Tags: donald-trump, peter-thiel, jd-vance, irving-kristol, tucker-carlson, joe-kent, candace-owens, dick-carlson
Nicholas J. Fuentes accused Tucker Carlson of CIA ties and neoconservative allegiances, citing Carlson’s shifting statements about his father’s CIA career and past criticisms of figures like Pat Buchanan. Fuentes also explored alleged historical links between the CIA, neoconservatism, and Jewish identity, highlighting figures like James Jesus Angleton, William F. Buckley Jr., and Norman Podhoretz.
Nicholas J. Fuentes’s recent broadcast of “America First” focused intensely on the alleged connections between Tucker Carlson, the CIA, and neoconservatism. The broadcast opened with a recap of the previous week’s episode, where the host detailed a personal dispute with Carlson stemming from criticisms of Joe Kent, a CIA-backed congressional candidate. The core issue, according to Fuentes, revolved around Kent’s pro-Israel stance and embrace of “inclusive populism,” which Kent contrasted with what he termed Fuentes’s white identitarianism and Christian nationalism. This dispute escalated when Carlson publicly attacked Fuentes on his show, accusing him of being a disruptive agent deployed to discredit genuine America First figures. Fuentes alleges that Carlson’s attack, labeling him a “crazy extremist, hateful anti-Semite,” was a preemptive strike based on years of private disparagement. Fuentes claims Carlson spread these criticisms to figures like Alex Jones and Candace Owens, culminating in the public attack.
The broadcast then delved into newly unearthed clips of Carlson discussing his father, Dick Carlson, and his alleged CIA involvement. In a recent interview with Candace Owens, Carlson claimed to have only learned of his father’s CIA ties after his death in March 2025. However, multiple clips from the past two decades show Carlson openly acknowledging his father’s work with the CIA, including a 2024 interview with Sean Ryan where he stated, “I knew my dad was in CIA. I knew he was in that world.” These clips, sourced from C-SPAN and unearthed by online researchers, depict Carlson discussing his father’s role at Voice of America, an organization he explicitly linked to the CIA, and recounting international travels with his father to locations like Pakistan, Nicaragua, and Vietnam. The discrepancy between Carlson’s recent denial and these past statements formed the basis of the host’s renewed scrutiny. The implication, according to the broadcast, is that Carlson’s denial raises questions about the extent of his own potential involvement with the agency. The host questioned why Carlson would lie about such a matter, suggesting it might point to deeper, undisclosed connections.
Furthermore, the broadcast highlighted Carlson’s 1999 criticism of Patrick Buchanan, a conservative figure who opposed the 1990-91 Gulf War and was subsequently labeled an anti-Semite. Carlson’s past criticism echoed his recent attack on Fuentes, accusing Buchanan of being “kooky” and harming legitimate political discourse by focusing on the “Jewishness” of neoconservatives supporting the war. The broadcast posited that Carlson’s critique established him as a “gatekeeper” of acceptable political discourse, drawing a line between legitimate criticism of Israel and what he deemed unacceptable focus on Jewish identity.
This analysis then extended to the historical context of the neoconservative movement’s rise. The broadcast quoted extensively from Ron Unz’s article on the subject, emphasizing the neoconservative support for the Gulf War, which contrasted with the opposition from traditional conservatives like Buchanan. Buchanan’s statement, “Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory,” and his identification of prominent Jewish figures as part of the pro-war “amen corner” drew accusations of anti-Semitism. The broadcast argued that this historical episode mirrored the present situation, with figures like Fuentes facing similar accusations for criticizing neoconservative support for interventions in the Middle East. The host drew parallels between Buchanan’s challenge to George H.W. Bush in the 1992 Republican primaries and his own opposition to Trump, framing both as challenges to an establishment pushing for wars in the Middle East.
The broadcast concluded with the host calling for a renewed focus on exposing the alleged connections between figures like Carlson and the neoconservative movement. He emphasized the need for a “new American revolution” to counter what he perceived as the undue influence of these networks.
