Why did Tucker Carlson change his mind about Israel
Executive summary
Tucker Carlson’s turn against Israel is a recent, measurable shift in his rhetoric that analysts date to spring–summer 2025 and that combines ideological, strategic and audience-driven motives: a pivot toward populist anti-interventionism and “America First” calculations, attraction to Gulf-state partners and energy narratives, and tactical use of culture-war arguments that criticize Christian Zionism — all amplified by his platform choices and feedback from a growing right‑wing audience [1] [2] [3]. Critics argue the rhetoric traffics in antisemitic tropes and conspiratorial framings, while sympathizers frame it as principled realism about U.S. interests [4] [5].
1. The timing: a quantifiable change in volume and tone
Independent researchers at the Jewish People Policy Institute and media reports tracked a sharp rise in Carlson’s negative Israel-related content beginning in April 2025, documenting a marked increase both in frequency and in the intensity of his critiques compared with prior months [1] [2] [6]. The JPPI’s AI analysis found that Israel moved from an intermittent subject to a central theme in his output over the months that followed, a pattern confirmed and summarized by other outlets including The Times of Israel and Algemeiner [7] [6].
2. Ideology: anti‑interventionism and populist realignment
Carlson’s critique fits a broader intellectual shift on the populist right toward skepticism of long-standing U.S. foreign-policy commitments and a rejection of what he frames as “globalist” elites; commentators note he’s recast Israel through that lens as an outsized foreign-policy obsession that disadvantages American interests [8]. Analysts at the Hudson Institute described his arguments as downgrading Israel in favor of energy-rich Gulf partners, arguing Carlson frames U.S. ties to Qatar and other GCC states as “infinitely more important” than the alliance with Israel [3].
3. Strategic arguments: energy, geopolitics and “what do we get?”
On platforms such as the Doha Forum and in interviews, Carlson explicitly contrasted Israel’s demographics and resource base with Gulf states’ energy wealth, asking bluntly what the U.S. receives from its security guarantee and praising partnerships with Qatar and other GCC members as more directly valuable to Washington [3]. Critics counter that those claims misstate economic and security realities — for example, that Israel is a net gas exporter and an increasingly important player in regional energy ties — accusing Carlson of cherry‑picking facts to fit a narrative [9].
4. Culture‑war calculus: attacking Christian Zionism and elite networks
Part of Carlson’s message reframes U.S. pro‑Israel policy as driven by religious or elite commitments rather than national interest, calling Christian Zionism a “brain virus” and interrogating evangelical support for Israel — a line that has practical political resonance inside a MAGA‑aligned movement debating its posture toward the Jewish state [10]. That critique both attracts allies on the anti‑war left and fuels ire among pro‑Israel conservatives, producing an unusual cross‑ideological echo chamber around his messaging [8].
5. Platform choices, amplification and accusations of antisemitism
Carlson’s amplification of fringe figures and uncritical hosting of controversial guests has drawn sharp rebukes; watchdog groups and Jewish organizations allege that some of his rhetoric traffics in antisemitic tropes about disproportionate “influence” and “psychological” shaping of U.S. policy, charges he and some supporters deny while others warn his platform normalizes extremist voices [4] [7]. Studies and commentators note that while Carlson has condemned explicit antisemitism at times, his editorial choices and repeated negative framing of Israel have coincided with a broader spike in hostile content from right‑wing influencers [7] [2].
6. Motives, incentives and competing readings
Beyond ideology, incentives matter: shifting audience dynamics, monetization of controversy, and the ambition to reshape conservative orthodoxy provide pragmatic motives for Carlson’s turn, while admirers portray him as breaking a taboo to prioritize U.S. interests over entrenched alliances [5]. Observers caution that motives are mixed and that different actors — think tanks, political allies, and platform algorithms — may have implicit agendas that shape how his critique is framed and received [3] [8].
Conclusion: a complex pivot with clear consequences
The change in Carlson’s stance is empirical, ideologically coherent and politically consequential: it reflects a broader realignment on the U.S. right that pairs populist anti‑interventionism with new geopolitical priorities and culture‑war rhetoric, and it has provoked both scholarly measurement of a spike in anti‑Israel content and fierce debate over whether his arguments are realistic policy critique or veiled bigotry [1] [6] [4].