Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene openly supported Tucker Carlson over Donald Trump in the debate over US involvement in the Israel-Iran war. Carlson accused Trump of being “complicit” in Israel’s actions against Iran, and Trump responded by calling him “kooky.” The dispute reveals a serious divide between proponents of strategic military engagement and non-interventionists within the MAGA movement. Greene concurred that America should put its internal problems ahead of its foreign conflicts and commended Carlson’s popularity.
A Surprising Split in MAGA Ranks
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, long considered one of Donald Trump’s most loyal supporters in Congress, has surprised many by publicly defending Tucker Carlson after the president criticized the conservative commentator. The unexpected split has emerged over differing views on U.S. involvement in the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, with Carlson advocating for a non-interventionist approach and Trump emphasizing the importance of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The controversy began when Carlson criticized Trump’s position on the Israel-Iran conflict, suggesting the president was “complicit” in Israel’s military actions. Trump responded forcefully on social media, calling Carlson “kooky” and emphasizing his position that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Rather than aligning with Trump as expected, Greene took to social media to defend Carlson, praising his popularity and commitment to America-first principles.
We are Team MAGA
Team
Massie
Paul
MTGTucker!!
It is Anti-American to go to war for traitors! pic.twitter.com/eytZcckToC
— Karen, Esq. (@kanarymine3) June 17, 2025
The Heart of the Disagreement
The core of this internal MAGA conflict centers on fundamentally different approaches to foreign policy. Carlson has positioned himself as firmly opposed to American military intervention in the Middle East, framing the debate in stark terms. He has characterized the situation as a choice between those who advocate for violence and those who seek peace, rather than a matter of supporting either Israel or Iran specifically.
Trump, however, has maintained that his position is based on strategic national security concerns. His emphatic response underscores his view that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons represents an essential American interest that might require intervention. “Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that ‘IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!'” Trump wrote, making clear his assessment that certain international threats demand American action regardless of broader non-interventionist principles.
MTG defends Tucker Carlson in a rebuke of President Trump! Look out! https://t.co/3jJuqRX0jz
— Lex_571 🇺🇸 (@Lex_491) June 17, 2025
Greene’s Surprising Defense of Carlson
Greene’s decision to align with Carlson rather than Trump has shocked many within the MAGA movement, where loyalty to the president has traditionally been paramount. In her defense of Carlson, Greene emphasized his personal character and his growing influence since leaving Fox News. Her comments suggest she sees no contradiction between supporting both Trump and Carlson, even as they publicly disagree on a matter of significant policy importance.
Greene’s stance appears to prioritize the shared “America First” principles that initially united the MAGA movement, particularly the desire to focus on domestic priorities rather than foreign entanglements. Her support for Carlson has drawn both criticism and praise, with some supporters viewing her willingness to break with Trump on this issue as a sign of principle rather than disloyalty. Critics, however, argue that her position undermines unity within the movement at a critical time.
Broader Implications for the MAGA Movement
This public disagreement between three prominent MAGA figures highlights the evolving nature of the movement as it grapples with defining its approach to complex foreign policy challenges. The tensions expose the difficulty of maintaining strict ideological coherence when confronted with real-world scenarios that don’t fit neatly into campaign slogans. For many observers, this split represents the natural growing pains of a political movement attempting to translate general principles into specific policy positions.
As the situation continues to develop, the disagreement raises important questions about the future direction of conservative foreign policy. Will the non-interventionist wing represented by Carlson and Greene gain greater influence, or will Trump’s more flexible approach to international engagement prevail? The resolution of this debate could have significant implications not just for the MAGA movement but for Republican foreign policy positions more broadly as the party prepares for future electoral contests.