Tucker Carlson Goes Off On Republicans
PDS Published 06/23/2026
-
Tucker Carlson says he’s done with the Republican Party.
And while it really matters because it exposes a huge problem for Trump, you really shouldn't believe everything you're hearing. The Iran peace deal situation keeps getting worse because nobody is agreeing on what agreements are actually being made. We've got devastating new updates on Nancy Guthrie. We're talking about all of that and more on today's brand-new Philip DeFranco Show, your daily dive into the news.
So buckle up, hit that like button, and let's just jump into it.
Starting with Tucker Carlson saying he's done with the Republican Party.
"I'm out. And if I'm out, then I think a lot of other people are out."
At least Tucker says that he's done with the Republican Party. But he might be right about other people. Carlson is by no means the only prominent Republican or supporter of the party to say that he's out.
One of the things that you're seeing is that among everyday voters, Democrats are absolutely surging past Republicans in participation in the primaries, even in Republican districts.
Starting with Carlson. He, along with fellow commentators like Candace Owens, Alex Jones, Nick Fuentes, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and soon-to-be former Congressman Thomas Massie, are among a group of influential right-wingers who believe the U.S. attacked Iran essentially at the behest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu.
While they're not all totally on the same page, they have all been accused of anti-Semitism for pushing this narrative, as well as, in some cases, peddling genuinely baseless conspiracy theories or making almost undeniably bigoted comments.
The core claim, though, is that Israeli interests at least influence American foreign policy. That isn't without any basis.
In the early days of the war, as the administration scrambled to come up with some sort of coherent explanation for its decision to attack, you had Secretary of State Marco Rubio just straight-up saying the decision had been motivated by the administration's knowledge that Israel planned to attack first.
"We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces. And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties."
Though, of course, Rubio and Donald Trump later denied that version of events.
Despite what they said, the cameras documented it.
And now you've got Carlson explicitly identifying Israel's influence over the administration as his main reason for breaking ties with the Republican Party.
"I would not support the Republican Party. There's no chance I would support the Republican Party. Not because I support the Democratic Party. I don't know what I'm going to do. But at this point, how could you support—how could I or any American voter support a political party that's not loyal to the United States? That puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens?"
He continued:
"I've voted Republican my entire life. I worked at Fox News. I worked at CNN, MSNBC. I've been a consistent defender for 35 years of the Republican Party. A very consistent defender. But there's no defending this because it's immoral. And it's exactly the opposite of what a political party in a democracy is charged with doing, which is representing its own voters, its own citizens, its own nation. And they're not doing that. So no, I'm out. And if I'm out, then I think a lot of other people are out."
Marjorie Taylor Greene echoed similar sentiments, taking a break from what she calls a "poll" to respond on Twitter.
"Tucker is not the only one who's done supporting the Republican Party. There are a lot of us that are absolutely fed up and will not support a party that betrays its voters and country."
Adding:
"That does not mean we are turning into Democrats either. We are done with the America Last Republican Party."
Thomas Massie separately took aim at the party, writing:
"The irony of Republicans controlling all branches of government while bankrupting the country, starting a war, sending money to fraudulent programs, violating the Constitution, giving corporations immunity, but arguing that the biggest problem we have is stolen elections."
Now, not everyone is taking the same side.
For example, Ann Coulter says she's not convinced Tucker is really done with the Republican Party, suggesting that Tucker would support JD Vance in an expected 2028 presidential bid.
You also have people like Laura Loomer accusing Tucker of having an "irrational hatred" of Donald Trump and his foreign policy, adding:
"Tucker is a complete saboteur, backstabber, and jihadi sympathizer."
Back in Congress, Republican Senator Ted Cruz launched a similar attack, writing:
"This has been obvious for some time. Tucker Carlson hates Trump, Republicans, Israel, Christian Zionists, and you."
Adding:
"Tucker loves Qatar, the Ayatollah, anti-Semites, crackpots, shirtless Putin, and Sharia law."
