Tucker Carlson’s apology for having supported Trump
There’s been a lot of brouhaha about Tucker Carlson’s unctuous “confession” to his brother Buckley (a lot of “ucks” there), saying that he deeply and contritely regrets his previous support of and campaigning for Trump. If you can stomach his sanctimonious mien, and his self-serving claim of outsized influence, here’s the clip:
But in all I’ve read on this, I haven’t seen anyone emphasize what’s so especially disingenuous about Carlson’s apology. As Churchill might say, he’s re-ratting. Remember this? It wasn’t so very long ago that the story came out, either; just three years (2023, prior to the 2024 election in which Tucker campaigned for Trump):
The latest filings in the case suggest Mr Carlson expressed his dislike of the outgoing US president two days before Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol to derail lawmakers from certifying Joe Biden’s election win.
“We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights,” he wrote in a text sent on 4 January 2021. “I truly can’t wait.”
“I hate him passionately,” he added.
Mr Carlson, the top-rated host on the conservative network, also appeared to denigrate the Trump presidency in these private messages, despite lauding his achievements on air.
“That’s the last four years. We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There isn’t really an upside to Trump.”
Fancy, fancy, FANCY that. And all that time, Tucker had been pretending to like Trump – and then later in 2024 he campaigned for him.
Have people forgotten this? I’m puzzled; why are so many taking his apology seriously? I can understand why the left would, because it suits their purposes. But the right? I remember the revelation of Tucker’s hatred for Trump while at Fox because it surprised me at the time, and I filed it away as “Tucker Carlson is not ever ever to be trusted.” We discovered then that all that time he’d been pretending to be for Trump he really wasn’t.
Then again, which was the actual pretense? Was he just pretending to like Trump while at Fox, or were the emails the pretense and he was just pretending to hate him when he wrote them? And then later, during the 2024 election, what was Tucker pretending? Was he just supporting Trump then in order to get supposed influence over Vance or Trump? Or had he changed his mind once more and liked Trump again?
And now what is Carlson pretending? One thing I don’t think he’s pretending now is his hatred of Jews and Israel. I think it’s very sincere. His brother Buckley is quite his equal in that, as well:
But here I am, writing about Carlson again. Why? First of all, I think that he’s a fascinating case. And secondly, although I also think he has less influence on the right than his traffic would indicate, and that he’s following trends as much as he’s creating them, I think it works in both directions and that he does indeed have some influence in spreading the hyper-Buchananesque word and that his message does find traction, especially with young men.
I’ve written several previous pieces on Tucker’s transformation (see this list). But I want to add one more event that might have fostered it: the death of his father in March of 2025. Dick Carlson was a strong and colorful figure with a life of achievement, but among other things he was a “Christian Zionist,” a group that Tucker said in November of 2025 that he “dislikes more than anybody” and which he called “a heresy” It may be that, with his father’s death, Tucker finally felt free to more fully reveal his sentiments about Christian Zionists and Israel and Jews.
I watched a recent video of Victor Davis Hanson in which he wondered about Carlson. VDH said he went from being a weekly guest on TC’s show to banishment. I got the impression that although VDH was not going to spend much time trying to figure out what happened to him, he did mention the death of his father might have caused a lot of trauma to him and then sending him into a tailspin. Another possibility VDH put out is that maybe TC thought his support of Trump gave him practically unlimited access & influence concerning the Trump presidency. He conceded that was only possibly one factor but perceived rejection can cause some strong reactions.
chazzand:
I don’t know whether you’ve read my 3-part series about Carlson’s change, or my other posts on the subject (links are here), but I’ve got many additional ideas about it although I agree with those two points of VDH’s.
He is quite the piece of work.
What is the Latin phrase about liars and legal cases? Falsity in totality, the extent just grows and grows?
It’s hard to tell when, if ever, in his broadcast career Carlson has had core convictions.
Here’s a piece by commentator John Sexton pointing out a couple of cases in a recent NY Times interview with Carlson in which Carlson simply won’t be pinned down, although he claims transparency. Carlson says, among other things, that Ted Cruz “called for the murder of innocents” and that makes Cruz much, much worse than Nick Fuentes. Pressed for when Cruz endorsed mass murder, the only answer was “Gaza.” Totally dishonest.
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2026/05/02/tucker-carlson-really-cant-defend-that-interview-with-nick-fuentes-n3814534
Tucker reminds me of Peggy Noonan. She was such a huge supporter of GW Bush, and publicly worried that he would lose the election to Kerry. After Bush won, and almost overnight, she declared Bush a “failed President.” Weird.
These pundits are narcissists. Certainly not deep thinkers.
He reminds me of Meghan Kelly, sometimes sarcastically called ‘Me-Again’ Kelly. I think as online personalities of the ‘talking head’ variety, they have a need to predict which way the wind blows, and their standing as influential authorities depends on them staying ahead of the wind shifts, and being there in advance of the arriving crowd. Kelly has similarly changed tack a number of times in her career, now inclined to be against Trump, and then shifting back to a supportive position. They’re fabulists.
