(DailyChive.com) – Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly defended Tucker Carlson against former President Trump’s criticism, exposing a growing rift in the MAGA movement over foreign policy priorities.
At a Glance
- Trump called Tucker Carlson “kooky” after Carlson criticized his stance on the Israel-Iran conflict
- MTG publicly backed Carlson, praising his popularity and shared belief in prioritizing America over foreign wars
- The disagreement centers on U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts, particularly regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities
- This unusual split reveals tensions within the MAGA movement between non-interventionist and hawkish foreign policy approaches
- Supporters are divided over Greene’s decision to side with Carlson rather than Trump
MAGA Movement Split Over Foreign Policy
A significant rift has emerged within the MAGA movement as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly aligned herself with Tucker Carlson following criticism from former President Donald Trump. The conflict centers on differing views regarding U.S. involvement in the ongoing Israel-Iran tensions, with Carlson advocating for non-intervention while Trump emphasizes preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. This unusual disagreement has surprised many supporters, given Greene’s previously unwavering loyalty to Trump, and highlights growing divisions over America’s role in foreign conflicts.
The public disagreement began when Carlson accused Trump of being “complicit” in Israel’s actions against Iran. Trump responded by dismissing Carlson as “kooky” and emphasized his position that “IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!” This exchange marked a rare moment of discord between two influential figures in conservative media and politics, with Greene subsequently stepping into the fray to defend Carlson.
Greene’s Unexpected Defense of Carlson
In a surprising move, Greene took to social media to express her support for Carlson, highlighting their shared views on prioritizing domestic issues over foreign interventions. “Tucker Carlson is one of my favorite people. He fiercely loves his wife, children, and our country. Since being fired by the neocon network Fox News, he has more popularity and viewers than ever before,” Greene stated, notably praising Carlson while avoiding direct criticism of Trump.
“Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that, ‘IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!'” – Donald Trump.
Critics within MAGA circles have accused Greene of abandoning her trust in Trump, arguing that her stance undermines his leadership and causes division within the party. Meanwhile, others have expressed surprise and even approval of Greene’s willingness to diverge from Trump on this issue, viewing it as a sign of independent thinking rather than disloyalty. The situation has sparked debate about whether unwavering loyalty to Trump should be expected from MAGA supporters, or if disagreements on policy can be acceptable.
Competing Visions of America First
At the heart of this disagreement lies competing interpretations of what “America First” foreign policy should look like. Carlson has positioned himself firmly against U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, emphasizing what he sees as a divide between warmongers and peacemakers. “The real divide isn’t between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians. The real divide is between those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it — between warmongers and peacemakers,” Carlson stated.
“Tucker Carlson is one of my favorite people. He fiercely loves his wife, children, and our country. Since being fired by the neocon network Fox News, he has more popularity and viewers than ever before.” – Marjorie Taylor Greene .
Trump, while also advocating an America First approach, has maintained that preventing Iran from developing nuclear capabilities remains crucial to U.S. national security interests. This policy disagreement reflects broader tensions within conservative circles about when military intervention aligns with America’s interests versus when it contradicts them. The debate has exposed a fault line between those who advocate complete non-intervention and those who believe certain international threats require a more assertive approach.
Copyright 2025, DailyChive.com