The second major topic of the broadcast explored the alleged historical links between neoconservatism, the CIA, and Jewish identity. The broadcast began by tracing the origins of the CIA back to the OSS, highlighting the agency’s reliance on Jewish refugees as intelligence sources during and after World War II. The broadcast emphasized the role of James Jesus Angleton, who oversaw OSS operations in Italy and later became a key figure in the CIA, in cultivating these relationships. Angleton’s liaison work with Israeli intelligence, according to the broadcast, involved a quid pro quo exchange of information on Soviet Russia for American intelligence on Arab adversaries. This relationship, the broadcast argued, stemmed from Angleton’s fervent anti-communism and his view of Israel as a strategic ally in the Cold War.
Beyond espionage, the broadcast delved into the CIA’s alleged involvement in ideological warfare through the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF). This program, according to the broadcast, covertly funded intellectual and cultural projects to counter Soviet influence. The CCF’s support for figures like Irving Kristol and James Burnham, who later became prominent neoconservatives, was presented as evidence of the CIA’s early involvement in shaping the movement. The broadcast highlighted the CCF’s covert nature, noting that many recipients of its funding were unaware of the CIA connection.
The broadcast then focused on the career of William F. Buckley Jr., the founder of National Review, a key figure in the American conservative movement. Buckley’s recruitment into the CIA, his work with E. Howard Hunt, and the alleged CIA connections of several National Review founders were presented as evidence of the agency’s influence on conservative thought. The broadcast emphasized the similarities between Buckley’s trajectory and that of Carlson, highlighting their Ivy League educations, involvement in student journalism, and early connections to intelligence agencies.
The broadcast then examined the neoconservative movement’s origins, quoting Ron Unz’s description of the movement as a group of intellectuals who rejected 1960s radicalism. The broadcast focused on Commentary magazine, edited by Norman Podhoretz, as a key publication in the movement’s development. Podhoretz’s Jewish identity and the magazine’s connection to the American Jewish Committee were highlighted as factors contributing to its focus on Israel and a hawkish foreign policy.
The broadcast then analyzed the alleged shift in neoconservative thought following the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Irving Kristol’s statement about his “Jewish instinct for impending disaster” and Norman Podhoretz’s feeling of “betrayal” by the American left’s criticism of Israel were presented as key factors in the movement’s embrace of a more hawkish stance. The broadcast argued that this shift, driven by concerns for Israel’s security, solidified the neoconservative commitment to a foreign policy that combined anti-communism with unwavering support for Israel.
The broadcast then detailed the neoconservatives’ influence through magazines like Public Interest and Commentary, emphasizing their role in shaping intellectual and political discourse despite their limited circulation. The broadcast highlighted Irving Kristol’s statement that “with a circulation of a few hundred, you could change the world,” underscoring the neoconservative focus on influencing elite opinion. The broadcast further connected Kristol to the CIA through his involvement with Encounter magazine, which received funding from the CCF.
The broadcast then moved to the second generation of neoconservative figures, focusing on Irving Kristol’s son, Bill Kristol, and the founding of The Weekly Standard. Tucker Carlson’s early work at The Weekly Standard, a publication that strongly advocated for the 2003 Iraq War, was presented as further evidence of his ties to the neoconservative movement.
The broadcast then delved into the careers of other figures connected to the neoconservative movement, including Yoram Hazony, Peter Thiel, and J.D. Vance. Hazony’s admiration for Meir Kahana, a controversial Israeli rabbi, Thiel’s founding of Palantir, a CIA-backed data analytics company, and Vance’s connection to Thiel and the National Conservatism Conference were all highlighted as examples of the neoconservative network’s reach. Hazony’s explicit rejection of “racialist” politics in the American context while simultaneously embracing Jewish nationalism in Israel was presented as hypocritical.
The broadcast concluded by reiterating the alleged connections between the CIA, neoconservatism, and prominent figures like Carlson, arguing that these connections have shaped American foreign policy for decades. The host emphasized the hypocrisy of neoconservatives condemning racial nationalism while embracing ethnonationalism for Israel, concluding that this network has consistently prioritized Israel’s interests, even at the expense of American interests. He framed his own criticisms of these figures as a necessary challenge to their influence.