And while Cruz's statement isn't shocking—he and Tucker Carlson do not like each other—it still stands out because Cruz is among several Senate Republicans who have openly criticized aspects of Trump's deal with Iran.
Even within that group announcing departures from the party, there is reportedly tension, with many worrying that Trump's decisions are setting up the Republican Party for failure in the midterms.
Some are reportedly so fed up that they're trying to mitigate potential losses not by making better decisions, but instead by obsessing over the passage of the SAVE Act, a bill we've talked about before that critics say would effectively disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.
Trump has reportedly been invited to a lunch with Republican senators and plans to push the SAVE Act. However, several senators are expected to tell him to forget about it—not because they oppose the bill, but because it simply doesn't have the votes to pass.
Bill Cassidy, for example, saying:
"I'm a co-sponsor, but it doesn't have the votes, and it's time to talk about something else."
Though realistically, when was the last time Trump heard "no" and thought that meant stop?
He's been calling on senators to kill the filibuster to get the bill passed, writing:
"Anybody who doesn't want to terminate the filibuster is a fool. A very stupid one at that. Democrats will end it within minutes of taking office."
And saying the Republican Party will never win another election otherwise.
But it is clear that even Trump appears to realize how bad things look for Republicans right now.
And we now have data suggesting it could be even worse than expected.
A new analysis from The Washington Post found that Americans have been voting for Democrats at far higher numbers in both primaries and special elections this cycle compared to previous midterm years.
The analysis also found that voters have been casting more ballots this year than they did in 2022. A whopping 90% of Democratic House primaries that have already taken place have seen elevated participation.
One of the biggest things is that this isn't just happening in solidly blue districts. It's also happening in solidly Republican districts where Democrats are heavily favored to lose.
So with all this, it might actually be a very good sign for Democrats that so many Trump-endorsed candidates have been winning their primaries in nationwide races.
Right now, it appears that the far-right faction of Trump's base is mobilizing to vote, while more moderate Republicans may be staying home.
Though November is still a long way off. A lot can change.
Still, experts say the signs are hard to deny.
One voter turnout researcher and political science professor told The Washington Post:
"Something would really fundamentally have to change in a way that would favor the Republicans to change the dynamics that we're seeing right now."
But ultimately, I do need to warn you to remain skeptical.
I mean that both in general and specifically regarding Tucker Carlson saying he's done with the Republican Party.
Because the way it really seems is that Tucker, much like Fuentes, wants to see Republicans get decimated in the midterms.
That's one of the only ways many people see the party being able to change and move beyond Trump.
Though understand, whether it's these two or a number of these other characters, they're also doing this because they want to be closer to power with whoever comes next.
Because if you don't think Tucker will support a "real Republican," an outsider, JD Vance, or someone else whose image gets reshaped, you're crazy.
It'll be very interesting over the coming months—and even the next few years—to see how effective this right-wing pushback against Trump really is.
Whether it's mostly an online phenomenon or something that translates into real-world voting impacts.
Because I really don't believe that's something we've seen showcased in the primaries.
General elections bring in way more people, including many who don't usually engage with politics at the level of local elections, primaries, or midterms.
-
But then also, I'll say there is another question out there. It's not just Republicans versus Democrats. We're seeing shifts from right to left, or somewhere in the middle.
We're also seeing a shift from moderate Democrats to progressives, and one of the ways it's playing out today is with Democratic primaries in three states: Utah, Maryland, and New York.
You have different wings of the party struggling for control, and understandably a lot of eyes are on New York.
These races are being treated as a test of Mayor Zohran Mamdani's political influence. He endorsed three candidates, spoke at a rally for them over the weekend, and even ran ads for them during the Knicks playoff run.
You've got Claire Valdez in the 37th District, Elisa Avilés in the 13th, and Brad Lander in the 10th.
That 10th District really stands out because it has become extraordinarily competitive.
You might remember Lander from the mayoral race last year. He's a progressive. He and Mamdani cross-endorsed each other.
Now you've got him running for Congress against two-term incumbent Dan Goldman, who is estimated to be one of the wealthiest members of Congress.
