Tucker Carlson on whether Donald Trump has betrayed his base

DONALD TRUMP has plenty of cheerleaders in America’s right-leaning media. But during his 2024 presidential campaign, few were more dogged—or more effective—than Tucker Carlson. He cheered Mr Trump’s nomination at the Republican National Convention, campaigned alongside him and even helped shape his choice of running-mate. On election night, he spent the evening at Mar-a-Lago, chatting with an array of Trumpworld figures beneath a kitschy oil painting of the once and future president.

Those days are long gone. Mr Carlson has become one of the president’s fiercest critics on the right—first over the Epstein files and then, more vehemently, over Iran. Mr Trump says his former acolyte has “lost his way”. But Mr Carlson remains influential with the right, thanks to his nationalist views, combative style and a podcast that draws millions of listeners and viewers with a stream of MAGA-adjacent guests.

The Economist travelled to the tony stretch of Florida’s Gulf Coast, where Mr Carlson passes the winter months, to speak with him for “The Insider”, our video show. Looking deeply Floridian, with his gingham shirt, ruddy tan and sockless loafers, he was equal parts charming, pugnacious and aggrieved.

Mr Carlson’s strongest words for the president came when asked whether Mr Trump’s war in Iran betrayed the “America First” notion on which he campaigned. He said “the idea behind it is not only contrary to America First, it may be its inverse.” The war was also “something that he promised he wouldn’t do, not once, but countless times”. Why the reversal? The reason, according to Mr Carlson, is simple: America went to war at the behest of Israel and its influential supporters. He has become a strident critic of America’s relationship with the Jewish state. “You cannot allow a country of 9m to make decisions that are critical to a country of 350m,” he said. “That’s against nature. It’s wrong. And it’s against America’s interest, as this war is.”

He also railed against—or, as he might put it, noted the effectiveness of—Israel’s advocates in America. Mr Trump’s “biggest donors pushed for this war, and they would include, literally, an Israeli citizen.” Comments such as these, which portray Israeli influence in the same conspiratorial, power-behind-the-throne terms long used by antisemites, have led some to label Mr Carlson himself an antisemite, a charge he vehemently denies.

His views on Israeli strategy are contradictory. On the one hand, Israel pushed America into war—though Mr Carlson never explains how a small country could compel a famously stubborn, impulsive and nationalist president to do something he did not otherwise want to do. On the other, Israel has an “inherent drive to territorial expansion and for more resources” and it wants “the United States out [of the Middle East] because the United States has for 80 years constrained [it].” He argued that Israel’s cratering support in America means its leaders want to “get what we can while we can”.

Beyond Israel, he believes that American policymakers “need to understand that we now share the world with China”. So, he said, “you have to have a power-sharing agreement, and the most obvious one that I can think of is based, like all good things, on geography.” That entails accepting that America “is not going to defend and cannot defend Taiwan” because “we’ve reached the limits of our power.”

It also means that “Europe needs to be an ally.” He said the continent “has to be at the centre of the West, as Europe is the West”. He has little patience for European leaders, calling the heads of France, Germany and Britain “buffoons”. But, he said, “Europe is the global centre of beauty” and “things that are beautiful are worth preserving.” Asked whether America First means doubling down on Europe as an ally, Mr Carlson was clear: “Of course…not just out of sentimental love of Europe,” but to counterbalance China’s ambitions.

On the subject of who will inherit Trumpism post-Trump, Mr Carlson was circumspect. He fears that, having been “so slandered as a bigot—which I’m not”, any endorsement from him risks doing more harm than good. Although some have floated him as a possible 2028 presidential candidate, he laughed off the idea (“Of course not”). But he’s not giving up his microphone. Asked whether he is “trying to shape the outcome or the direction of the United States”, he replied simply: “As hard as I can. I live here.” ■