Tucker Carlson vs. Nick Fuentes – Hypocrisy, Projections, and CIA Shadows

In the ever-volatile landscape of right-wing media and activism, few rivalries have captured as much attention as the ongoing clash between Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes. What began as ideological skirmishes has devolved into personal attacks, accusations of federal infiltration, and charges of hypocrisy. At the heart of this feud lies a potent irony: Carlson and Owens have accused Fuentes of undermining “sincere” conservatives by associating them with extremism, yet Fuentes counters that they are the true establishment gatekeepers—potentially projecting their own flaws while gaslighting their audience. Adding fuel to the fire is Carlson’s inconsistent narrative about his father’s ties to the CIA, which raises questions about transparency and credibility. This article dissects the feud, highlighting these contradictions and the broader implications for the American right.

Background: Ideological Fault Lines and Rising Tensions

Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host turned independent podcaster, has positioned himself as a critic of mainstream conservatism, neoconservatism, and endless foreign wars. Candace Owens, a prominent conservative commentator and former Daily Wire host, has similarly built a brand around challenging establishment narratives, particularly on issues like race, Israel, and cultural decay. Nick Fuentes, the young white nationalist and “America First” advocate, represents a more radical fringe, known for his unapologetic ethnonationalism, Holocaust denial, and criticism of Jewish influence in politics.

The feud’s roots trace back to at least 2022, when Fuentes dined with Kanye West (Ye) and former President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, drawing widespread condemnation. Carlson, who has praised aspects of “replacement theory” in the past, distanced himself from Fuentes, refusing to platform him despite interviewing controversial figures like Ray Epps and Kevin Spacey. Fuentes, in turn, accused Carlson of collaborating on a 2023 hit piece against him in The Grayzone, a publication run by Max Blumenthal (son of Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal), labeling it a targeted smear to discredit his movement post-Ye24.

Tensions escalated in 2024 and 2025. Fuentes criticized Carlson for subliminal swipes, such as blaming him for conservative Joe Kent’s 2022 election loss in Washington state. Carlson, meanwhile, repeatedly “fed-jacketed” Fuentes—implying he’s a federal agent designed to discredit the right—without naming him directly until recently. Owens entered the fray in July 2025, interviewing Fuentes on her show, where they debated race, IQ differences, and antisemitism. Owens later called the experience “entirely fraudulent,” accusing Fuentes of dishonesty.

Calling Out the Hypocrisy: Projecting and Gaslighting on “True Neocons”

One of the most glaring elements of this feud is the apparent hypocrisy from Carlson and Owens. In a recent interview on Carlson’s show, the duo lambasted Fuentes as part of a deliberate effort to “discredit reasonable voices” on the right, suggesting he’s funded by nefarious forces to make conservatives look extreme. Carlson went further, describing Fuentes as having an “angry, gay kid thing going on” and a “weird little gay kid in his basement,” while implying he’s a tool to oppose “true neocons” or establishment critics. Owens echoed this, framing Fuentes as a disruptive force obsessed with her and Carlson.

Yet, this accusation reeks of projection. Fuentes has long positioned himself as an anti-neocon warrior, criticizing Carlson and Owens for what he sees as their ties to establishment conservatism, including support for Israel and reluctance to fully embrace ethnonationalism. He argues that they are the ones gaslighting the base by pretending to be outsiders while maintaining connections to power brokers like Peter Thiel or intelligence-linked figures. Owens herself has noted Fuentes’ “emotional power over neocons,” inadvertently acknowledging his role in exposing what he views as faux-conservatism. By accusing Fuentes of sabotaging “true” critics of neoconservatism, Carlson and Owens appear to be mirroring the very tactics Fuentes uses against them—deflecting scrutiny from their own inconsistencies while portraying him as the infiltrator. This dynamic not only gaslights their audiences but also divides the right, potentially benefiting the establishment they all claim to oppose.

Fuentes’ supporters amplify this point, arguing that Carlson’s refusal to debate him—despite platforming others—reveals fear of exposure. In response to the recent attacks, Fuentes posted a photo of Carlson with accused sexual predator Kevin Spacey, highlighting what he sees as selective moral outrage.

