Following a rather sermon-like critique of President Donald Trump’s “theft” of Venezuelan oil, Tucker Carlson pivoted to questioning why Trump did not place his hand on either of the Bibles his wife held by his side as he took his inaugural oath. He speculates, “Maybe it’s because he affirmatively rejects what’s inside that book” such as “limits on human behavior.”
Ten minutes into his monologue, Carlson reads the “surreal” message the president posted Sunday morning on Truth Social, which he prefaces by asking, “Who do you think you are? You’re tweeting out the f-word on Easter morning?”
The post reads:
Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy b**tards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Carlson is appalled. He says, “So, obviously, you’re mocking the religion of Iran. Okay, if you seek a religious war, that’s a good idea. But, by the way, what decent person mocks other people’s religions?”
“On every level, it is vile.”
In the video below, Carlson inexplicably concludes that Trump plans to use nuclear weapons in Iran.
So if you reach the end of your conventional power, where does that leave you? Oh, with nonconventional weapons.What’s that a euphemism for? … Nuclear weapons.And the effects of that hardly need to be explained. Well, they can’t be fully known because modern nuclear weapons have never been used.But, you can just draw the obvious conclusions, like, life in Iran, not possible. So you wipe out a country of 92 million people.
His remarks grow even more absurd in the next clip where Carlson tells viewers Trump is bombing Iran because he loves “killing” people.
“That’s why we’re doing it. The thrill is in the killing.”
In the social media post below, a woman accuses Carlson of “blatantly lying about scripture.” She writes, “He claims here that the book of Esther is about Persian genocide, rather than what it actually is about — which is how God protects the Israelites from genocide against THEM.”
Unfortunately for him, the internet is forever. Following Carlson’s incendiary podcast, X users located several recordings of him making contradictory arguments, including one from last year. Before his relationship with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) imploded over his antisemitic remarks, he stated that the U.S. should use nuclear weapons on Iran if they are trying to assassinate Trump.
The two discuss Iran’s alleged attempt to kill Trump in the clip below. Carlson says, “We should attack Iran immediately if that’s true, don’t you think?”
As Cruz begins to disagree, Carlson cuts him off: “If they’re trying to assassinate our president?”
Cruz again tries to respond, but an increasingly animated Carlson presses on: “Why aren’t we at war with them? Why don’t we just nuke Tehran if they’re trying to murder our president? There’s nothing you could do that would be worse for the United States than murdering Trump. And I just don’t understand why you’re not calling for the use of nuclear weapons against the Ayatollah right now. No, I’m serious.”
Talking over Cruz’s objections, Carlson adds, “Whatever it takes. … You don’t seem to take the allegations seriously. I do. If you believe they’re trying to murder Trump, we need to stop what we’re doing and punish them.”
Hmm.
Regarding his Monday attack on Trump for “mocking” Islam, here’s what Carlson had to say about Islam in 2006: “I’m a bigot. I don’t like Islamic extremists. Like, if you are really heavily into Islam, I don’t care for you that much. And I don’t care what that sounds like — you can call me a racist.”
Maybe Trump doesn’t like Islamic extremists either.
And in a more recent recording, Carlson defended a woman who “insulted” Prophet Muhammad and lost her free speech case in a European court.
Taken together, the episode is less a coherent critique of Trump’s actions than a string of contradictions. Carlson condemns Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric while indulging in it himself. He warns of apocalyptic escalation after having previously flirted with it, and suddenly claims the moral high ground despite a record that’s at odds with it. What emerges is not principled analysis but opportunistic outrage — driven by the moment, inconsistent, and more invested in provocation than clarity.
[The full episode can be viewed in the link below.]
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY