Tucker Carlson Explains Why Donald Trump Betrayed His Voters on Foreign Wars
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Charlie Kirk and Michael Flynn Break Down Trump's Ukraine Peace Strategy and NATO Sticking Points
44:36
Candace Owens Explains Why She Says F Ukraine and Why America Must Put Itself First
10:05
Charlie Kirk and Dr. Paul Ray Unpack the 46-Year War Iran Has Waged Against the West
15:54
Tucker Carlson Explains Why Donald Trump Betrayed His Voters on Foreign Wars
Tucker Carlson delivered a searing critique of Donald Trump's foreign policy decisions, arguing that the former president abandoned his campaign promises to avoid foreign entanglements. Carlson specifically focused on Trump's handling of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, which he characterized as fundamentally a war between the United States and Russia rather than a Ukrainian conflict. He accused Trump of following the wishes of a foreign government rather than his voters, pointing to the same forces that pushed for war with Iran now driving continued conflict with Russia. Carlson expressed particular alarm at what he described as the administration's shifting nuclear doctrine and Trump's threats of nuclear weapon use, contrasting these actions sharply with Trump's earlier campaign warnings about avoiding World War III.
Tucker Carlson opened with a stark accusation: Donald Trump betrayed his voters by following the wishes of a foreign government rather than the American people who elected him. Carlson acknowledged the controversy this claim would generate but insisted it remained undeniably true, placing responsibility not on those pointing it out but on those who committed the acts.
According to Carlson, Trump's distinguishing quality as a candidate wasn't standard promises about lowering energy prices or fighting drugs — it was his pledge to avoid foreign entanglements and prevent another neoconservative war. This promise set him apart from typical politicians and resonated with voters tired of endless conflicts.
The Ukraine War Is Actually a US-Russia War
Carlson reframed the conflict commonly called the Ukraine war, arguing it has never actually been a Ukrainian conflict. Instead, he characterized it as a war between NATO — the coalition run and funded by the United States — and Russia. In other words, a direct confrontation between the US and Russia.
This war, which began in winter 2022, was inspired by the Biden administration, which actively wanted the conflict. Carlson claimed the United States, in what he called "the most passive-aggressive possible way," pushed Russia into this war with the goal of defeating or weakening Russia, though no one has clearly defined what that objective actually means. He called the entire project insane.
Trump himself understood exactly what was happening at the time and said so publicly. He warned repeatedly, both in interviews and private conversations, that the main danger was Russia being pushed into an alliance with China. Such an alliance would leave the United States facing a coalition combining the world's largest country (Russia), the world's largest population (China), the world's largest economy (China), and the world's deepest military-industrial capacity and resource base (Russia). Trump stated clearly that America cannot win against such a coalition — a prediction Carlson says has proven true.
Trump's Campaign Promise to End the War
Because Trump understood these dynamics, he promised repeatedly on the campaign trail that when he became president, he would bring the war to a close. Trump claimed he could settle the conflict in 24 hours, saying it wasn't tough to do and was easy compared to many other challenges.
Carlson agreed that Trump was actually right about this assessment. While the foreign policy establishment and State Department experts insist the situation is very complicated, Carlson argued it's not that complicated at all. His reasoning: Ukraine as a nation no longer exists in any meaningful sense. American policymakers have, in his words, "basically genocided the entire population of the country." More than a million people have died, with Ukrainians being sent to the front in handcuffs to certain death.
Ukraine itself could never prosecute a war against Russia independently because Russia has more than 100 million more people, making the entire premise absurd. There is no genuine war between Russia and Ukraine. In practical terms, the United States provides the targeting information for Ukrainian missiles and drones through its intelligence agencies. Therefore, the war would end tomorrow if the US actually withdrew that support.
