Tucker Carlson says he is done with the Republican Party, and done waiting for someone else to build an alternative. In a wide-ranging interview published Wednesday by the Columbia Journalism Review, the former Fox News host and conservative podcaster declared he will help launch a new third political party, framing the two-party system as a fraud that leaves working Americans without real representation.
"I'm going to help build a third party," Carlson told CJR. "There should be a good-faith effort to figure out what benefits the country."
The announcement marks the sharpest public break yet between Carlson and the political movement he helped amplify for years. It follows weeks of escalating friction with President Trump and the broader GOP over foreign policy, specifically, what Carlson has described as the administration's decision to go to war with Iran under pressure from Israel. For a man who once stood as one of Trump's most visible media allies, the rupture is complete enough that he now calls both major parties indistinguishable on the issues he cares about most.
Carlson, a self-described lifelong Republican, told the Columbia Journalism Review that both parties operate in "lockstep solidarity with each other" on war and government spending. His language was blunt:
"That's not a democracy. That's a one-party state posing as a democracy, and it needs to be broken, and there's going to be a third party, and I'm going to do everything I can to bring that about."
The interview built on remarks Carlson made last month during an appearance on the "Can't Be Censored" podcast, where he said there was "no chance" he would continue supporting the Republican Party. His stated reason centered on foreign policy.
"At this point... how could I or any American voter support a political party that's not loyal to the United States, that puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens?" Carlson said on the podcast. "It's not possible to vote for people like that."
That podcast appearance formalized what had been building for weeks, a full departure from the party Carlson had supported for more than three decades.
The split has not been one-sided. President Trump responded to Carlson's criticism in April with a Truth Social post that left little room for reconciliation.
"He was a broken man when he got fired from Fox, and he's never been the same. Perhaps he should see a good psychiatrist!"
Trump had also referred to Carlson as a "nut job" and a "hand flailing fool" since the pundit began publicly opposing the administration's foreign policy decisions. The exchange has been one of the more striking intra-right feuds in recent memory, pitting a sitting president against a media figure who helped define the populist-right messaging that carried Trump to office.
The back-and-forth has drawn in other conservative voices who share Carlson's opposition to the Iran strikes, widening the fault line within the right.
Carlson framed the proposed party around domestic economic anxiety, not ideology for its own sake. He pointed to Americans earning around sixty thousand dollars a year as the constituency neither party serves.
"I mean, if you make sixty thousand dollars a year, you're degraded. Your life expectancy has gone down, and the promise of your children's lives is likely gone. No one seems to care. It's not even a factor."
His pitch, as articulated in the CJR interview, centers on a simple principle: "The US government should have, as its first priority, the welfare of its own people." When pressed about foreign-policy concerns like Hamas, Carlson was dismissive. "'What about Hamas?' I officially don't care about Hamas," he said.
The Washington Times noted that Carlson highlighted working-class economic concerns and frustration with the U.S.-Israel alliance as twin motivations for the new party effort.
Carlson ruled out running for office himself. "I don't want to be a candidate," he told CJR. He did joke that he was "very tempted to say 'I am running, on the pro-patriarchy ticket'... just to make sure I gain no new fans." The quip underscored his apparent comfort as an organizer and provocateur rather than a ballot-line candidate.
But he is not the only figure on the right eyeing the exits. Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who also left the Republican Party, is reportedly in talks to form what she has called a "true America-focused party." The Washington Examiner reported that Greene noted Carlson could be a "great threat" if he ran for office, and that the two departures reflect a broader conservative realignment driven by foreign-policy dissent.
Greene's own break with the GOP mirrored Carlson's reasoning in significant ways, though the two have not publicly announced any formal coordination.
The Examiner piece also raised a cautionary precedent: Elon Musk previously vowed to form an "America Party" after his own public break with Trump, only to abandon the plan after reconciling with the president. Whether Carlson's effort follows the same arc remains an open question.
For all the rhetorical force behind Carlson's announcement, the practical details remain thin. He has not named co-founders, funders, or organizational partners. He has not announced a party name. The policy platform, beyond opposition to foreign wars and a vague commitment to domestic welfare, is undefined.
Carlson told CJR the new party should pursue a "good-faith effort to figure out what benefits the country." That is a sentiment, not a structure. Third-party efforts in American politics have a long history of generating enthusiasm and a short history of generating electoral results. Ballot access, fundraising infrastructure, candidate recruitment, and state-by-state organizing are enormous logistical challenges that no amount of podcast reach can shortcut.
Newsmax reported that Carlson's proposed party would focus on domestic priorities and working-class economic concerns, but confirmed that he has ruled out seeking elected office, leaving the question of who would actually carry the party's banner unanswered.
Carlson's earlier confrontation with the administration over Iran and nuclear policy had already drawn sharp fire from the White House, making any future reconciliation between the two camps appear unlikely.
The frustration Carlson is channeling is real. Millions of conservative voters feel unrepresented by a Republican Party that campaigns on "America First" but governs in ways that look, to them, like business as usual. The bipartisan consensus on foreign entanglements and deficit spending has eroded trust across the right, not just among populists, but among voters who simply want their government to prioritize their neighborhoods over foreign capitals.
But frustration is not a party. A media figure with a large audience and no ballot-line infrastructure is a commentator, not a political movement. The history of American third parties, from Ross Perot to the Reform Party to the Libertarians, is a history of strong starts and structural collapse. The two-party system is not a gentleman's agreement. It is a legal and institutional fortress built on ballot-access laws, debate thresholds, and winner-take-all elections that punish fragmentation.
Carlson's willingness to name the problem is not in question. His ability to build something durable enough to survive a single election cycle is.
If both parties really do operate as one on the questions that matter most to working Americans, then the demand for an alternative is genuine. The question has never been whether voters want a third option. It's whether anyone can build one that lasts longer than the news cycle that launched it.
