Tucker Carlson, a highly influential right-wing internet personality in the US, recently made some remarks that have shocked both domestic and international audiences.
On August 28, Carlson said in an interview program that if US President Trump considers using nuclear weapons first, he should be removed from office immediately, and that even considering such a possibility should disqualify him from the presidency.
Carlson's remarks are shocking because he is not 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 has long used his platform to defend Trump's policies and actively campaign for his election. Trump also highly values Carlson's opinion influence, not only giving him multiple exclusive interviews, but also seeking his advice on some governance and diplomatic decision-making. The two had formed a close and mutually beneficial political alliance, jointly shaping the public opinion landscape of right-wing populism in the Trump era in the United States.
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 war with Iran, a stance that also led to Carlson's public break with Trump over the Iran war.
Carlson said he had 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 takes place at an extremely dangerous juncture: the US-Iran war, which broke out in late February, has now lasted several months, with the conflict ebbing and intensifying but never truly ceasing. On August 1, the US suspended strikes at the request of its Gulf allies, ushering in roughly a month of relative calm. But on August 30, US warplanes struck Iran, and Tehran retaliated immediately, resuming direct military exchanges that have since continued to escalate. Trump has signaled the possibility of an even larger-scale strike.
Reactions from All Sides
Carlson's remarks on August 28 sparked a strong reaction from all parties.
Although Trump and his administration officials may have refrained from publicly commenting to avoid escalating the situation, Carlson's remarks have sparked intense debate within the US conservative community, highlighting the divisions among the right on foreign policy.
Some right-wing figures who have long opposed U.S. military intervention overseas, such as Alex Jones, expressed concern over and support for Carlson's remarks, arguing that if the president were indeed considering a nuclear strike, Congress or the Cabinet should rein him in through legal means such as impeachment or the 25th Amendment.
However, die-hard Trump supporters from the MAGA camp and some conservative commentators 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, 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 to prove that a deep split is occurring within the MAGA camp.
Internationally, some Middle Eastern media outlets, such as Qatar's Al Jazeera, the pan-Arabic news TV 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 major rift between Carlson and Trump, and pointed out 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 posing the question: "The significance of these remarks goes beyond Carlson's personal stance—what matters more is that they reopen a debate: Can a U.S. president use nuclear weapons as part of a pressure tool in a regional crisis without such a threat triggering broad strategic consequences?"
Not Without Basis
The US government has consistently refused to commit to a principle of not being the first to use nuclear weapons. This is because US nuclear deterrence is not limited to nuclear attacks, but also covers large-scale conventional attacks, biochemical attacks, and threats to its allies. Official documents from the Obama to Biden administrations have maintained the same stance: the US will only use nuclear weapons in "extreme circumstances, to defend the vital interests of the US and its allies," but will not commit to never being the first to use them, as this would undermine deterrence.
In its 2022 Nuclear Posture Review, the Biden administration discussed a no-first-use policy but ultimately maintained the traditional stance: no preemptive strike exclusion, no no-first-use commitment, and strategic ambiguity to preserve options during crises. Across both of his presidential terms—whether in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review or in his public statements—Trump has emphasized that the United States must retain the option to use nuclear weapons first under 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 had ruled out the option of using nuclear weapons against Iran, Trump called it a "ridiculous 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, while explicitly denying the use of nuclear strikes.
However, Carlson's remarks were not just a product of his imagination. In addition to Trump's previous post 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 the 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 superficially continuing the US tradition of strategic ambiguity, 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, always reserving the right to launch a nuclear strike first in extreme situations. However, in substantive operation 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 binary dilemma 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 nuclear weapons' combat attributes under the traditional commitment of not being the first to use them.
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.
Arms control experts and liberal think tanks argue that developing and emphasizing tactical nuclear strike options blurs the line between nuclear and conventional warfare, substantially lowers the nuclear threshold, and heightens the risk that regional conflicts could escalate into full-scale nuclear war.
Right-wing isolationists, represented by Carlson, firmly oppose any discussion of nuclear options in regional conflicts that do not involve absolute core interests. Carlson believes that even touching on the possibility of preemptive nuclear use in policy discussions constitutes a dangerous departure from "America First" and security red lines—a stance that directly triggered his public, blistering attacks on the Trump administration's foreign 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 centrist.
On August 30, Forbes published an article by the magazine's columnist William Hartung, criticizing the "rational nuclear option" concept proposed by Colby.
The article points out that Colby's proposal confirms a shift in US nuclear policy, where the US would explicitly consider the use of tactical (short-range) nuclear weapons in the event of a local war with Russia or China. However, the author astutely notes that US adversaries would absolutely not shrug off a tactical nuclear attack without retaliation, and the situation is highly likely to escalate, and once nuclear strikes and counterstrikes occur, it cannot be guaranteed that they will not trigger a full-scale nuclear conflict.
The article therefore concludes that Colby's so-called "rational nuclear option" is far from rational. It would increase, not reduce, the likelihood of nuclear conflict, while accelerating an already troubling trend of placing nuclear threats at the center of U.S. national security policy.
Of course, Carlson's criticism is all the more conspicuous 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 was attended by Greene, Joe Kent, and Representative Thomas Massie, during which Carlson vowed to establish a third party aimed at reorganizing right-wing anti-interventionist, anti-establishment, and conservative voters dissatisfied with Trump's Middle East policy into a new political platform. The move sparked Trump's intense anger, prompting him to post a lengthy statement on his social media platform, calling Greene a traitor, Massie a disaster, Carlson irrelevant, and denouncing all three as losers.