Tucker’s CIA Contradiction: A Timeline of Admissions

Central to Fuentes’ attacks on Carlson is the latter’s family ties to intelligence agencies. Tucker’s father, Dick Carlson, served as director of Voice of America during the Cold War, a U.S. government-funded outlet often linked to CIA propaganda efforts. Tucker himself applied to the CIA after college but was rejected, a fact he’s publicly acknowledged.

The hypocrisy peaks in Carlson’s shifting narrative. In a June 2024 interview on the Shawn Ryan Show, Carlson openly discussed his CIA application and his father’s involvement, stating, “My father worked in conjunction with CIA. I’m not being false about it.” He even declared himself a “sworn enemy” of the agency. Yet, in his 2025 interview with Owens, Carlson claimed he only learned of his father’s CIA ties “this year” after his death in March 2025, expressing shock. This direct contradiction undermines Carlson’s credibility: How could he admit knowledge in 2024 but feign ignorance in 2025? Fuentes and his allies seized on this, arguing it proves Carlson’s duplicity and potential ongoing ties to intelligence circles.

Recent Escalations and Broader Implications

The feud hit a boiling point in August 2025. Carlson and Owens’ interview devolved into personal jabs, with Carlson accusing Fuentes of being a CIA plant. Fuentes fired back, declaring “war” and challenging Carlson to a debate. Observers from both sides have called it “ridiculous” and divisive, with some arguing it distracts from real issues like foreign policy or cultural decline.

Ultimately, this feud exposes fractures within the right: Carlson and Owens represent a more palatable populism, while Fuentes embodies unfiltered radicalism. The hypocrisy—projecting infiltration accusations while dodging accountability—erodes trust. As Fuentes himself asked, “Why not me?” for a fair platform. Until these figures confront their contradictions, the infighting may only strengthen the neocons they all purport to fight.

I. The Early Years: From Procedural Frustration to Claims of Systemic Bias (2007–2016)

Billy Dewayne Frazier IV’s legal saga began in 2007, when he found himself charged in federal court with possessing a handgun whose serial number was partially obliterated. According to the government, the weapon had traveled in interstate commerce, exposing him to a felony conviction. From the start, Frazier insisted the search was improper and that the charges were fabricated to intimidate him for speaking out against police conduct in Marion, Iowa.

He was assigned a federal public defender, Casey Jones, a figure whose name would later reappear across his filings as both counsel and judge. The plea paperwork later produced in court was a chaotic, partially completed draft. It contained visible cross-outs, uninitialed paragraphs, and language waiving post-conviction rights that Frazier asserts he never agreed to. In a supplemental filing years later, he wrote:

“This was never a voluntary plea. It was a threat, wrapped in paperwork they never even finished signing.”

He maintains he was told he faced up to 14 years in prison if he refused. No forensic or fingerprint evidence was ever produced to prove the gun belonged to him, and no chain-of-custody logs were entered in the record.

That 2007 conviction would go on to color every legal proceeding that followed. For years, Frazier describes being branded high-risk based on this record—affecting child welfare cases, bond assessments, and public perceptions.

---

II. The 2016–2017 DHS and Domestic Cases: A Template for Leverage

By 2016, Frazier had become a familiar figure in Linn County legal circles. His frustration with court practices had escalated, and he began to document what he believed was a system determined to break him. The pivotal moment, he says, came in the form of domestic-related charges and the threatened removal of his children.

He was charged with multiple domestic counts and violations of no-contact orders after trying, he says, to help his wife escape addiction. According to Frazier, these charges were based on minimal evidence—he insists body camera footage clearly showed no assault took place and that his wife herself stated he never touched her.

The key confrontation he describes occurred with Assistant District Attorney Heidi Carmer, now a judge. In a conversation witnessed by his public defender, Nikkidra Tucker, Carmer allegedly delivered an ultimatum:

“She told me, plain as day, that if I didn’t take that plea, I would never see my kids again. That’s not justice—it’s extortion.”