Their district, which covers part of Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan, is one of the most progressive and most Jewish districts in the country.
So it's not surprising that one of the biggest issues—if not the biggest issue—in the race is Israel.
Lander and Goldman reflect the intense divide within New York's Jewish community.
Both are Democrats. Both are Jewish. Both call themselves liberal Zionists.
That's where the similarities end.
Goldman is endorsed by pro-Israel Governor Kathy Hochul. Lander is endorsed by Zohran Mamdani.
Lander has called the war in Gaza a genocide. Goldman has not.
Lander has called the treatment of Palestinians apartheid. Goldman balks at even calling the situation in the West Bank an occupation.
Lander opposes U.S. aid to Israel. Goldman supports it, though he has voted against additional aid since 2024.
Lander spent May 31 canvassing with Jews for Racial and Economic Justice.
Goldman spent the day marching in the Israel Day Parade alongside other Democrats and far-right Israeli officials.
Lander has sworn off any ties to AIPAC.
Goldman accepted AIPAC's endorsement, though not direct funding this cycle. Direct is the key word because he does accept donations from individuals associated with AIPAC, and in previous campaigns he accepted direct support. He even met his wife at an AIPAC event.
Speaking of his wife, she doubles as his campaign treasurer and became a focal point after progressive groups dug up right-wing posts she had liked following October 7.
Among them was an End Wokeness post showing people holding a "Jews for Palestine" sign with the caption:
"Chickens for KFC."
Other liked posts included calls to revoke visas and ban travel from Palestinians, as well as content attacking Black Lives Matter.
Some compared this controversy to Zohran Mamdani's own social media controversy, where posts he interacted with after October 7 were criticized as anti-Semitic or pro-Hamas.
Like Mamdani, Goldman distanced himself from his spouse's online activity, saying they don't always share the same views and that she does not represent him.
Still, the Israel issue has remained central.
Lander has taken the lead in limited polling, and the two sparred over the issue during a debate.
"I believe that Israel's destruction of Gaza is a genocide."
Goldman responded:
"I think what is important is for us to focus less on terminology and legal terms that have very specific definitions and focus on our path forward."
Lander continued:
"Somewhere between 45,000 and 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza were killed, a majority women and children, during the Biden administration. I urged President Biden to put more restrictions on Israel. When we say 'never again,' it's got to mean never again to anyone. Not just never again to us."
He added:
"I talk to voters in the district. They're not talking about Israel. They're trying to figure out whether their Section 8 funding is going to be saved."
And:
"I have never taken AIPAC money. I never will take AIPAC money."
Goldman responded:
"I do think that AIPAC has some real problems and is harmful in many ways, but they are an organization that I coordinate with and discuss issues with."
Things were already heated when Goldman took his seven-year-old daughter into a Brooklyn coffee shop.
Hours later, the café chain Poetica posted a photo of him in the shop with the caption:
"Hey Congressman Dan Goldman, we see that you stopped by our shop today for a coffee. Do you see how it doesn't taste like genocide juice? Or are you still having a hard time telling the difference?"
The post continued:
"We don't serve racist fascists, homophobes, genocide enablers, or anyone in that category. Too bad we didn't recognize you right away or we would have turned you away."
Adding:
"We issued you a refund. We don't need your money. It's probably coming from AIPAC. Enjoy your loss on Tuesday. Don't ever come to Poetica."
Goldman responded:
"I was there so my daughter could use the bathroom. I bought a coffee out of gratitude. The barista was super nice. I gave her a big tip."
Adding:
"The idea of accusing someone you don't know of supporting a genocide is crazy. I may disagree as to whether there's a genocide, but come on. We're better than this."
He argued that supporting Israel's existence as a Jewish state does not mean supporting everything its government does.
Ironically, Goldman noted that his campaign volunteers had launched canvasses from Poetica locations and staff members had worked there before.
The controversy exploded.
The New York Post and Washington Free Beacon highlighted that Poetica's website claims to promote "radical hospitality" where everyone is welcome.
Soon after, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced a federal investigation.
