Recently, influential American right-wing internet personality Tucker Carlson made some remarks that have shocked people in and outside the United States.
On August 28, Carlson said on an interview program that if U.S. President Trump were to consider the first use of nuclear weapons, he should be immediately removed from office, and that even contemplating such a possibility should disqualify him from the presidency.
Carlson's remarks are shocking because he isn't a left-wing American who dislikes Trump, but rather one of Trump's most well-known supporters. As a Fox News host and later a self-media creator, he long used his platform to defend Trump's policies and actively campaign for his election. Trump also highly valued Carlson's opinion influence, not only granting him multiple exclusive interviews, but also seeking his advice on some governance and diplomatic decisions, forming a close and mutually beneficial political alliance that jointly shaped the public opinion landscape of American right-wing populism during the Trump era.
Carlson made the remarks during a conversation with Joe Kent, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who resigned earlier this year in opposition to Trump's Iran war, a stance that also led to Carlson's public break with Trump over the Iran war.
Carlson said he strongly opposed the two Democratic-led attempts to impeach Trump during his first presidency, but the situation is different today, "any president who would even consider using nuclear weapons first, that person should be removed immediately, because that has to be the red line, using nukes to destroy all of humanity."
Trump has not publicly stated that he is considering using nuclear weapons first in a war with Iran, but Carlson points out that Trump has threatened to "totally destroy" Iran and its civilization, "and there's only one way to achieve that, which is by using nuclear weapons." Therefore, Trump is openly showing the world that he is threatening to use nuclear weapons in this war.
Additionally, Carlson's remarks were also in response to the nuclear strategy being developed by the Pentagon. Earlier this month, Elbridge Colby, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense for policy, said at a conference that officials were seeking to provide the President and the Secretary of Defense with "reliable, rational nuclear options".
This interview is particularly sensitive because it comes at an extremely dangerous juncture: the US-Iran war, which broke out in late February, has now dragged on for months, with clashes ebbing and flowing but never truly ceasing. On August 1, the US paused its strikes at the request of Gulf allies, ushering in roughly a month of relative calm. But on August 30, the US bombed Iran, and Iran retaliated immediately, plunging both sides back into direct military exchanges with tensions steadily escalating. Trump has since signaled the prospect of "even larger strikes."
Reactions from All Sides
Carlson's remarks on August 28 sparked intense reactions from all parties.
Although Trump and his administration officials may have avoided publicly commenting to prevent escalating the situation, Carlson's remarks have sparked intense debate within the US conservative community, highlighting divisions among the right on foreign policy.
Some right-wing figures who have long opposed US military intervention overseas, such as Alex Jones, have expressed concern and support for Carlson's comments, arguing that if the president is indeed considering a nuclear strike, Congress or the cabinet should constrain him through lawful means such as impeachment or the 25th Amendment.
But staunch supporters of Trump's MAGA movement and some conservative commentators have harshly criticized Carlson, accusing his remarks of being a "betrayal" of Trump, arguing that keeping all nuclear options on the table is part of the US's strategic deterrence, and that Carlson's comments are undermining the US military's national security deterrent.
The Democratic camp and left-wing media, such as social media accounts like MeidasTouch and liberal online media outlets, quickly forwarded and widely spread the video of Carlson's speech. Left-wing commentators generally seized on this opportunity, using the words of a former key Trump ally to emphasize the dangers of the Trump administration's Middle East policy and nuclear strategy, while using Carlson's statement as evidence of a deepening split within the MAGA camp.
Internationally, some Middle Eastern media outlets, such as Qatar's Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news channel Al Mayadeen based in Lebanon, Iran's semi-official ABNA and MNA news agencies, have given extensive coverage to Carlson's remarks, interpreting them as a strong expression of discontent and backlash within the US against Trump's Middle East war policies, particularly the military strikes against Iran, and as evidence of divisions within the US. The Jerusalem Post, an English-language newspaper based in Israel, also provided detailed coverage and commentary on Carlson's remarks.
Media outlets in other parts of the world, such as the UK's The Guardian, The Times of India, and the UK edition of the International Business Times, also reported the incident as a serious rift between Carlson and Trump, noting that the controversy reflects deep concerns over the "rational nuclear options" strategy being developed by the Pentagon.
The Iranian side's response is particularly noteworthy.
On September 1, Iran's semi-official Mehr news agency published an article that posed the question: "The significance of these remarks goes beyond Carlson's personal stance and is more about reopening a discussion on whether a US president can use the threat of nuclear weapons as part of a pressure tool in regional crises without triggering widespread strategic consequences."
Not Without Basis
Every US administration has refused to commit to the no-first-use principle for nuclear weapons. The reason is that America's nuclear deterrence covers not only nuclear attacks but also large-scale conventional attacks, chemical and biological attacks, and threats to allies. Official documents from the Obama administration through the Biden administration have maintained the same formulation: the US would only use nuclear weapons in "extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States and its allies," but it will not commit to never using them first, because that would weaken deterrence.
The Biden administration discussed NFU in the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review, but ultimately maintained its traditional stance: not ruling out pre-emptive strikes, not making an NFU commitment, and maintaining strategic ambiguity to preserve options in a crisis. During his two terms as president, Trump, whether in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review or his public statements, emphasized that the US must retain the option to use nuclear weapons first in extreme circumstances.
Trump himself has used tougher language in public than Obama and Biden, but policy documents still maintain the traditional stance of "using nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances" and explicitly reject any form of NFU commitment. His team has also repeatedly emphasized that the US must maintain "maximum flexibility" and cannot make restrictive a priori commitments on nuclear policy.