Tucker was once amusing, his opening monologs on Fox could be entertaining, but like all of these characters, when he touches on a subject you actually know something about, you suddenly realize the nature of the craft – it’s to sound smart without actually knowing the bones of your subject. It’s all about keeping the attention of the viewer, storytelling, and not about educating them with properly grounded facts. You don’t learn anything by listening, you just pass time and think your understanding is improved, when it isn’t.
They never want viewers like this to catch on to that reveal, that they’re actually a complete fraud. But Carlson and Kelly and others like them, are complete frauds.
@ Aggie: “You don’t learn anything by listening, you just pass time and think your understanding is improved, when it isn’t.”
I think something similar happens when I spend so much time trying to read a variety of (even just) conservative writers. Sometimes they do a rather poor job of structuring their writing for coherence and purpose, or they get go on too too long for my internet reduced patience.
The availability of some 17,000 Substack writers also provides a “too big” circus to visit. Spending enough time to learn who is valuable and who is not is also a time consumer. There are probably a fair number of otherwise talented writers that I will never read, just because there is never enough time.
@ R2L > “talented writers that I will never read, just because there is never enough time.”
I feel the same about libraries and bookstores now: so many books, so little time.
And now I read even fewer books than I used to because I’m trying to keep up with the news. It’s like a long-running soap opera based on a suspense novel in eleventy volumes, and no one knows the ending, or sees all the plot twists before we do.
Yes, a lot of posts are incoherent at times, repetitive almost always (repeating a tweet that they just posted part of….); the authors spend too long rehashing background information so they can show off their own “brand” zingers; and the major (and sometimes only) purpose is getting views (aka clicks — hence the click-bait headlines at even reputable major sites).
All of the Salem writers cross-link each other (kind of like the Marvel Comics Universe); most repeat the same data, although occasionally one picks up on something the others missed; and when you get down to the bottom of the days “pile of papers” they all are quoting the two or three actual real reporters still turning out original work.
I sometimes think of Neo’s site as my daily news aggregator. I will look at almost any identifiable link made by the Neophiles, because there are a wide range of readers here with different “beats” on the internet. (No blind YouTube forays, sorry.)
@ myself > “I’m trying to keep up with the news. It’s like a long-running soap opera based on a suspense novel in eleventy volumes, and no one knows the ending, or sees all the plot twists before we do.”
Case in point:
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/terminator-saturday-may-2-2026-c
I remember that part of the story, but the cellmate only figured as a fleeting bit player.
Stay tuned for the next episode.
The details would be a perfect fit for any number of Crime & Detection shows, or Spy thrillers (with a little massaging for the genre conventions).
Well, there would have to be dragons and magic for a GoT tie-in, but other than that, yeah.
The shortest distance between two conspiracy theories is a NYT block-buster.
Why now?
Who?
Whom?
After that discursus on the NYT story about Epstein, I’m mentally exhausted. “Labyrnthine” is the only word that comes to my mind. And speaking of words, “smarmy” pops up whenever I have the misfortune to see or hear anything by or about Carlson. That, and “psychopathic.”
I thought Epstein was alone in the cell the night he died, which would make strangulation by this violent former cellmate tough. Are they alleging the jailers smuggled Tartaglione in, let him strangle Epstein, and then smuggled him out again? Really, I am tired of Epstein and his entire tawdry story.
Fox owns the company that produces Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly as well as a bunch of other “independent” talking heads. The more we pay attention to them, the more money is made by them and by Fox.
Other “independent” talking heads have podcasts owned by other big companies, of course. There’s lots of money to be made in fake independent commentary, and if they gin up controversy with each other, whether in their own “stable” or competitors’, everyone can make a little more.
@AesopFan:All of the Salem writers cross-link each other (kind of like the Marvel Comics Universe); most repeat the same data, although occasionally one picks up on something the others missed; and when you get down to the bottom of the days “pile of papers” they all are quoting the two or three actual real reporters still turning out original work.
So thankful someone else has noticed this and is bothered by it. I also get tired of having to click the link to find the link to click to get to the original, which frequently has been distorted somewhat by the game of telephone.
Incidentally, the reason Fox bought these podcasters, at least according to what Red Seat Ventures told Hollywood Reporter in 2025, is to make money from fake independent “journalism”:
And this appears to be working. We have all the drama of them “leaving” Fox, with them coming right back into Fox by another door that has “Fox” crossed out and “Red Seat Ventures” scrawled on it in purple crayon. Fox can make money from these people without being tarred by the association, and they can of course do likewise (since much of their audience is disillusioned by Fox), and when people comment on Carlson or Kelly I almost never see Fox mentioned. Whether it’s by Fox’s fake independent talking heads or somebody else’s fake independent talking heads.
And they can even brag about pulling the wool over our eyes to Hollywood Reporter.