She wrote:
"Federal law prohibits public accommodations such as coffee shops from discriminating against patrons based on race, religion, or national origin."
Adding:
"These actions are not only reprehensible, they're potentially illegal."
The Civil Rights Division opened an investigation and stated it would pursue enforcement action if warranted.
Ironically, Goldman himself called the federal response excessive.
He said he would rather the government spend resources investigating anti-Semitism against people who lack his platform.
Online reactions were far less restrained.
Poetica's social media pages were flooded with criticism. Some called the shop horrible, terrible, and filthy. Others posted anti-Muslim comments and claimed the coffee tasted like "globalized intifada."
In another twist, even Brad Lander criticized Poetica—not because of the rhetoric, but because of the decision to ban Goldman.
Lander said:
"There are plenty of ways to lobby elected officials and express outrage at the votes they've taken without turning coffee shops into places people don't feel welcome."
Adding:
"I'm glad Poetica took down their post, and I thought Representative Goldman's reply was extremely gracious."
Depending on how the primary turns out, this story is going to take on a whole new life of its own.
But in the meantime, whether it's this story or the Tucker Carlson situation, I'd love to know your thoughts in the comments down below.
-
But first, let me thank a sponsor.
The older I get, the more I realize most people do not have a motivation problem. They have a decision-making problem.
Too many options. Too much noise. Not enough clarity.
If that sounds familiar, you need to check out today's sponsor, Strawberry.me.
The reality is that even the most successful people in the world don't figure things out alone. They have mentors, coaches, and people in their corner helping them cut through the noise and move forward.
A lot of people know they're capable of more. They just don't know where to start.
That's exactly what Strawberry.me helps with.
I was skeptical about career coaching at first, but having someone objective focused specifically on your situation can be a huge advantage.
It starts with clarity—figuring out what you actually want instead of what you think you're supposed to want.
Then you identify blind spots and obstacles that are hard to see when you're standing inside the frame and unable to see the whole picture.
Finally, you build a real plan.
Whether that's a promotion, a new job, more direction, or a complete career pivot, having a dedicated coach changes things.
Scan the QR code on screen or head to Strawberry.me/DeFranco to get 50% off your first month.
STRAWBERRY.ME
Visit today’s sponsor: http://strawberry.me/defranco for 50% off your first session! It's like therapy for your career.
-
You've got a pro-life MAGA congresswoman doing an interview saying pregnancy complications nearly killed her, and then asking the reporter not to air that portion afterward.
This controversy centers on Florida Representative Kat Cammack.
Cammack co-chairs a congressional pro-life caucus and supports abortion restrictions, though she supports exceptions for rape, incest, and situations where the mother's life is at risk.
She argues many laws don't adequately protect women in those situations.
During an interview with Tara Palmeri, Cammack discussed suffering a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy in 2024.
It happened shortly after Florida's six-week abortion ban took effect.
Doctors presented two options: surgery that risked her fertility or methotrexate, a medication that would stop the embryo from growing.
When she arrived at the emergency room for treatment, she says doctors hesitated.
According to Cammack, a nurse told her:
"According to the law, if we give you a shot of methotrexate, we are going to be held liable."
The doctor was reportedly concerned about legal consequences.
The nurse pointed to an advertisement claiming healthcare workers helping patients with miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies could face jail time.
Cammack later learned the advertisement was produced by abortion-rights groups warning about the effects of abortion laws.
She said she attempted to show staff the law itself and explain she was legally entitled to care.
Still, they delayed treatment.
"If I bleed out, how long?"
She recalled asking her husband to Google how long it takes to die from internal bleeding.
Cammack argued that regardless of one's views on abortion, politics around the issue are harming women.
However, she blamed confusion and misinformation—not the law itself.
Many observers noted that Florida's law contains vague language.
State regulators say ectopic pregnancies are exempt and do not qualify as abortions, but the law itself does not clearly define ectopic pregnancy.
Doctors facing felony penalties and career-ending consequences may be reluctant to take risks in legal gray areas.
Despite her experience, Cammack said it only strengthened her anti-abortion beliefs.
