Have advertisers pulled ads from Tucker Carlson's shows or platforms, and which companies were involved?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Yes — advertisers have repeatedly pulled ads from Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show and from his later independent platforms. Reporting catalogs waves of exits across several incidents (dozens of brands in 2018–2021; at least one sponsor after his 2025 Fuentes interview), with named companies including T‑Mobile, Disney, Papa John’s, Pacific Life, Red Lobster, Dell, Rocket Money and others [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. A pattern, not a single event: recurring advertiser exoduses
Advertiser pullbacks around Tucker Carlson have recurred over years rather than being one isolated boycott. Major waves followed his 2018 immigration comments, his 2019 denial of white supremacy as a problem, and his 2020 anti‑BLM remarks; Business Insider counted at least 37 brands that dropped his Fox show by August 2019, and later coverage shows additional rounds of exits and regained stability with different advertisers [1] [6] [7].
2. Who publicly said they would stop: named companies in reporting
Multiple outlets list specific companies that announced pauses or cancellations. T‑Mobile’s CEO publicly said the carrier hadn’t run ads on his show and wouldn’t in future; Disney, Papa John’s, Proactiv, IAC brands (HomeAdvisor/Angie’s List), Jackson Hewitt, Pacific Life, Red Lobster, Dell Technologies, Outback Steakhouse, Indeed, and others were reported among brands that pulled ads in various waves [3] [2] [8] [9] [1].
3. How big the disruption was — and Fox’s counterargument
Coverage shows the advertiser losses were sizable in number but Fox argued the network’s overall ad revenue was not devastated. Variety and The Hill reported many blue‑chip advertisers publicly vowed to avoid Carlson’s hour, while Fox said national ads and revenue had moved to other programs and the network hadn’t lost aggregate revenue [2] [10]. That framing explains why repeated boycotts caused “headaches” but did not necessarily remove Carlson from the schedule during his Fox tenure [3] [10].
4. Different causes, similar mechanics: social pressure meets advertiser risk management
The triggers varied — inflammatory remarks on immigration , comments minimizing white supremacy , and statements about Black Lives Matter — yet the mechanism was similar: activist groups and social campaigns highlighted brands running during Carlson’s hour and pressured them to pull buys; some companies publicly cited reevaluation of placements [6] [9] [8]. Media buyers, brands and advocacy groups (e.g., Media Matters, Sleeping Giants, ADL) were repeatedly central to creating that commercial pressure [6] [3] [11].
5. Beyond Fox: advertisers on Carlson’s post‑Fox platforms
After Carlson left Fox and launched independent programming, reporting shows advertisers still mattered. Popular Information and The Independent reported at least one company, Rocket Money (part of Rocket Companies), removed sponsorship from Carlson’s online show after his 2025 interview with Nick Fuentes [4]. Available sources do not give a comprehensive list of every company that later sponsored or pulled from his post‑Fox platforms.
6. Numbers matter — audience vs. advertiser leverage
Even as many brands pulled ads, Carlson’s programs remained high‑rated, giving Fox commercial value; Forbes and Variety reporting from the era noted his show generated tens of millions in ad revenue and remained a ratings draw, which limited how far boycotts could go without coordinated advertiser exits that targeted the network more broadly [7] [2] [10]. This dynamic explains why some analysts called boycotts consequential symbolically but limited in forcing network personnel changes [10].
7. Competing interpretations and hidden incentives
Sources present competing views: activist groups frame advertiser pullbacks as consumer accountability; Fox and some columnists frame them as “agenda‑driven intimidation” or corporate PR responses rather than principled decisions [3] [10]. Industry reporting signals advertisers often shift buys programmatically or to other timeslots rather than cut network spending completely, indicating brands manage reputational risk while preserving reach [2] [10].
8. What sources don’t say
Available sources do not provide a definitive, up‑to‑date master list of every company that ever pulled ads across all Carlson episodes and platforms; they also do not quantify total dollars lost to every boycott episode in one consolidated figure (not found in current reporting). For the most complete vendor lists, outlets cited ongoing trackers (e.g., Media Matters, Hollywood Reporter) and investigative newsletters like Popular Information [6] [4].
Bottom line: reporting across multiple outlets documents repeated advertiser pullbacks, names numerous household brands that publicly paused or halted placements, and shows a recurring tug‑of‑war between public pressure and the commercial incentives that kept Carlson profitable for networks and, later, viable on independent platforms [1] [2] [4].