Conservative writers and commentators are openly rejecting Tucker Carlson's recent commentary on World War II and Nazi Germany, with one Washington Examiner column declaring flatly that "there's no defending Tucker Carlson."
The piece, by writer and podcaster Brady Leonard as part of the paper's "Restoring America" series, argues that Carlson's commentary brand has ceased to be a heterodox platform and has become "an open electoral liability." The Examiner column cites Carlson's past conversations and interviews in which he entertained historical revisionism, including an interview where a guest argued that Winston Churchill was the real villain of World War II, that the Holocaust was caused by Germany's inability to manage conquered populations, and that the Nuremberg Trials were a "sacrificial ritual" for the modern international order. According to the column, Carlson offered no serious pushback.
The immediate flashpoint is Carlson's interview last week with former British Member of Parliament and Cabinet official Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, released on October second. During the exchange, Carlson challenged the necessity of Britain fighting World War II in the first place, asking whether the United Kingdom was truly better off for resisting the Nazis, and pressing the argument that Britain should not concern itself with standing up to Russian aggression when it faces domestic decline.
Rees-Mogg, described by the Examiner as "hardly a liberal internationalist," methodically pushed back. He argued that the United Kingdom fought a moral war for its own survival against an authoritarian menace that would have eventually invaded anyway. The column notes that despite the flaws of modern Britain, it "is a far freer and infinitely more moral society than Nazi Germany," and that citizens of Western countries can criticize their governments without relitigating World War II, a freedom that did not exist in the authoritarian states of the 1940s or in modern dictatorships.
The Examiner column is blunt about the stakes. It warns that a political commentary brand crosses a "Rubicon" when it ceases to be a heterodox platform and becomes a poison in the body politic and an electoral liability. For Carlson, the column states, that line was crossed years ago, citing a series of instances of Hitler and World War II revisionism culminating in what it calls a "thorough and embarrassing beatdown" at the hands of Rees-Mogg.
The reaction is not isolated to the Examiner. Writing in another outlet, columnist Conrad Black argues that Carlson's conversation with Rees-Mogg "should trouble anyone who has long admired him as a talented commentator," noting his long-standing near-absolutist position on free speech. Another piece, titled "How Tucker Carlson Was Rees-Mogged By Conservatism," describes the interview as going viral, in part because Rees-Mogg is "exactly the sort of person Americans wish England were still run by" — impossibly well-mannered, impeccably dressed, and pleasingly articulate in his dismantling of Carlson's arguments.
The pushback has also reached corners of the media not typically associated with conservative commentary. NPR's Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep interviewed Carlson, a booking that prompted surprise from some listeners who, according to coverage of the segment, "could not believe NPR went there." The interview was framed as an opportunity to hold Carlson accountable for past journalistic transgressions, including amplifying false information and conspiracies about the 2020 presidential election results.
Meanwhile, Carlson has continued to generate headlines on other fronts. Arabian Business reports that Carlson, once a close ally of President Donald Trump, accused the president of "treason" over U.S. foreign policy and disclosed details of private meetings in the Oval Office prior to the Iran war.
The Examiner column also draws a broader contrast. It notes that while Western governments can be criticized, something that would get a person killed both in 1940s authoritarian states and modern dictatorships, there is no need to relitigate World War II in order to do so. It points to the flaws of modern Britain — from the mass importation of Muslims and the widespread rape and societal degradation that it claims predictably followed, to authoritarian speech laws — while insisting that the United Kingdom remains infinitely more moral than Nazi Germany. It makes a similar argument about French leaders from Charles de Gaulle to Emmanuel Macron, noting that their many sins pale in comparison to those of the Third Reich and its Vichy France puppets.
Next News Network could not independently verify the details of Carlson's past interviews or the specific exchanges described in the columns and coverage cited here. What is clear from the reaction is that a significant segment of conservative commentary has drawn a line on Carlson's historical revisionism, and that the Rees-Mogg interview has become the focal point of that rejection.
Our Take
Tucker Carlson spent years positioning himself as the rare voice willing to ask uncomfortable questions, and for a time that worked. But there is a difference between asking whether the Iraq War was a mistake and asking whether Britain should have fought Hitler. One is a legitimate debate. The other is a moral surrender dressed up as iconoclasm. Rees-Mogg did not need to be a neoconservative hawk to dismantle Carlson's argument; he needed only to know the difference between a country with flaws and a regime with death camps. That Carlson required the lesson at all is the problem. The Washington Examiner is right that no serious political movement can carry this baggage into an election and win. The question now is whether Carlson's audience will notice that the people defending him are getting quieter, while the people he once counted as allies are finally saying enough.