"Protecting life is the realest issue for me."
And:
"That situation and the birth of my daughter definitely made me more of an advocate for life."
The story became even more controversial because after the interview, Cammack asked Palmeri not to air that portion.
She reportedly feared renewed threats against her family.
Palmeri ultimately chose to air it, arguing that Cammack is a public official discussing one of the most consequential policy debates in America.
That decision created two simultaneous debates:
One over abortion policy.
Another over journalistic ethics.
Critics accused Cammack of supporting policies that endanger women while personally benefiting from exceptions.
Others defended Palmeri's decision, arguing the interview was on the record and Cammack had previously discussed the experience publicly.
Meanwhile, critics of Palmeri accused her of exploiting a painful moment.
Palmeri defended her decision:
"It wasn't new information. She had spoken publicly about it. There were news stories. But hearing her tell the story herself moved me."
She added:
"What struck me most was that we came away from the same story with very different conclusions."
Palmeri saw the confusion itself as evidence of problems within the law.
And honestly, one thing that stands out to me is that this story probably wouldn't have exploded if there hadn't been a request to remove the segment afterward.
The Streisand Effect strikes again.
-
Local governments are digging through wastewater for evidence of drug use.
Not your poop specifically—but everyone's collective poop.
In Tempe, Arizona, officials use wastewater-based epidemiology to monitor public health through sewage testing.
The process is similar to methods used during COVID-19.
Workers collect wastewater samples from monitoring sites across the city and test them for dangerous drugs.
The goal is to identify emerging drug threats early enough to warn communities and prepare emergency responders.
This isn't unique to Tempe.
Similar testing has occurred during Mardi Gras, the Super Bowl, at Kentucky truck stops, and in schools across Missouri and New Mexico.
Five states have proposed legislation supporting these programs.
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has also endorsed the approach.
Supporters argue it works.
When veterinary sedatives appeared in Tempe wastewater, first responders received specialized overdose training.
Testing in Missouri high schools identified dangerous synthetic opioids known as nitazenes, prompting schools to stock overdose reversal medications and educate students.
In Laredo, Texas, wastewater testing led to community outreach efforts focused on addiction prevention and treatment.
Some communities are even tracking addiction treatment medications to understand healthcare access patterns.
Still, privacy concerns remain.
Residents often ask:
"Why does the government need to test my poop?"
Critics worry the data could stigmatize neighborhoods.
Tempe attempted to address those concerns by only testing areas with populations greater than 3,000 residents and by publishing findings publicly.
Officials argue the results showed drug problems existed across all neighborhoods—not just poorer communities.
Transparency, however, is not universal.
Tennessee has reportedly been conducting wastewater drug testing for nearly a year without publicly releasing results.
So overall, it's one of those stories that's fascinating, useful, and raises a lot of legitimate questions at the same time.
-
Iranian officials have contradicted nearly every major victory the Trump administration claims it secured in ongoing peace negotiations.
And at this point, it's genuinely difficult to know who to believe.
Vice President JD Vance recently announced that Iran had agreed to allow international inspections of its nuclear facilities.
He described it as a major milestone and the first step toward permanently ending Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.
Critics quickly pointed out that inspections were already part of the Obama-era nuclear agreement.
Iran had previously allowed extensive monitoring of its nuclear supply chain and suspicious sites.
Trump withdrew from that agreement years ago.
Now, administration officials are presenting the restoration of inspections as a major achievement.
The problem is that Iranian officials immediately denied agreeing to such inspections.
One official even claimed Iran never negotiated its nuclear program during the talks.
Trump responded on Truth Social by insisting Iran had agreed to the highest level of inspections indefinitely.
Meanwhile, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency suggested inspections would occur, though details remain unclear.
Contradictions didn't stop there.
Treasury officials announced a temporary 60-day suspension of certain oil sanctions on Iran.
Experts described it as one of the largest sanctions rollbacks since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Iranian officials also claimed progress toward releasing billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets.
American officials described any release as heavily restricted and earmarked for U.S. agricultural purchases.
