Tucker Carlson has ignited a political firestorm on the right, using his own program to denounce President Donald Trump and the broader MAGA movement he once championed.
The dramatic turn came during a recent episode of The Tucker Carlson Show, where Carlson sat down with his brother, Buckley Carlson, for a lengthy and unusually personal critique of Trumps character, record, and fitness for office, according to The Gateway Pundit. The conversation unfolded just days after reports that Tuckers son, also named Buckley Carlson and long regarded as a loyal Trump ally, had quietly exited his role in the Trump administration, where he had been serving as Deputy Press Secretary to Vice President JD Vance.
As reported by Gateway Pundit, sources close to the situation say the younger Carlsons departure coincides with growing tensions over the administrations forceful posture toward Iran, a policy shift that has unsettled some on the non-interventionist right.
During the broadcast, the Carlson brothers unleashed a barrage of criticism at the man they once hailed as a political savior, going so far as to question whether Trump should remain in office. The two even called for the 25th Amendment to be invoked to remove President Trump from power, a remedy conservatives have historically condemned when floated by the left against Republican presidents.
The shift is particularly striking given Buckley Carlsons own history as a Trump loyalist. This is the same Buckley Carlson who helped write Trumps speeches and defended him for years, yet now he is openly calling for the presidents removal from office.
Tucker Carlson, for his part, expressed deep regret over his role in helping Trump ascend to the presidency, suggesting that his support was a moral and political error that will weigh on him for years. He can survive. So looking back because you and I and everyone else who supported him, you wrote speeches for him, I campaigned for him. Were implicated in this for sure. Its not enough to say, Well, I changed my mind, or Oh, this is bad, Im out. Its like, in very small ways, but in real ways, you and me and millions of people like us are the reason this is happening right now, Tucker said, acknowledging the complicity he feels in Trumps rise.
Carlson went further, describing the moment as a kind of moral reckoning for those who once rallied behind Trumps populist message. So I do think its a moment to wrestle with our own consciences. Well be tormented by it for a long time. I will be. And I want to say Im sorry for misleading people. It was not intentional. Thats all Ill say, he continued, framing his past support as a mistake born not of malice but of misjudgment.
From there, the discussion turned darker, as Tucker openly questioned whether Trumps trajectory had been preordained by forces and motives not fully understood. But anyway, the question does present itself immediately. Like, what is this? Was this always the plan? You dont want to be a conspiracy nut, but clearly there were signs of low character. We knew that, he said, suggesting that Trumps flaws were visible early on, even to those who chose to overlook them.
Buckley agreed that the warning signs had been present, yet not fully appreciated by those inside the movement. Yes. But it didnt he began, before Tucker interjected, There are tons of people of low character who outperform their character. Buckley responded, It doesnt have to be sort of the norm, actually, these days. Right, underscoring their shared belief that character still matters, even in a political culture that often rewards the opposite.
Tucker then turned the lens on himself, insisting that he, too, is far from perfect but has tried to act in good faith. Ive outperformed my character a lot. I dont have especially high character, right? But you try your best. But what was this? Was this always the plan? he asked, implying that Trumps recent conduct may reflect a deeper, more troubling design rather than mere impulsiveness.
Buckley, looking back over the last year and a half, suggested that the pattern now appears deliberate. Looking back after the last year and a half, it seems like it kind of was. And its easy Well, you could get really deep about it and say, What was Butler? Like, how was it that he And Ryan Routh. I mean, he was subject to two legitimate assassination attempts. Have we ever gotten to the bottom? I know youve talked a lot about this, but have we ever gotten to the bottom? he asked, raising unresolved questions about serious threats to Trumps life and the opaque investigations that followed.
Tucker pushed back slightly on the idea that he had exhaustively covered those incidents, but agreed that the official inquiries have been blocked. I havent talked a lot about it. I dont know the answer, but I know that those investigations have been stymied, he said, hinting at institutional resistance to full transparency.
Buckley was more direct, alleging interference from the highest levels of power. Fact. Yeah, stymied from the very top, from people who actually would have the power to get to the bottom and the motive. Yes. Yeah, very much. The enormous amount of money he got from Miriam Adelson now seems suspect. A lot of people at the time, you know, theres a lot of money in politics. To run for president requires an enormous I mean, Kathleen Hamilton went through $2 billion in 4 months. Sure, theres an argument to be made that you get money from those who will give it to you. Its just the nature of that game, he argued, drawing a line between blocked investigations and the influence of major donors.
Yet Buckley insisted that the scale and source of that funding raise serious ethical and geopolitical concerns. But its still reprehensible, and its still a big question mark. Why would someone who has this obvious and demonstrated allegiance to a foreign power give Donald Trump $250 million while hes running for president? I mean, how is that defensible? Its really not. If Russia had given a PAC for Trump, if the mayor of Moscow had somehow assembled an enormous amount of money and put it in a 501(c)(3) for Trumps benefit, would that have been acceptable? Of course it wouldnt have been, he said, likening the Adelson money to the kind of foreign interference conservatives have long warned against.
The conversation then returned to the central question of what such donors might have received in exchange for their investment. So what did someone it comes back to the money. What did they get in return for that amount of investment? And its clear. I get it, Buckley added, implying that Trumps policy choices may have been shaped by donor interests rather than the America First principles he once espoused.
Tucker concurred with Buckleys critique but pressed further on Trumps selective loyalty. No, I mean, of course I agree with every word that youre saying. I just think, given his behavior and his demonstrated disloyalty and viciousness to previous supporters, why didnt he display the same lack of loyalty to Miriam Adelson? I mean, thats kind of the question. The only people hes been loyal to are the neocons and his donors, he said, accusing Trump of siding with the very establishment forceswar hawks and big-money intereststhat grassroots conservatives have spent years trying to dislodge.
From there, Tucker condemned Trumps recent rhetorical attacks on religion, a line many on the right see as crossing a fundamental moral boundary. So he attacks Islam. Some of us stand up and say, probably shouldnt be attacking a religion. Oh, youre a Muslim, secret Muslim. You love Muslims. No, I like reverence, and I dont think you should attack people on the basis of their religion, Tucker said, defending the principle of religious respect even for faiths he does not share.
Buckley agreed that the target should never be the faith itself. You dont attack the religion. Yes, he replied, before Tucker noted the hypocrisy of some self-described Christian supporters. And all these evangelicals are like, Oh, you see, youre a Muslim. The next week he attacks Jesus. Wow. Okay, because its all connected, right? Tucker said, suggesting that once contempt for religion is normalized, no faith is safe from ridicule.
Clearly. Of course. Well beyond money, obviously, Buckley concluded, hinting that the crisis surrounding Trump is not merely about campaign cash or foreign entanglements, but about deeper questions of character, loyalty, and spiritual integrity that conservatives can no longer afford to ignore.
Login