Three days after Carlson made the aforementioned remarks, on August 31, Trump explicitly ruled out the possibility of using nuclear weapons against Iran when taking questions from reporters at the White House. When asked if he was ruling out the option of using nuclear weapons against Iran, Trump called it a "stupid question." Trump stated that Iran had already been militarily struck and thoroughly defeated by the US military, and since conventional military force had achieved its goals, it was unnecessary and illogical to use nuclear weapons against them. He emphasized that the US military would continue to exert strong conventional military pressure, but explicitly denied the use of nuclear strikes.
However, Carlson's remarks are not just a product of his imagination. In addition to Trump's past posts about "totally destroying" Iran and its civilization, the US Department of Defense's policy-making department has indeed discussed related nuclear options.
On August 5, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby stated publicly in a meeting that Pentagon officials are working to provide the President and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth with "credible, rational nuclear options".
Pentagon officials, in explaining defense strategy to Congress, consistently emphasize the need to provide the President with a full range of military options to address various severe security situations, including discussions on nuclear deterrence and tactical nuclear capabilities.
At this meeting, Colby elaborated on the Pentagon's ongoing Nuclear Posture Review and its policy core, which mainly includes two aspects:
I believe that Colby's proposal at the August 5 meeting, while seemingly continuing the US tradition of strategic ambiguity on the surface, actually constitutes a significant relaxation and shift in terms of strategic substance and operational level.
In terms of form, it did not break through the traditional framework, as the US government has refused to commit to not using nuclear weapons first since the Cold War, and has always reserved the right to launch a nuclear strike first in extreme situations. However, in substantive operations and strategic logic, Collin's statement represents a significant relaxation of the US nuclear strategy towards tacticalization and operationalization, specifically reflected in the following three core transformations:
First, shifting from deterrence of mutually assured destruction to tactical options has lowered the threshold for nuclear use. The core of the US's traditional nuclear strategy is mutual assured destruction, with nuclear weapons positioned as the ultimate deterrent to prevent the outbreak of full-scale war. However, by emphasizing the need to provide the President with reliable and rational nuclear options, Colby implies that the Pentagon is reshaping tactical nuclear weapons from a forbidden red line to a conventional military tool that can be rationally used in local regional conflicts.
Second, it deepened the practical trend of the Nuclear Posture Review in Trump's first term. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review had proposed the development of low-yield nuclear warheads, such as the W76-2, in an attempt to fill the deterrence gap against Russia. Colby's statement in early August this year further extended this trend, explicitly including Russia and China in the scope of local tactical nuclear response, attempting to break the dichotomy of either full-scale nuclear retaliation or retreat and concession.
Third, it has blurred the line between conventional war and nuclear war. Traditional arms control theory holds that any nuclear-level transgression would quickly escalate into full-scale nuclear war. Colby's flexible realism and defensive deterrence logic, on the other hand, are based on the premise that tactical nuclear conflicts can be precisely controlled and managed. This logic makes nuclear weapons operational, which is precisely the dangerous turn that some arms control experts and right-wing isolationists like Carlson are most concerned about.
In my view, the Pentagon's latest statement is not simply a continuation of traditional strategy, but rather a significant relaxation and substantive advancement of the tactical attributes of nuclear weapons under the traditional guise of not committing to no first use.
Indeed, Colby's proposal of "rational nuclear deterrence" sparked intense controversy from both the left and right wings, as well as in the field of arms control, after it was made public.
Military control experts and liberal think tanks believe that the development and emphasis on tactical nuclear strike options have blurred the line between nuclear war and conventional war, significantly lowering the nuclear threshold and increasing the danger of regional conflicts escalating into full-scale nuclear war.
Represented by Carlson, right-wing isolationists strongly oppose discussing nuclear options in regional wars that are not in the absolute core interests. Carlson believes that even touching on the possibility of preemptive use of nuclear weapons in discussions is a dangerous move that deviates from "America First" and the security bottom line, which became the direct trigger for Carlson's public and fierce criticism of the Trump administration's diplomacy and nuclear policy.
Critics of Colby's proposal come not only from the left and right in the US and arms control experts, but also from Forbes, a business magazine typically seen as a centrist publication.
On August 30, Forbes published an article by the magazine's columnist William Hartung, criticizing the "rational nuclear option" concept proposed by Colby.
This article notes that Colby's proposal confirms a shift in U.S. nuclear policy—namely, that Washington would explicitly factor the use of tactical (short-range) nuclear weapons into its options in a limited war against Russia or China. But the author hits the nail on the head: if America's adversaries were to suffer a tactical nuclear strike, they would absolutely not shrug it off and forgo retaliation. The situation would very likely escalate, and once a nuclear exchange begins, there is no guarantee it cannot spiral into a full-scale nuclear conflict.
The article concludes that Colby's so-called "rational nuclear option" concept is far from rational, as it would increase rather than decrease the likelihood of nuclear conflict, while also accelerating the disturbing trend of placing nuclear threats at the core of US national security policy.
Of course, Carlson's criticism is particularly noticeable due to his enormous influence.
As the US midterm elections approach, Carlson's high-profile comments about "impeaching" Trump have naturally drawn close attention from all parties, especially given the context of Carlson's remarks about forming a third party, which have infuriated Trump, making this interview all the more significant.
In early August, former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene posted a photo taken at Carlson's home in Maine. Carlson hosted the gathering, which included Greene, Joe Kent, and Representative Thomas Massie. During the meeting, Carlson vowed to establish a third party aimed at reorganizing right-wing anti-interventionists and anti-establishment figures dissatisfied with Trump's Middle East policy, together with conservative voters, into a new political platform. The move triggered Trump's intense fury. Trump subsequently posted a lengthy statement on his social platform, calling Greene a traitor, Massie a bastard, and Carlson irrelevant, while denouncing all three as losers.