Tucker Carlson, the firebrand conservative commentator and former Fox News superstar, is once again shaking the political and media landscape with his unrelenting attacks—not just on the Biden administration or his usual ideological opponents, but on his former colleagues at Fox News itself.
Carlson, whose influence has only grown since his departure from the network, recently unleashed a scathing tirade against Jennifer Griffin, Fox News’ chief national security correspondent, accusing her of acting as a mouthpiece for the so-called "deep state" embedded within the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence apparatus.
The blistering commentary came during a segment of his flagship program, now exclusively hosted on his independent media platform where he commands an audience of tens of millions of conservative and populist viewers worldwide.
Carlson didn’t hold back as he systematically dismantled what he perceives as the corrupt symbiosis between entrenched government forces and media operatives posing as journalists.
In his view, Griffin represents the very worst of this collusion—a media figure who, while claiming impartiality, allegedly serves to launder the narratives of intelligence insiders hostile to Donald Trump and his America First agenda.
“Jennifer Griffin is, even by the standards of Pentagon employees, not technically employed by the Pentagon, but spiritually, intellectually, and practically, she is theirs,” Carlson proclaimed with characteristic venom.
“She is a shill for the deepest of the deep states. She doesn’t even hide it anymore. It’s a parody of journalism. She might as well be reading press releases from Langley.”
Carlson’s remarks come on the heels of a broader political firestorm surrounding President Trump’s dramatic foreign policy triumph—an unexpected ceasefire deal brokered between Israel and Iran, defusing what many feared would spiral into a catastrophic regional war.
While the establishment media and Washington insiders responded with skepticism, Carlson threw his full weight behind Trump’s peacemaking, framing it as yet another instance of the former president outmaneuvering the bipartisan war machine in D.C.
But rather than celebrating Trump’s achievement, Carlson argues that media operatives like Griffin, alongside establishment hawks in both parties, have worked tirelessly to undermine it.
In his view, Griffin exemplifies the covert resistance to Trump’s foreign policy that has dogged him since his first term—a shadow war waged not on the battlefield, but through the corridors of intelligence agencies and their preferred journalists.
Joining Carlson in his excoriation of Griffin was Clayton Morris, another former Fox News host, who concurred that Griffin has cozied up far too closely with Pentagon sources.
Morris even pointed out that Griffin has an office inside the Pentagon itself—a symbol, in his eyes, of her compromised reporting. “When you’re given an office by the people you’re supposed to hold accountable, you’re not a journalist anymore. You’re a spokesperson,” Morris said, amplifying the distrust many conservatives now feel toward traditional newsrooms.
Carlson went even further, recounting how he personally raised concerns about Griffin during his tenure at Fox News. According to Carlson, his appeals to Fox executives fell on deaf ears.
“I complained about her, and I don’t like to complain about my colleagues, but she was actively discrediting the network,” Carlson said. “She hated Trump—emotionally, irrationally. She misled our viewers, yet when I brought it up, I was told by an executive, ‘You cannot touch Jennifer Griffin.’”
The former Fox anchor did not mince words about the implications of such editorial protection. “She’s an idiot. She’s a liar. She’s a screaming liberal masquerading as a national security expert,” Carlson said, bristling with frustration. “She misleads our viewers—viewers who love Trump, by the way—so what value does she bring to the network? Zero.”
Carlson’s animus toward Griffin and her ilk also underscores a broader rift within conservative media, particularly among figures who align with Trump’s non-interventionist, America First foreign policy, versus those who cling to neoconservative doctrines of military interventionism.
This division has led to bitter public feuds, notably between Carlson and fellow Fox News personality Mark Levin, a prominent pro-Israel commentator and staunch advocate of hawkish foreign policy stances.
Following the announcement of Trump’s Israel-Iran ceasefire breakthrough, Carlson couldn’t resist taking a swipe at Levin. Posting on X (formerly Twitter), he wrote, “Thank God Trump brokered a ceasefire.
That’s the last thing Mark Levin wanted.” The jab reignited a personal and ideological feud that has been simmering for weeks. Levin, in turn, has accused Carlson of harboring antisemitic sentiments—an accusation Carlson has dismissed as both defamatory and desperate.
Carlson’s rise to political power has been nothing short of meteoric since his firing from Fox News in 2023, following the network’s controversial settlement with Dominion Voting Systems.
Many analysts speculated that Carlson’s ousting would diminish his influence, but the opposite has occurred. By leveraging his independent platform, he has cemented himself not just as a media mogul but as a kingmaker within the conservative movement.
His interviews, monologues, and social media commentary routinely set the tone for political discourse on the right, and his ability to shape grassroots opinion is so profound that President Trump himself reportedly reached out to Carlson to personally assure him that the U.S. would not escalate military action against Iran.
While Carlson has refused to temper his attacks on what he perceives as the deep state’s manipulation of the media narrative, his criticism also reflects a deeper frustration with Fox News’ evolution.
Once a bastion of conservative commentary, Fox has increasingly faced accusations from its rightward flank of being compromised by establishment interests.
Carlson’s indictment of Griffin serves as a broader critique of Fox’s continued reliance on sources embedded within the intelligence and military apparatus—figures whom Carlson contends have every incentive to lie to the public in order to perpetuate endless wars and obscure their own failures.
Morris added weight to this narrative by reminding viewers that proximity to power corrupts journalistic integrity. “Once you’re given insider access, you stop asking tough questions. You become dependent on that access, and then you become their tool,” he warned.
The stakes of this media conflict extend far beyond personal grievances. At its core, Carlson’s war on Griffin, Levin, and the broader pro-war faction within conservative media is a fight over the soul of the Republican Party and its foreign policy vision.
Trump’s ceasefire with Iran marks a definitive break from the neoconservative agenda that dominated the GOP for decades, particularly during the George W. Bush years.
By positioning himself as the guardian of America First non-interventionism, Carlson is not just defending Trump—he is reasserting a nationalist doctrine that views foreign entanglements as corrosive to American prosperity and sovereignty.
Carlson’s independent media empire, powered by his website and social channels, has given him unprecedented freedom to speak without institutional censorship.
Unlike his Fox tenure, where internal politics occasionally constrained his commentary, Carlson now operates with unfiltered precision, targeting not just Democrats but also Republicans he deems complicit in advancing the deep state’s interests.
This dynamic has made Carlson both a potent ally and a dangerous enemy within conservative politics. His name has been floated multiple times as a potential running mate for Trump, although Carlson has publicly downplayed such speculation.
Still, his grip on the MAGA grassroots is undeniable, and his approval or disapproval can sway public sentiment almost instantaneously.
The unfolding battle between Carlson and Fox’s entrenched correspondents like Griffin, and pundits like Levin, is emblematic of a larger ideological realignment in American conservatism.
It pits nationalist populism against globalist conservatism, media independence against corporate journalism, and unyielding skepticism of intelligence agencies against blind deference to them.
For Carlson, the path forward is clear: he will continue to expose what he sees as the manipulation of public opinion by a corrupt media-intelligence alliance, even if it means burning bridges with his former employer.
And with millions hanging on his every word, the deep state—if it exists as Carlson describes—may find that their greatest threat is not a politician, but a broadcaster who refuses to play by their rules.
