Truth Is the First Casualty of War: Tucker Carlson and Doug Wilson on Israel, Islam, and Media

What happens when a public debate becomes so charged that people can't even say, out loud, that killing innocents is wrong? In this wide-ranging conversation, Pastor Douglas Wilson and Tucker Carlson talk through conservative infighting, the Israel and Gaza debate, Islam in the West, and what "America First" should mean in practice. Along the way, they keep circling the same concern: when fear and politics take over, truth and moral clarity don't just get blurry, they get treated like threats.

Doug Wilson's opening frame: friendship, "wobbles," and a theological backdrop

Douglas Wilson introduces the conversation by naming two realities at once. First, he and Tucker Carlson remain friends, and many people who follow Wilson's ministry appreciate Carlson's influence. Second, Wilson thinks Carlson has "serious wobbles" on some topics. He adds a pointed twist: many "respectable" conservative critics of Tucker have their own compromises, especially on questions Wilson associates with Obergefell. In other words, there's no clean set of heroes and villains in today's right-of-center arguments.

Wilson highlights two areas where he thinks Carlson is naive.

One is Islam. Wilson suggests Tucker underestimates the threat Islam poses to the West, and he points to Tucker's admiration for public order in places like Abu Dhabi or Riyadh. Tucker jokes about not wanting to "wind up with a society like this" with a rape rate of zero and the kind of safety where someone could leave keys in a Lamborghini. Wilson hears that as misplaced admiration, because safety and moral order can coexist with a system that still threatens Christian civilization.

The second is Nick Fuentes. Wilson says Tucker clearly saw how Piers Morgan got played by Fuentes, yet missed that "there's more than one way to be played." A skilled provocateur can win whether he's being scolded or platformed, and Wilson wants that danger on the table.

Wilson then adds what he calls "applied theology," not as a tangent but as background to recurring tensions around Jews, Islam, and antisemitic movements. He traces a biblical arc: God set Abraham's descendants apart for the salvation of the world. That consecration becomes a deep structure of history, and it does not go away. Yet salvation requires sacrifice, a scapegoat, the shedding of blood. Wilson says the Mosaic system pointed forward to Christ, who became a curse "hanged on a tree," the true Israel, struck and afflicted. Many Jews believed, while many did not, and Wilson says Israel's ruling elites demanded Christ's death.

From there, Wilson argues that unbelieving Jews remain, in a sense, a "salvation people" yet "without a messiah," which leaves Gentile cultures tempted to turn on Jews again and again. They seek a scapegoat in the place where the world learned to look for salvation. He quotes Jesus to the Samaritan woman: "Salvation is of the Jews." If that lightning rod is rejected, Wilson suggests, societies look for substitutes, and they often become violent.

This is the theological atmosphere Wilson says sits behind the interview, even when it's not named directly.

"Salvation is of the Jews." Wilson's point is that history keeps trying to force a scapegoat, even when people reject the cross.

Tucker Carlson's "intellectual pilgrimage," from Cold War assumptions to Iraq

Carlson describes his background as a long journey with a simple starting point. Born in 1969, he grew up in an intellectual world shaped by the Cold War. In that framework, the Soviet Union stood for anti-market and anti-Christian forces, while the United States stood as its mirror opposite. He also grew up in what he calls a conservative, non-conformist family, with a father who read constantly and held views that diverged sharply from conventional telling of history.

Carlson says his father believed many supposed villains were actually heroes, and that history gets rewritten to fit "the current thing." When Wilson presses for examples, Carlson brings up Abraham Lincoln. His father opposed slavery strongly, partly from libertarian instincts, yet saw Lincoln as authoritarian for suspending habeas corpus. A president can't declare himself "emperor," Carlson recalls his father saying. Carlson also remembers long conversations about American Indians, their adaptation to their environment, and what happens inside a people when a civilization is subdued and "gives up" in some deeper way.

That home shaped Carlson's early politics. He describes his father as a patriarchal presence, yet not authoritarian in daily life. He jokes about being encouraged to hitchhike. Because his father was so commanding, Carlson says he naturally adopted his father's politics. That loyalty also delayed a later realization: institutions he trusted weren't acting for his stated values and often were not what they claimed.

Carlson dates a major shift to December 2003, when he traveled to Iraq. He had argued for the war while hosting a debate show, then went months later at his father's insistence. Seeing the war up close produced a basic conclusion: "We're not good at it." What shocked him next was the reaction back in Washington. He wasn't met with serious argument, but with hostility and accusations that he was a "leftist," even though he says one core conviction never changed: abortion is the killing of a child in the womb.

From that point, Carlson describes a chain reaction. He doesn't present himself as someone who "arrived," but as someone committed to changing views when reality forces it. He frames confession and correction as moral basics, the kind he demanded from his own children. He also says the "post-war order" is collapsing, and he expects his own views to keep changing as events unfold.

Wars, Hiroshima, and a moral line: "You can't kill innocents on purpose"

Wilson and Carlson move from biography into war, power, and moral language. Carlson argues that endless wars are not an accident of the current system. They are central to how it maintains itself, projects force, and enriches insiders. In Carlson's telling, "endless wars" are not a bug, they are the system.