Iran rejected that characterization.
Iran's ambassador to the United Nations stated:
"Iran is the only country to decide what to do with its assets."
Trump later claimed any released funds would remain under U.S. control and only be used for food and medical supplies.
There were also contradictory accounts regarding the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump claimed Iran's concessions justified reopening shipping routes.
Iranian officials argued the waterway would never return to prewar conditions and would continue under Iranian administration.
Some officials floated the idea of charging transit fees.
Rubio countered that no nation can legally impose tolls on international waterways.
At virtually every stage, the administration and Iranian officials have offered conflicting narratives.
That has left observers wondering how a serious agreement can emerge when neither side appears to agree on what has already been agreed to.
Critics from both the left and right have attacked the administration.
Jon Stewart mocked the negotiations.
Ben Shapiro argued the administration was giving away leverage while receiving little in return.
Shapiro particularly targeted JD Vance, accusing him of projecting weakness during negotiations.
Ultimately, the biggest challenge isn't simply whether a deal gets signed.
It's whether anyone can clearly explain what the deal actually is.
-
Today's sponsor is Ground News.
This weekend, the United States and Iran reportedly agreed on a roadmap toward a final agreement.
Some outlets framed it as a diplomatic breakthrough.
Others emphasized the obstacles that remain.
Ground News allows you to compare how hundreds of outlets across the political spectrum cover the same story.
You can compare framing, bias, factuality ratings, and ownership information all in one place.
One of my favorite features is the Blindspot Feed, which highlights stories receiving attention from one side of the political spectrum while being largely ignored by the other.
Head to Ground.News/DeFranco to get 40% off unlimited access.
GROUNDNEWS
Go to https://ground.news/defranco to see beyond the headlines and stay fully informed without feeling overwhelmed. Subscribe today through my link for 40% off unlimited access.
-
We now know what was reportedly contained in the second note sent by whoever kidnapped Nancy Guthrie.
According to reports, the note claimed Nancy had died shortly after being taken.
The alleged kidnappers sent messages to CNN and a Tucson news station.
They reportedly claimed they did not intend to kill her but that she died shortly after the abduction.
The note did not include demands for money or requests in exchange for her remains.
Authorities previously kept details of the second note private to help authenticate future communications.
The revelation appears connected to a video released earlier by Savannah Guthrie and her siblings.
In that video, they pleaded:
"We received your message and we understand. We beg you now to return our mother to us."
TMZ later reported receiving communications from a person claiming to know where Nancy Guthrie and the kidnappers were located.
That individual allegedly demanded $100,000 in exchange for information.
According to TMZ, the person suggested early on that Guthrie had already died.
The FBI reportedly took the claims seriously but did not pay for information.
Now, nearly six months later, the Guthrie family remains without closure.
Savannah Guthrie recently said:
"We are in agony and we cannot be at peace."
And:
"We're begging for your help."
-
More than five million people have dropped out of Medicaid, CHIP, and Affordable Care Act plans over the last year.
That includes approximately:
3.8 million Medicaid and CHIP enrollees
1.2 million ACA marketplace enrollees
Much of the decline is being attributed to Medicaid cuts and the expiration of enhanced ACA subsidies.
Health policy experts had warned this would happen.
The Congressional Budget Office previously estimated that roughly 15 million additional Americans could become uninsured by 2034 due to Medicaid reductions and subsidy expirations.
While some people may have moved to employer-sponsored coverage, experts argue the scale of the decline suggests many simply lost insurance.
The consequences can be severe.
People without coverage often delay treatment, skip doctor visits, and avoid preventive care.
As a result, illnesses become more serious and more expensive to treat.
Experts also warn that uncompensated care costs eventually get passed on to taxpayers and the broader healthcare system.
And unfortunately, many believe the worst impacts are still ahead.
Upcoming Medicaid work requirements are expected to remove millions more people from coverage.
And that brings us to the end of today's show.
Thank you for watching, hitting that like button, and taking part in the conversation down below.
Stay safe, stay sane, and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.