The next day, Frazier was scheduled to regain custody. Faced with that pressure, he accepted the plea. But in 2017, he took DHS to trial over the same allegations and successfully defeated the agency’s attempt to terminate or limit his parental rights—a victory he says was all but ignored in later criminal proceedings.

For Frazier, this episode established a clear pattern: when he refused to cooperate or challenged procedural abuses, prosecutors used DHS as a tool to force compliance.

---

III. Mounting Documentation and Claims of Retaliation (2017–2023)

After the DHS trial, Frazier returned to a familiar cycle: motions denied without explanation, ADA accommodation requests rejected, and clerks who, in his telling, mishandled filings. By this point, he no longer viewed these incidents as isolated bureaucratic failures.

Instead, he saw them as evidence of coordinated retaliation. In his filings, he described court personnel acting in concert to suppress evidence and obstruct his defense:

“This isn’t just about one arrest or one case. It’s about a pattern that goes back twenty years, and nobody will look at it because they’re all connected.”

During these years, he requested:

• Written instructions because of PTSD and learning disabilities.
• Longer deadlines due to cognitive issues.
• Paper filings to replace online systems he struggled to navigate.

All were denied, he says, reinforcing his conviction that the system viewed him as an irritant to be contained.

---

IV. April 2024: The OWI Arrest and Immediate Aftermath

The night of April 5, 2024, marked what Frazier describes as the turning point of his legal story. Witness Allen Deschau reported to 911 that a brown Hyundai had drifted over a curb and stopped. Deschau later said he feared the driver was overdosing. Cedar Rapids police arrived to find Frazier behind the wheel.

Officers Mosher, McAtee, and Kuba’s report claimed he smelled of alcohol, had glassy eyes, and refused a breath test. Frazier disputes every point: that he was intoxicated, that he was uncooperative, and that the vehicle stopped for any reason other than mechanical failure.

His handwritten notes on the pre-trial report read like a plea for recognition:

“They knew no children were there, but they did it anyway. They wanted a way to control me while I fought the OWI.”

---

V. April 26, 2024: Ex Parte DHS Order Without a Case Number

What happened next, he argues, proves his point. According to audit trail records he filed in federal court, ADA Heidi Weiland emailed DHS on April 9, 2024—four days after the arrest. No children were present in the vehicle. No allegations of child endangerment appeared in any police report.

Despite this, an ex parte order dated April 26, 2024, authorized DHS to enter his home and question his children. It listed no juvenile court case number, a procedural omission that, in Frazier’s view, was deliberate:

“This was the setup. No kids were there. This is what they do to retaliate.”

He argues this tactic was identical to what he experienced in 2016—using family leverage to distract and intimidate him as he prepared a legal defense.

---

VI. March–April 2025: The RICO Complaint and Federal Escalation

By March 2025, Frazier decided no Iowa court would ever impartially consider his evidence. He filed a federal civil RICO complaint in the Northern District of Iowa, naming over 40 defendants. Among them:

• Judge Casey Jones, who had once defended him in the 2007 plea.
• DHS supervisors and caseworkers.
• Linn County prosecutors and clerks.
• Officers from the OWI arrest.

He alleged a coordinated enterprise operating over nearly two decades to obstruct justice, retaliate against protected complaints, and deny his constitutional rights. In his words:

“If the same people I’m accusing are the ones judging me, how could I ever get a fair hearing in this state?”

The complaint demanded over $80 million in damages and the expungement of every conviction tainted by this alleged enterprise.

---

VII. Recent Developments and Eighth Circuit Appeals (Spring–Summer 2025)

On June 26, 2025, the Linn County District Court dismissed his Petition for Judicial Review, citing a two-day late filing. In doing so, the court rejected all claims of evidence tampering or bias, warning that further unsubstantiated filings could trigger sanctions.