When Wilson asks when this turn happened, Carlson says he traces a major shift to 1945 and the atomic bombings of Japan. Wilson notes that Curtis LeMay's firebombing had already devastated Tokyo, and raises the hard question: is an atomic death "more horrific" than conventional death? Carlson says, strictly speaking, no. The deeper issue, he says, is that the public knew what happened, yet America never had a national moment of moral reckoning about intentionally killing innocents.

Wilson brings in just war categories. Augustine's just war tradition forbids making war on civilians, and Wilson calls terrorizing a populace "terrorism." Carlson agrees with the principle and pushes it further: even when tough decisions lead to civilian deaths, the right posture is not celebration or indifference. A nation should say, "That was wrong," or at least acknowledge the horror. Otherwise, the moral boundary dissolves.

Carlson warns that "collateral damage" can become a permission slip. He connects that logic to non-war issues like abortion and end-of-life decisions. Once a society trains itself to speak about killing as mere necessity, it can apply the same excuse anywhere.

That moral line becomes the bridge to Gaza. Carlson says a large part of the argument over Hiroshima and Nagasaki now functions as a way to defend what he sees as the Israeli government's indefensible actions in Gaza. In his view, the moment someone starts justifying civilian deaths as no big deal, they end up unable to draw any boundary at all.

Gaza, Israel, and the question conservatives won't answer

Carlson's Gaza comments are blunt. He calls what the Israeli government is doing in Gaza "terrorism" and "unconscionable." He points to blocked aid, the refusal to allow cameras in, and the killing of journalists as evidence that authorities do not want outsiders to see what's happening. He says tens of thousands of children have been killed, and he describes visiting surviving siblings of some of those children.

Wilson challenges Carlson with a common defense: many people say Israel is not targeting civilians on purpose. Carlson responds that greater transparency would help, yet claims that transparency isn't being allowed. He also argues that the U.S. is paying for and defending Israel's actions diplomatically, which makes the issue inseparable from American interest and American moral responsibility.

The conversation turns explicitly Christian when Carlson mentions churches. He says Israel has struck churches, schools, and hospitals, and he rejects the idea that "tunnels underneath" would justify destroying a church. Wilson agrees that blowing up Christian churches is not something Christians should shrug off, yet he also tries to keep categories clear when propaganda and fog of war distort reports. Carlson replies that more cameras and more angles are the cure for propaganda, not censorship.

A key theme is Carlson's frustration with conservative leaders who, in his view, won't say the simplest moral sentence. He returns to it repeatedly: if someone can't say killing a child who did nothing wrong is immoral, then the conversation isn't a policy debate anymore. It's a clash of moral worlds.

Wilson presses an important distinction: Hamas openly targets civilians and boasts about it. Carlson doesn't dispute October 7 as an atrocity. Instead, he claims Israel is dependent enough on U.S. support that it manipulates U.S. media and messaging, and therefore will not "own" wrongdoing in the same way. Wilson summarizes that as hypocrisy, and Carlson reframes it as dependence and propaganda.

They also touch on Israeli cabinet ministers Carlson describes as speaking in racial terms about Palestinians. Carlson says he will "resist that view" because Western civilization punishes guilty individuals, not groups. If the West accepts group punishment abroad, he warns, the logic will come home.

Free speech, Nick Fuentes, and why scolding can backfire

Wilson asks a practical question about Carlson's show: when Carlson hosts "free spirits," is that endorsement? Carlson says sometimes he does fully endorse guests, and he gives an example of endorsing James Tour, an organic chemist, after Tour made what Carlson called a strong case against Darwinian explanations of life.

Yet Carlson also says he hosts people because he believes in free speech and feels drawn to topics that "you're not allowed to talk about." He distinguishes private matters, where privacy should remain, from public policy matters, like foreign influence.

That leads to Nick Fuentes. Carlson says some of Fuentes's claims are, in Carlson's view, true, while other parts are immoral or poisonous. Wilson replies with an analogy: Fuentes may have a good point on one shoe, but he stepped in something foul with the other.

To make the contrast clear, here's how Carlson frames his own posture in the conversation.

Carlson says he confronted Fuentes directly on antisemitism, calling it immoral, not merely unfashionable. He also says the deeper issue in that interview was not Israel but the broken relationship between young men and young women, which he calls a "national emergency."

Carlson then criticizes the "scolding" approach, using Piers Morgan as the example. He says Morgan tried to shame Fuentes, and Fuentes used that setup to look funny, quick, and victorious. Carlson compares it to a generational script where "dad" lectures the kid about rock music, and the kid wins because the lecturing proves the kid's point about the establishment.

Wilson's concern is different: people can get played even when they think they're "bringing someone into the light." Carlson agrees that the risk exists, yet argues censorship and performative outrage often make the targeted figure stronger.

