson, weeks after the Nick Fuentes interview.
Trump urges House Republicans to vote to release the Epstein files.
“Undue pleasure in going after Israel”
Mr. Carlson, who has often been derided for his claim that he is “just asking questions” when his questions center on conspiracy theories, is starting to find some conspiratorial answers. On a recent show, he described the race-related riots of 2020 as “a manufactured crisis” that had been staged in an effort “to effect broad social change.” In another episode, Mr. Carlson referred to the coronavirus pandemic as a “creation.” The Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol? “The whole thing was managed.”
Mr. Carlson has also produced a documentary about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The U.S. government, he said, “had foreknowledge” of the attacks on the World Trade Center, as did “other actors.”
But Mr. Carlson said that his foremost concern is what he sees as America’s misplaced priorities. Instead of U.S. policymakers attending to domestic challenges like skyrocketing housing costs and a crumbling health care system, he said, “We’ve spent the last 80 years administering a global empire. It’s commanded a massive percentage of our attention and money. That’s the core problem, which no one wants to say.”
In particular, Mr. Carlson said during the interview, America’s devotion to Israel was misplaced. He scoffed at its characterization as America’s one abiding ally in the dangerous neighborhood of the Middle East, saying, “Israel is not only not our most important ally in the Middle East, I’m not even sure they are an ally.”
Mr. Carlson went on to say that he did not altogether blame the Israeli government for “trying to get what it can” from the U.S. Rather, he found fault with American leaders in both parties for “handing over their sovereignty to an irrelevant country in exchange for campaign contributions or, in some cases, protection from blackmail. They’re the ones I have contempt for.”
Mr. Carlson said he abhors antisemitism and that he has numerous Jewish friends who share his qualms with the Israeli government. Still, his characterization of the Jewish state as a devious manipulator leeching resources from a great power is a familiar trope that has aroused suspicions.
“At best, I’d say he’s antisemitic-adjacent,” said Matthew Brooks, the chief executive of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
For that matter, Mr. Carlson himself once offered a similarly skeptical appraisal of the conservative politician Patrick J. Buchanan — who, Mr. Carlson said on a political TV program in 1999, may protest that he was merely speaking “truth to power” and may very well have Jewish friends. But, Mr. Carlson said, “I do believe there is a pattern with Pat Buchanan of needling the Jews. Is that antisemitic? Yeah.”
Several people who were once friendly with Mr. Carlson said in interviews that they found few common traits between the affable libertarian-leaning contrarian of the past and the strident polemicist they see today.
“The undue pleasure he gets in going after Israel and being attacked for it probably comes down more to his desire to be transgressive than to animosity toward Jews,” said Jonah Goldberg, the editor in chief of the conservative online publication The Dispatch and a former friend of Mr. Carlson.
 |
| Jonah Goldberg, the editor in chief of the conservative online publication The Dispatch, is among several people who were once friendly with Mr. Carlson but who now take issue with how he has changed.Credit...William B. Plowman/NBC, via Getty Images |
Mr. Carlson acknowledged that, on certain levels, he is not who he once was. “I’ve changed my opinion on almost every big topic over the years,” he said, citing in particular his previous advocacy of the Iraq war as “one of the worst things I’ve ever done.”
A lifelong Protestant, Mr. Carlson said that he had recently grown “much more devout” and that he had spent a year and a half reading the Bible in its entirety. What drove him to do so, he said, was his belief that “the spiritual war is real” in America. He now recites the Lord’s Prayer daily, he said, as a guard against “hating people on the basis of their race, or just hating them in general.”
Not a “full-on ambush”
Mr. Carlson explained his nonconfrontational approach to Mr. Fuentes in part by saying that he viewed himself as more of an oral historian in the manner of Studs Terkel than an interrogator. Acknowledging that he had not prepared much before interviewing Mr. Fuentes, he said, “Honestly, I was guilty of the same thing I criticize others for, which is judging him by a few three-minute clips I saw.”
The two had dinner at Mr. Carlson’s house in Maine the night before the interview. The host could see that Mr. Fuentes, who came alone, “was rattled, like he thought it was a hit or something.”
In a text exchange, Mr. Fuentes confirmed that he “was very uneasy” and “thought that the show would most likely be a full-on ambush or at least very negative.” Mr. Fuentes added that, after the two went over what the discussion topics would be, “I felt much more comfortable.”
Mr. Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition compared what he called “the fawning way’’ that Mr. Carlson handled Mr. Fuentes with his openly hostile interview of Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican, the month before. The two argued over Israel, Russia and the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites. Mr. Cruz wondered aloud about Mr. Carlson’s “obsession with Israel,” causing Mr. Carlson to respond that the senator was accusing him of antisemitism “in a sleazy, feline way.”
“I have contempt for Ted Cruz,” Mr. Carlson said as he drove back from the quail hunt, where he managed to bag six birds. “Not just in his public positions, but in the way that he lives.” (Mr. Cruz, in a speech the previous evening, said of Mr. Carlson’s interview with Mr. Fuentes that he had “spread a poison that is profoundly dangerous.”)
It remains to be seen whether Mr. Carlson will seek to repair his antagonisms — and, if he does not, what his intransigence will mean for the Republican Party.
“He’s putting a lot of people in a difficult situation,” Mr. Brooks said. “We’re heading into 2028, and one of the key questions that people running for president will face is, `Do you stand on Tucker Carlson’s side, or the other side?’”
Image
“At best, I’d say he’s antisemitic-adjacent,” Matthew Brooks, the chief executive of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said of Mr. Carlson.Credit...Caroline Gutman for The New York Times
Mr. Goldberg, the editor of The Dispatch, believes that forcing a choice is exactly what his former friend has in mind.
“A lot of this is about jockeying for position ahead of 2028,” he said. “If you’re a Republican who believes in a return to normalcy, it’s not hard to disavow Tucker. But if you’ve made your bed with the idea that conservatism is going to remain MAGA — well, then he’s made it complicated.”
Comments