Frazier escalated immediately to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, filing three consolidated appeals. He submitted:

• Motion to Compel Record Transfer.
• Notice of Constitutional Emergency, accusing Judge CJ Williams of retaliation.
• Sworn affidavits describing missing filings, 2AM surveillance noises, and denied ADA accommodations.
• Judicial Misconduct Complaints naming multiple judges.
• Formal declarations about the chain of custody for his evidence.
• Supplemental filings referencing Google reviews and local news coverage as evidence of a broader culture of corruption.

In the coming months, his arguments will test whether the system he describes can, in fact, investigate itself.

---

VIII. Patterns and Allegations: The Theory of Continuity

Frazier’s filings consistently return to one theme: that these incidents were never isolated. Instead, he argues, they represent a continuum of tactics:

• Threatening to remove children to secure plea agreements.
• Delaying or denying discovery.
• Ignoring ADA requests.
• Refusing recusal motions despite conflicts.
• Leveraging DHS involvement as a parallel pressure mechanism.

He maintains that the same personnel reappear repeatedly, building an unbroken chain of influence and retaliation.

---

IX. Special Focus: The Use of DHS to Pressure Defendants

For Frazier, no part of this story illustrates the pattern more clearly than the 2016–2017 DHS case and the 2024 ex parte order. In his telling, the identical tactics—using child protective services to extract leverage—prove systemic misconduct.

“First they used my kids in 2016 to make me plead, and then in 2024 they did it again with no reason at all. It’s the same playbook.”

He emphasizes that the 2024 order lacked any case number, preventing him from filing motions to quash or appeal—evidence, he says, that the system was not simply broken but weaponized.

---

X. What Comes Next

At the time of writing, Frazier’s litigation is pending in multiple venues:

• The Northern District RICO complaint awaits motion practice.
• His §2255 motion to vacate the 2007 conviction is pending.
• A habeas petition remains active.
• The Eighth Circuit has not yet ruled on his emergency motions or appeals.

Frazier has made clear he has no intention of dropping his claims. He has repeatedly said that if federal judges dismiss his filings without a hearing, it will prove his point that no impartial review exists in Iowa.

---

Conclusion

Billy Frazier’s case is an extraordinary example of a pro se litigant alleging systemic misconduct across nearly every institution that has touched his life. Whether federal courts ultimately credit his claims, they paint a vivid picture of how procedural denials, threats to family integrity, and the power of public institutions can converge on one person.

---

Trump’s Blunt Rebuke of Israel and Iran: A Strategic Display of Control Amid Ceasefire Chaos

On June 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump delivered a characteristically unfiltered assessment of the faltering ceasefire between Israel and Iran, declaring, “Two countries don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.” The comment, made to reporters as he departed for a NATO summit, underscored his frustration with both nations for violating a fragile truce brokered just a day earlier on June 23, 2025. Far from a mere outburst, Trump’s statement and the actions surrounding it reveal a calculated approach to reasserting U.S. influence over a volatile Middle East conflict, showcasing his ability to navigate and control a complex geopolitical crisis.

The Context: A Ceasefire Undermined

The ceasefire, intended to de-escalate tensions between Israel and Iran, was a significant diplomatic achievement for the Trump administration, signaling a potential pause in a conflict that has long threatened regional stability. However, within hours, Iran launched a strike that killed several people, prompting Israel to respond with a “symbolic attack” on the same day. These violations unraveled the truce, drawing global attention and risking further escalation, particularly given Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s military resolve.

Trump’s blunt remark came in response to this rapid deterioration. He expressed particular displeasure with Israel, noting that it “unloaded” on Iran shortly after the agreement, undermining the deal he had championed. “I’m really unhappy with Israel,” he told reporters, a rare public rebuke of a key U.S. ally. Yet, his criticism extended to both parties, reflecting his view that their tit-for-tat actions lacked strategic clarity and jeopardized a cycle of violence.

