How did Tucker Carlson publicly describe his views on Israel before and after his departure from Fox News?

1. From tacit silence to explicit critique: Carlson’s evolution after Fox

Carlson’s posture shifted markedly once he left the Fox primetime platform: reporting shows he “began to turn against Israel in the past year,” reframing U.S.–Israel ties in isolationist terms and using his unfiltered platforms to push critiques he rarely made on Fox ^{[5] [6]}. His newsletter and commentary argued the U.S. should “drop Israel” and stop backing Israeli military action — a clear break from the reflexive support typical of mainstream Republican leaders ^[1].

2. Words on the record: “Israel does not matter” and the strategic‑liability claim

In recorded interviews circulated after his Fox tenure, Carlson said bluntly “Israel does not matter,” called the country small and without important resources, and labeled it a “strategic liability” — an explicit, public reappraisal that contradicts recent Republican presidential rhetoric and longstanding bipartisan policy assumptions ^[2]. Those remarks are cited widely as emblematic of his new line.

3. Platforming controversial figures and the fallout

Post‑Fox Carlson has given extended, largely unchallenged airtime to figures such as Nick Fuentes and other anti‑Israel or Holocaust‑revisionist guests; outlets document that these interviews have magnified concerns that Carlson is amplifying antisemitic voices while challenging pro‑Israel conservatives ^{[3] [4] [5]}. The decision to host such guests produced a sharp conservative rift: some allies defended Carlson’s right to critique Israel, while others resigned or publicly condemned the platforming ^{[3] [5]}.

4. How Carlson frames his critique: isolationism, “globalists,” and a cultural argument

Carlson presents his criticism in populist, isolationist terms — attacking “neoconservatism,” “globalist elites,” and what he calls “Christian Zionists” as driven by a “brain virus” — framing opposition to U.S. support for Israel as patriotic realism rather than prejudice ^{[7] [3] [8]}. Some commentators interpret that rhetoric as a rebranding of older anti‑intervention instincts; others see it as overlapping with conspiratorial and ethnicized language ^{[6] [8]}.

5. Competing interpretations and consequences on the right

Conservative responses split: institutions like the Heritage Foundation defended Carlson’s right to critique Israel and warned against “cancelling” him, while other prominent conservatives and Jewish leaders called his trajectory into “dangerous antisemitic territory” and criticized the normalization of extremist guests ^{[3] [4]}. Coverage frames Carlson as a litmus test in a conservative civil war over Israel, antisemitism and the limits of the movement’s “big tent” ^[9].

6. Historical context and the limits of available reporting

Analysts place Carlson’s turn within a longer strand of “woke right” and anti‑interventionist currents in conservative politics, noting that his post‑Fox freedom allowed him to voice attitudes he avoided on network TV; sources caution not to confuse his critique with solidarity with Palestinians, describing it instead as a populist repositioning ^{[6] [10]}. Available sources do not mention private conversations or motives beyond his public statements and choice of guests; they document public remarks, platforming choices, and institutional reactions ^{[2] [5]}.

7. What to watch next

Reporting suggests consequences will be political and reputational: expect continued fracture among conservatives, further scrutiny from Jewish organizations, and debates inside right‑wing institutions over whether critiquing U.S. support for Israel crosses into antisemitism — with Carlson’s future interviews and public language shaping that argument ^{[3] [4] [9]}. Sources show both defenders and detractors are already using Carlson as a test case for the boundaries of acceptable discourse on Israel ^{[3] [9]}.