Christian Zionism, evangelicals, and Carlson's public apology for hate

Wilson references Carlson's remarks at a memorial for someone named Charlie, where Carlson warned about a "little hate compartment" inside the heart. Wilson then asks about a separate report that Carlson said he "hated Christian Zionism."

Carlson responds plainly: he did say it, and he apologized publicly the next day. He calls the comment awful, partly because it reflected something real in his heart. He insists Christians can't excuse hatred, even when provoked by political betrayal or slander.

From there, Carlson pushes on theology, while also admitting his limits. He says he's not a theologian and doesn't know the inner debates between dispensationalism and replacement theology. Still, he claims two things with confidence:

1. He doesn't see another way into heaven besides believing in Jesus Christ.
2. He rejects defending the killing of Christians "in the name of Jesus."

That second point drives his anger at evangelical leaders who, in his telling, travel to Israel on sponsored trips, then return to attack critics as anti-Semitic while refusing to speak plainly about civilian deaths and suffering. Carlson also challenges whether such leaders evangelize while there. He frames it as a loyalty test where "team politics" trumps "team Jesus."

Wilson adds a personal note from his own experience: he spoke with a Palestinian Christian in Bethlehem who felt trapped, a minority among Jews and Muslims. Carlson says Arab Christians exist across the region, and he condemns dismissing them as "Islamists."

Whatever readers think about the politics, this section turns on a spiritual warning both men recognize: hatred is easy to excuse when it wears religious clothing.

How to spot truth in media when war turns everything into propaganda

Wilson asks how "normal people" can tell journalism from click-chasing, gossip, and outrage farming. Carlson answers with a sweeping indictment of legacy media. He says those problems existed in mainstream media for decades, and the industry's main job was to deny it.

His first test is human, not technical: sincerity. Carlson claims people can "smell" when someone means what they say. He admits he's often wrong, but says the key question is whether someone speaks in good faith.

His second test is common sense, and he uses Nord Stream as the example. After the pipeline explosion, Carlson says major outlets told Americans that Putin did it. Carlson's response was simple: why would Putin destroy his own pipeline and harm his own economy? "Because he's evil" was not a logical answer to him. Carlson claims later reporting supported his suspicion that the U.S. did it, and he presents that as a model for everyday discernment. Don't accept claims that violate basic incentive and motive.

Wilson agrees that truth becomes a weapon in war, quoting the line that "the first casualty in war is the truth." Carlson answers that the cure for propaganda is not less information but more perspectives. He also argues that censorship always flows from the powerful to the powerless, and he treats that impulse as spiritual, not just political.

Carlson's test is blunt: if people won't answer a question and instead call you a name, they're hiding something or they don't have an answer.

America First, debt, and why foreign priorities keep taking over

Near the end, Wilson asks whether the conservative movement will fracture. Carlson says the polling suggests less division than it appears online. Then he offers a definition: being conservative in 2025 means "America First," not as a slogan but as a basic principle of democratic government. A government exists to act for its citizens first, not exclusively, but first.

Wilson agrees on the principle and adds that disagreements come in the details. He offers tariffs as an example. A person can support tariffs or oppose them on "America First" grounds, depending on how they think tariffs will land in the real economy.

Carlson says the Israel debate forced a more basic question into the open: how does a given policy help America? He describes asking that question publicly, including in a conversation with Senator Ted Cruz, and says it created backlash and accusations of antisemitism. For Carlson, the trigger was the idea of the U.S. drifting toward a regime-change war with Iran shortly after a new inauguration, with a foreign leader pressing demands.

Carlson's hierarchy of concern is stark. He says Iran belongs low on the list, while America's debt crisis belongs at the top. He also says cultural decay, including the sexual economy around OnlyFans, is a larger domestic emergency than Iran. Wilson offers a counterpoint that multiple threats can exist, but Carlson returns to scarcity: time and money force leaders to rank priorities.

Wilson raises Islam as a separate danger, pointing to Europe and the UK as a preview of where the U.S. could go. Carlson says he shares the concern about Europe's immigration outcomes. Still, he pushes back on simplified stories about the Middle East, noting that he claims there are more Christians living in Qatar than in Israel, and that Qatar has provided land for churches. He also asks who encouraged large-scale Muslim immigration into the U.S. after 9/11, suggesting that some of the same institutions now pushing anti-Muslim narratives supported those policies earlier.

Wilson's bottom line is that Islam poses a real doctrinal and civilizational threat. Carlson's bottom line is that Americans keep getting "played" into foreign entanglements that, in his view, weaken the U.S. and then "import" the results back home.

Conclusion: moral clarity, free speech, and the danger of a hardened heart

Wilson and Carlson don't resolve every rabbit trail they surface. They do something simpler and, in its own way, harder: they keep returning to first principles. A society should be able to say killing innocents is wrong, even when war makes every decision costly. A Christian should be able to reject hatred, even when slander and pressure feel constant. A free people should be able to ask obvious questions about power without being silenced by labels.

The conversation leaves a clean challenge for Christian readers: when political loyalty tempts moral compromise, which voice gets the final word, the party's, the tribe's, or Christ's?