How did Nick Fuentes’ appearance on Tucker Carlson’s platform affect conservative support for Israel in 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Nick Fuentes’ October 2025 appearance on Tucker Carlson’s podcast sharpened and publicized an existing conservative split over Israel: it amplified an anti‑Israel, antisemitic strain that gained visibility and recruits while provoking strong pushback from mainstream pro‑Israel conservatives and Jewish groups, leaving the GOP fractured and uncertain about its future stance toward Israel [1] [2] [3].
1. The event that detonated a long‑smoldering quarrel
The two‑hour Carlson–Fuentes sitdown, widely viewed online, featured Fuentes advancing conspiratorial critiques of “organized Jewry” and Carlson echoing and reframing anti‑Israel arguments, which immediately forced a high‑profile confrontation inside the conservative movement over whether such views could be normalized [4] [5] [2].
2. Immediate conservative backlash: gatekeepers and denunciations
A cluster of mainstream conservative figures and organizations publicly condemned Carlson’s decision to host Fuentes and the antisemitic content on display; commentators like Ben Shapiro and Republican senators denounced the platforming, Jewish groups and the Republican Jewish Coalition expressed alarm, and some Heritage Foundation staffers reportedly reacted with resignation and outrage even as its president defended Carlson’s right to engage [2] [6] [3].
3. Countervailing normalization and opportunism on the right
At the same time, the episode opened doors for Fuentes and the anti‑Israel fringe: conservative media figures and segments of the MAGA base began courting or amplifying Fuentes’ views, and outlets reported Fuentes being invited onto more conservative platforms rather than being sidelined, a sign that the anti‑Israel message had found new vectors within the movement [6] [7].
4. Institutional and political consequences: fissures, resignations and strategic ambiguity
The fallout forced institutions and politicians to choose sides, producing public resignations, protests at Republican Jewish Coalition events, and mixed signals from GOP leaders — President Trump refused to condemn Carlson or Fuentes and framed the controversy as a matter of personal choice, while other GOP figures vocally repudiated the episode — a dynamic that made GOP support for Israel conditional and politically fraught rather than uniformly steady [8] [3] [9].
5. Net effect on conservative support for Israel in 2025: fragmentation and uncertainty, not uniform abandonment
Taken together, reporting shows the Carlson–Fuentes interview did not instantly convert the conservative movement wholesale away from Israel, but it materially eroded the unanimity and created a louder, emboldened anti‑Israel current within parts of the right even as a still‑powerful pro‑Israel faction fought to hold the line; the overall effect in 2025 was therefore a deepened schism and increased strategic ambiguity about GOP Israel policy rather than a single directional shift [10] [7] [2].