Why Trump Said It: A Strategic Calculus

Trump’s choice of words was no accident. His provocative language served multiple purposes, each reinforcing his ability to steer the situation:

1. Reasserting U.S. Authority: By publicly chastising both Israel and Iran, Trump signaled that the United States, under his leadership, remains the dominant force in Middle East diplomacy. His frustration highlighted the U.S.’s role as the ceasefire’s architect and underscored that violations would not be tolerated without consequences. This move reminded both nations of their reliance on U.S. support—militarily for Israel and diplomatically for Iran in avoiding broader sanctions or isolation.
2. Pressuring for Compliance: Trump’s bluntness was a calculated pressure tactic. By calling out Israel’s “unloading” and Iran’s initial strike, he aimed to shame both into reconsidering further violations. His urgent appeal to Israel to avoid additional strikes against Iran, labeling such actions a “serious violation” of the ceasefire, was a direct warning to an ally accustomed to significant autonomy. Similarly, his criticism of Iran’s actions reinforced his earlier stance of giving them “chance after chance” to negotiate, signaling that his patience was not infinite.
3. Shaping the Narrative: Trump’s colorful language ensured his message dominated global headlines, keeping the focus on his administration’s efforts to broker peace rather than the ceasefire’s collapse. By framing Israel and Iran as directionless, he positioned himself as the clear-headed leader seeking order amid chaos. This narrative was particularly critical as he headed to the NATO summit, where allies would scrutinize his handling of the crisis.
4. Balancing Domestic and International Audiences: Domestically, Trump’s tough talk resonated with his base, who value his no-nonsense style. Internationally, it sent a message to adversaries like Iran that he was not afraid to confront allies like Israel, challenging perceptions of unchecked U.S. support for Israeli actions. This balancing act strengthened his leverage in future negotiations.

Trump’s Control: Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Beyond his rhetoric, Trump demonstrated control through decisive actions that underscored his influence over the situation:

• Direct Diplomacy: Prior to the ceasefire, Trump had privately and publicly urged Israel to refrain from striking Iran, emphasizing his desire for a deal to prevent escalation. Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to act, Trump’s ability to extract a ceasefire agreement in the first place showcased his diplomatic clout.
• Public Rebuke as Leverage: By openly criticizing Israel, a move described as a “rare public rebuke of an ally,” Trump shifted the dynamic of U.S.-Israel relations. This signaled to Israel that U.S. support, while steadfast, comes with expectations of compliance with American-led initiatives. It also positioned Trump as a neutral arbiter, increasing his credibility with other regional players.
• Pushing for De-escalation: Trump’s comments were paired with a clear call for negotiations to resume, particularly with Iran, to address its nuclear program and prevent further strikes. His insistence that both nations “don’t know what they’re doing” was a strategic jab to nudge them toward the negotiating table, where the U.S. could dictate terms.
• Navigating NATO and Global Opinion: Departing for the NATO summit, Trump used the crisis to project strength to allies wary of U.S. foreign policy under his second term. His ability to manage the ceasefire’s fallout while engaging with global leaders demonstrated his multitasking prowess and commitment to U.S. leadership on the world stage.

The Bigger Picture: A Pattern of Control

Trump’s handling of the Israel-Iran ceasefire breach aligns with his broader foreign policy approach: bold rhetoric, strategic pressure, and a knack for keeping adversaries and allies alike off balance. His critics, such as those on X who argue he has ceded too much control to Israel, overlook the nuance of his strategy. While Israel’s actions may have tested his influence, Trump’s public frustration and diplomatic maneuvering suggest he is far from a bystander. Instead, he is actively shaping the conflict’s trajectory, using the ceasefire’s collapse as an opportunity to reinforce U.S. dominance.

Conclusion

President Trump’s June 24, 2025, statement that Israel and Iran “don’t know what the f*** they’re doing” was more than a soundbite—it was a calculated move to reassert control over a spiraling Middle East crisis. By leveraging blunt rhetoric, public rebukes, and diplomatic pressure, Trump demonstrated his ability to steer the actions of both allies and adversaries. While the ceasefire’s breach exposed the region’s volatility, Trump’s response showcased his strategic acumen, ensuring the U.S. remains the central player in the quest for stability. As he navigates this crisis, his blend of bravado and pragmatism continues to define his approach, proving that even in chaos, he knows exactly what he’s doing.