If it wasn’t Fox it would be somebody else, I’m not trying to demonize Fox here. For other fake independent talking heads it IS somebody else. I think it’s just another illustration that what we see online is mostly fake. “Fake” in that it is not what it is labeled as being. “Independent” “new media” is being produced by the same people who produce “legacy media”. Which we still don’t hate enough.
If we regard Kelly and Carlson as antisemites, or at least as people who are platforming antisemitism, then Fox is making money from antisemitism, and so is any talking head criticizing them who is also working at one remove from Fox. Fox is monetizing both “sides” of the controversy, people who are for Carlson and Kelly as well as people who are against them.
Come on, people. He’s an entertainer, not to be taken seriously.
Here is Tucker in a full on lie about calling Trump the anti-Christ:
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2026/05/those-words-never-left-my-lips.html
He is a smarmy sociopath, at least; I really do wonder about that demon encounter he mentioned a few years ago.
Yet I wonder if all shouldn’t drop any reference to Tucker? Air is only think keeping him alive. No free publicity he becomes meaningless
“Fox is monetizing both “sides” of the controversy…”
Sounds suspiciously like the SPLC (SPLICC?)
– – – – – –
As for “a fascinating case”…this one is out of the ballpark!
“‘Bluesky Goes Full Panic’ After Fired Trump Official’s Anti-ICE Website Doxxes Almost 18,000 Leftists”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bluesky-goes-full-panic-after-exposed-api-unveils-anti-ice-army-18000-leftists
Key grafs:
Just WOW!!
As Uncle Joe once said? …
‘Who will dox the doxers? What will happen then Mr. Goose? Will the chickens truly roost?’
Hoisted by their own retard.
Who can possibly care?
Cicero:
Who could care? Some in the FBI, DHS, ICE, DOJ; some who would want to prosecute criminal leftists, and some who would want to protect criminal leftists.
The moron who set up GTFOICE was an ex-FBI employee (if you bothered to read) who would want to be protected as a probable criminal leftist.
— R2L
Yeah, that’s exactly right.
I personally am embarrassed that I was as old as I was when I realized that all news coverage, without exception, is ‘agenda coverage’. I should have made that connection far younger than I did.
It’s not new, of course. In the late 1800s and early 20C, every city of any size had multiple newspapers, with various more-or-less open biases and orientations. There would be a Democrat paper, a Republican paper, a pro-union and a pro-employer paper, often a specifically religious or ethnic paper, depending on the local demographics. If the city had a large immigrant population, there would often be foreign-language papers catering to them.
They were openly businesses and headlines and coverage were so calculated ot maximize sales, both to readers and to advertisers (and the latter depended on bringing the former). In short, they were ‘click bait’.
For a little while, say from the 1920s through the 1990s, the entire industry coalesced into one single voice and one single narrative, which portrayed itself as ‘neutral and objective’, and of course was anything but. It was still driven by the personal ideology of the reporters (maybe more so than in the old days when there was a lot of competition), by the preferred demographic targets of the advertisers, and class interests in a way the old papers did not. (A given social class might be catered to by a given newspaper, but the industry as a whole back in the old days did not).
The Internet more or less restored that multiple channeling, but the same forces that drove consolidation before still apply, as well. Inevitably, power centers emerged that act in their own interest.
There’s an old saying from the newspaper era that people read newspaper columnists not to be informed, but to have their already-extant beliefs and views confirmed and clarified. That’s still true, much of what passes for news on the Internet amounts to opinion columns doing the same thing they always did.
One of the best things I ever started doing was deliberately not following the news on a moment-to-moment basis. What Limbaugh used to call, with devasting accuracy, ‘the daily soap opera’. For ex, when I heard about the attempted assassination at the Correspondent’s DInner, I tuned in for a bit to get the immediate ‘headlines’, which I took with a grain of salt. Then I would check back in every few days. I treat most news stories that way. It’s a tremendous relief to my sanity and sense of personal well-being.
When I do check in, I do so primarily on right-leaning sites, of course. But I don’t take any of them as Gospel, and there are a few leftes I also check in on.
For ex, one of the biggest purveyors of Progressive nonsense is The Young Turks. Yet they can be a useful source of information…later. That is, some of their coverage and discussion of how the Dems handled the Biden coverup is quite revealing and informative (except of course that it came much later). After the election in 2024, they did some interesting pieces about where Harris went wrong and how the Dems handled Biden’s failing.
The NYT also did some useful coverage of the Dems activities…after the election. Somebody joked that the NYT can’t do news coverage of bad actions by Democrats, but they can do history (that is, after it no longer affects things).
Another lefty I sometimes check in on is a full-on self-admitted Marxist by the name of Freddie DeBoer. But I actually agree with a lot of his analysis on subjects where his Marxism doesn’t override his common sense, esp. education and the tech bros. He’s been a distinct voice of sanity on LLMs and the ‘revolution’ they are supposedly bringing.
But riding the roller coaster day in day out is pointless and mentally unhealthy.