Tucker Carlson’s accusations against Nicholas J. Fuentes, and Fuentes’s rebuttal, centering on the America First movement and Joe Kent’s 2022 campaign, are discussed. Fuentes also analyzes the Carlson family’s alleged CIA ties and their implications for Tucker Carlson’s foreign policy views, particularly regarding Israel and China.
Nicholas J. Fuentes opened America First by addressing Tucker Carlson’s recent allegations against him. Carlson, in a conversation with Candace Owens, accused Fuentes of being part of an “intentional campaign to discredit anti-neocon voices on the right wing.” This accusation, Fuentes argued, paints him as an inorganic actor, an astroturfed voice deployed to sabotage legitimate critics of neoconservative politics. The core of Carlson’s argument, according to Fuentes, rests on the claim that he exclusively and inexplicably attacks “non-crazy, non-hateful” anti-neocon figures like J.D. Vance, Joe Kent, and Carlson himself. This behavior, Carlson asserted, proves Fuentes’s inauthenticity and malicious intent. Fuentes categorically rejected these claims, promising a detailed rebuttal supported by evidence. He challenged Carlson to a direct dialogue, arguing that a journalist making such serious accusations should be willing to confront him directly. He emphasized his willingness to answer any questions and subject himself to scrutiny, confident that the truth would vindicate him.
The central narrative dispute revolved around Fuentes’s relationship with Joe Kent, a former Green Beret and congressional candidate. Fuentes recounted his initial support for Kent’s 2022 campaign, detailing his offer of fundraising, social media promotion, and grassroots mobilization. This support, however, was contingent on a crucial agreement: Kent could not disavow Fuentes. Kent initially agreed, even defending Fuentes publicly. However, following controversy surrounding Fuentes’s third AFPAC conference in February 2022, Kent reversed course. He publicly condemned Fuentes, citing his views on Israel, race, and religion. Kent also explicitly rejected Fuentes’s “version of America First,” characterizing it as exclusionary.
This disavowal, according to Fuentes, was the catalyst for his subsequent opposition to Kent. He accused Kent of offering a competing vision of America First—one that was “inclusive,” pro-Israel, and silent on race and religion. Fuentes then argued that this “Populism, Inc.” phenomenon, embodied by figures like Kent and J.D. Vance, represented a calculated attempt to co-opt the America First movement, supported by funding from Peter Thiel. This “usurpation,” Fuentes claimed, aimed to redefine America First in a way palatable to the establishment, thereby neutralizing its potential to challenge the status quo. Fuentes’s active campaign against Kent, culminating in Kent’s narrow electoral defeat, was thus a deliberate strategy to “make an example” of him and deter others from disavowing those critical of Israel. He argued that his actions were a necessary defense against the establishment’s attempts to neuter the America First movement.
Following Kent’s defeat, a series of events further fueled Fuentes’s suspicions. Michelle Malkin, a conservative commentator, reportedly received an unusual phone call from Carlson inquiring about Fuentes, his relationship with Kanye West, and his opposition to Kent. Shortly thereafter, Anya Parampol, wife of Max Blumenthal, a journalist close to Carlson, published a three-part hit piece on Fuentes. This article, while focusing on the Kent controversy, also attacked Fuentes on a range of other issues, portraying him as a dangerous extremist. Notably, the article omitted any mention of Kent’s initial disavowal of Fuentes.
Adding to the intrigue, Fuentes claimed to have received information about a coordinated social media campaign targeting him. The campaign, dubbed “Fed Fuentes,” sought to portray him as a federal agent and promote the Blumenthal article. The campaign was reportedly funded to the tune of $100,000 and disseminated through Influencible, a platform that pays influencers to promote specific content. Fuentes, after receiving information about the campaign, exposed it publicly, leading to its abrupt cancellation.
Key Points:
The discussion then examined the broader context of Tucker Carlson’s accusations, focusing specifically on the recurring theme of CIA involvement. Carlson had claimed ignorance of his father’s CIA ties until his father’s death in March 2025, an assertion Fuentes directly refuted. He cited a 2024 interview where Carlson explicitly acknowledged his father’s CIA affiliation, even providing details about his father’s proximity to key figures involved in past CIA operations. This discrepancy, Fuentes argued, cast doubt on Carlson’s credibility and suggested a deliberate attempt to obfuscate his family’s deep connections to the intelligence community.
Fuentes then delved into the career of Dick Carlson, Tucker’s father. Citing reports and public records, he detailed Dick Carlson’s role as director of the U.S. Information Agency under Ronald Reagan. This agency, responsible for overseeing government-funded media outlets like Voice of America, has been described as a “worldwide propaganda network built by the CIA.” Fuentes highlighted Dick Carlson’s own statements about the role of international broadcasting in the downfall of communist regimes, arguing that this demonstrated his active involvement in CIA-backed regime change operations. He further connected Dick Carlson to the Iran-Contra affair and his later involvement with neoconservative think tanks like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, further solidifying his ties to the CIA and the Israel lobby.
Turning his attention to Tucker Carlson’s own background, Fuentes described his trips to Nicaragua during the Contra war, where he posed alongside the Contras while his father was concurrently involved in information warfare efforts related to the conflict. This, coupled with Carlson’s later application to join the CIA and his subsequent career in journalism, formed a pattern of close association with the intelligence community. Fuentes also revisited Carlson’s defense of the CIA during the Gary Webb affair, in which Webb accused the CIA of involvement in drug trafficking. Carlson, writing for the neoconservative Weekly Standard, dismissed Webb’s claims as “ridiculous” and defended the CIA. Fuentes argued that this defense, later cited by the CIA itself as helpful in managing the controversy, demonstrated Carlson’s loyalty to the agency.
Fuentes then connected Carlson’s recent interview with Argentine presidential candidate Javier Milei to this broader pattern of CIA influence. Milei, a vocally pro-Israel and pro-Ukraine candidate, subsequently won the election and reversed Argentina’s alignment with China, a key objective of the U.S. Fuentes argued that Carlson’s interview, which garnered unprecedented viewership, played a crucial role in Milei’s victory and represented a continuation of the kind of CIA-backed information warfare operations in which his father had participated.
Finally, Fuentes addressed the ideological underpinnings of Carlson’s positions. He argued that Carlson, like J.D. Vance and Joe Kent, adheres to a “prioritizer” or “restrainer” doctrine within U.S. foreign policy circles. This doctrine prioritizes a future conflict with China and seeks to delegate regional security responsibilities to allies like Israel and NATO. This explains, according to Fuentes, why Carlson and others are simultaneously critical of neoconservative interventionism while remaining fundamentally pro-Israel. They see Israel as a necessary partner in containing Iran, freeing up U.S. resources for a confrontation with China. Fuentes contrasted this perspective with his own, arguing that an empowered Israel poses a greater long-term threat to American interests than China, due to its pervasive influence within U.S. institutions. He concluded that Carlson’s attacks were motivated by a desire to suppress this perspective and maintain the narrative that Israel is a crucial ally in America’s global strategy.
Key Points: