What specific comments by Tucker Carlson have been labeled antisemitic and when were they made?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Tucker Carlson has been repeatedly accused of antisemitism for a series of public statements and interviews spanning at least 2023–2025, including demeaning descriptions of Jewish individuals, platforming Holocaust minimizers and extremists, and promoting tropes about Jewish power and “replacement” that many groups label antisemitic [1] [2] [3]. Carlson and some defenders deny he is antisemitic, arguing he is critiquing Israel or elites rather than Jews as a group, while Jewish organizations, members of Congress and conservative institutions have publicly condemned specific remarks and guest choices [4] [2] [5].
1. “Rat-like” description of Volodymyr Zelensky — debut show, June 2023
On the debut of his Twitter-based show in June 2023, Carlson described Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky — who is Jewish — using imagery and language widely condemned as antisemitic, calling him “rat-like” and accusing him of persecuting Christians, prompting condemnations from the American Jewish Committee and B’nai B’rith International because the remarks invoked longstanding antisemitic tropes linking Jewish leaders to moral and physical degeneracy [1].
2. Platforming Holocaust minimizers and a “popular historian” praise — September 2024
In September 2024 Carlson aired an interview with Daryl Cooper, whom critics and Jewish members of Congress describe as a Nazi apologist and Holocaust revisionist; Jewish representatives said Carlson not only amplified Cooper’s views but called him “the most important popular historian in the United States,” a formulation that drew a joint statement from Jewish members of the House condemning the interview as promoting Holocaust denial and revisionism [2].
3. “Demographic change,” Soros tropes and the “great replacement” insinuations — recurring through 2024–2025
Observers and scholars have pointed to Carlson’s recurring rhetoric about “demographic change,” “replacing the population,” and persistent attacks on George Soros as echoing the “great replacement” and classic antisemitic conspiracies about Jewish control of elites; the Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry and other analysts trace that language directly to far-right antisemitic idioms and say Carlson’s audience understands the coded meaning [4].
4. Platforming extremists and the Nick Fuentes interview — late 2025
Carlson’s two-hour-plus interview with Nick Fuentes — a white nationalist figure described by outlets as antisemitic — drew sharp condemnations in late October 2025 and exposed fractures among conservatives, with some defenders (including Heritage Foundation leadership) and many critics within the GOP and Jewish organizations denouncing Carlson for normalizing an antisemitic extremist by giving him a national platform [6] [7] [5].
5. Eulogy and religious-blood libel imagery, Temple Mount claims, and other episodes — 2025
In September 2025 Carlson’s eulogy for Charlie Kirk was criticized for invoking deicide-like language and conspiracy claims that the Anti-Defamation League and other groups said echoed blood‑libel myths about Jews, and in mid- to late‑2025 he hosted guests who made inflammatory claims about Israel and the Temple Mount that Jewish groups and commentators said Carlson failed to challenge and thereby amplified antisemitic misinformation [8] [9].
Conclusion — pattern, denials, and institutional reactions
Taken together, these episodes form the basis for allegations that Carlson traffics in antisemitic tropes: critics point to repeated tropes (dehumanizing metaphors, conspiratorial claims about Jewish power, hosting Holocaust revisionists and extremists) across 2023–2025, while Carlson and some allies contest the label by framing his remarks as criticism of Israel or as debate-provoking questions [10] [4]; institutional responses have ranged from formal condemnations by Jewish groups and members of Congress to defenses from some conservative institutions, reflecting both political fault lines and differing standards for what constitutes antisemitism [2] [5] [7]. Exact evaluations depend on whether one interprets his language and guest-booking choices as explicit antisemitic statements or as rhetorical strategies that critics say have predictable antisemitic effects; reporting documents the cited instances and the dates given above, and does not contain an exhaustive list beyond those episodes [1] [2] [4] [6] [8] [3] [9].