Trump could accomplish this with a single phone call, Carlson explained. He could tell the Director of Central Intelligence and the NSA Director to stop immediately, threatening to fire and bring charges against anyone caught running the war for the Ukrainians. This would end the conflict. Russia would wind up with a chunk of Eastern Ukraine, but that outcome is inevitable regardless. It might be better for Ukraine to stop sending its next generation — and even middle-aged men and people with Down syndrome — into the meat grinder.
That's the only real option, and Trump could execute it. But he hasn't, not for two years.
The Same Forces Pushing War with Iran and Russia
Carlson asked why Trump hasn't followed through on his promise. His answer: it's really simple. The same people who pushed Trump into war with Iran are now pushing him to continue the war against Russia and Putin.
Carlson posed what he called a really interesting question that someone ought to write a book about: Why would the same people who pushed the US into war with Iran be pushing the United States to war with Russia? He declined to speculate but stated it as fact that it's exactly the same group.
Trump is clearly unable to resist that push, Carlson concluded. As a result, the United States is much more deeply involved in a war with Russia than it was two years ago. There have been assassination attempts on Vladimir Putin that the United States has abetted. Since there's no Ukrainian army or Ukrainian initiative without American help, from the Russian perspective, the US government is trying to assassinate their president.
Carlson questioned whether this is wise, even if one believes Putin is the worst person ever to live. Is it smart to try assassinating the leader of a nation that possesses the world's largest nuclear arsenal? Probably not, especially as Trump himself repeatedly said on the campaign trail — such actions push the world toward a nuclear war from which no one escapes. Everybody dies. It's the end of the world.
Trump's Previous Warnings About Nuclear War
Carlson emphasized that Trump, as the only American authorized to use nuclear weapons, has been briefed on their destructive power and knows extensively about it. Trump has talked about it in public frequently with what appeared to be heartfelt horror, warning people never to use these weapons because they're horrible — which they are. This appeared entirely sincere.
Carlson played an example of Trump warning about nuclear weapons during the campaign, where Trump expressed worry about nuclear conflict because incompetent people were dealing with it. Trump warned that the country would end up in World War III, facing a nuclear holocaust if not careful. He claimed these people have no idea what they're doing and promised to keep America out of World War III, saying he was the only one who could do it.
Carlson noted this seemed completely real. Trump didn't just say it in that one speech — he said it again and again in speeches, interviews, at dinners, in private and in public. Trump expressed genuine fear of a nuclear exchange, calling it the worst possible outcome. He described how a nuclear weapon hitting New York would destroy Miami because they're that powerful.
The Bewildering Reversal
Given those repeated warnings, Carlson expressed total bewilderment that two years later, the world sits on the brink — and he insisted that's not an exaggeration — of a nuclear exchange. And the world is on this brink because of the actions of Donald Trump and the Trump administration.
Carlson acknowledged it causes pain to say that out loud and is shocking to say, but insisted it remains true. In Truth Social post after Truth Social post, in public statement after public statement, including three days before Carlson's comments, Trump has threatened nuclear war. The same person who told voters two years ago that nuclear war is the worst thing and World War III is the one thing he would avoid, who called the people running everything lunatics who want war while he doesn't — that same person is now threatening to unleash nuclear weapons against the country he started a voluntary war with that doesn't even possess them. An offensive use of nuclear weapons.
This threat isn't just in Trump's Truth Social posts. The US government is changing and has announced it's changing its nuclear doctrine — not to constrain its ability to use nuclear weapons, but to free it up to use nuclear weapons. The attitude appears to be, "We're losing this war, let's just nuke them."
The Moral Bankruptcy of Nuclear Threats
Leaving aside the morality of such a position, which Carlson called diseased and completely indefensible, many on the right are defending it. People who seemed totally sane just days earlier, like Victor Davis Hanson, are suddenly talking about the glories of Hiroshima.
Carlson flatly stated that Hiroshima was a moral crime. He clarified this isn't a defense of Pearl Harbor or the Imperial Japanese government, but to incinerate non-combatants with a nuclear weapon is, by definition, evil. There's no defending that action. Anyone who defends it has immediately disqualified himself from leadership of any kind.
