Substacks
Tucker Carlson’s Turn Eli Lake

In the summer of 2020, Tucker Carlson’s prime time Fox News show became must-see TV for me. Garnering more than 4 million viewers a night, he spoke plainly about the riots in our cities, the consequences of Covid lockdowns, and the fraudulence of Russiagate. In those bleak days, my skepticism of the elite media veered into contempt.
Back then, it seemed like nearly everything we were told by mainstream, liberal outlets was a half-truth or a lie. When the New York Post disclosed emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, the press insisted they were part of a Russian disinformation scheme. We were told that Twitter and Facebook did not shadowban conservatives. Experts and journalists insisted that high schools never taught critical race theory.
And yet Hunter Biden’s laptop was real. Social media really was shadowbanning conservatives. Our high schools really were teaching hard-left theories of race and gender. And Tucker reported these stories fearlessly, despite the gaslighting from his cable TV news peers.
Carlson, of course, wasn’t always right. He has always had a conspiratorial side, indulging half-baked theories that the CIA murdered John F. Kennedy and the FBI may have set up the January 6 rioters. His foreign policy views are naive and nativist. Whenever Tucker talked about neoconservatives or Vladimir Putin, I tuned him out. But when the rest of cable news insisted the arson and looting of 2020 consisted of “mostly peaceful” protests, I was willing to overlook Tucker’s mistakes and focus on what he was getting right.
Then, one year ago this month, Tucker was ousted by Fox. The ostensible reason stemmed from the civil lawsuits the network had to settle regarding Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Tucker was better than other hosts on that allegation at the time, challenging the claims of Trump election lawyer Sidney Powell that millions of votes were deliberately not counted. He did this on-air when it mattered, in late 2020, though he later indulged his audience’s desire to believe the election was a sham.
But when I tuned in last June to watch Tucker’s new show on X, it became apparent that Fox had kept him tethered to reality. Without a strong editor or producer at the wheel, his skepticism has curdled into sophistry. And he is now platforming conspiracy theorists, allowing them to spout falsehoods while never challenging the veracity of their claims.
There was his interview with Larry Sinclair, a convicted con artist who claimed that he smoked crack with Barack Obama before having sex with the former president in 1999. Earlier this month, X aired Tucker’s interview with Jewish space laser investigator and Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. She claimed the House Speaker, Rep. Mike Johnson, was being blackmailed to do the bidding of the left.
That was all bad. Really bad. But what was most appalling was Tucker’s descent into moral relativism, his muddying of the line between good and evil. For Tucker, America is not exceptional; it is no better than its enemies. And this is particularly corrosive, because he is persuading a large segment of the American right to abandon its rightful contempt for foreign tyrants, terrorists, and cranks.
First came Moscow. He told us he was dazzled by the city’s gleaming subways and orderly fast-food restaurants. Then he interviewed Russian despot and world-champion liar Vladimir Putin, allowing him to deliver a slanted history of his country’s dominion over western Ukraine. Never once did Tucker ask him about Alexei Navalny, the opposition leader who died ten days after the interview in one of Putin’s Arctic dungeons.
(Tucker’s fawning chat with the Russian tyrant stood in sharp contrast to his coverage of Ukraine’s elected leader, Volodymyr Zelensky. In one of his first shows on X, Tucker called Zelensky “sweaty and rat-like, a comedian turned oligarch, a persecutor of Christians.”)
Tucker has even adopted some of the same progressive talking points he once used to ridicule. For example, in February, Tucker said he despised former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley because of her hawkish foreign policy against Iran, claiming that her real agenda was to resurrect the military draft. “I’ve got four draft-age children,” he told comedian Russell Brand. “So if you’re playing recklessly, fast, and loose with their lives, then I have a right to despise you.”
This nonsense is an echo of the bloggy fringes of the 2000s-era left. In those years it was the progressive netroots that indulged the dark fantasy that a draft would be reinstated because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had overstrained our military. Now it’s people like Tucker who claim to oppose wars because politicians secretly want to conscript young citizens to fight them.
But, even after all that, it’s Tucker’s interview last week with Munther Isaac, a self-described evangelical Christian pastor who lives in Bethlehem, that most alarmed me.
Here’s how he introduced his interview with Isaac on X:
How does the government of Israel treat Christians? In the West, Christian leaders don’t seem interested in knowing the answer. They should be. Here’s the view of a pastor from Bethlehem.
Unmentioned is the fact that Munther is an extremist who praised the “strength” of those who invaded Israel on October 7. The other curious omission is that Bethlehem is no longer governed by Israel.
And yet, Isaac claimed that one of the biggest problems for Christians in Bethlehem is the Israeli occupation. “People keep leaving because of the political reality,” he said. “Life under a very harsh Israeli military occupation is difficult to bear.”
Let’s be clear. The West Bank, where Bethlehem is situated, has not been administered by Israel since late 1995 when the Palestinian Authority took over. And while it’s true that Israel will conduct counterterrorism operations in the area from time to time, the numbers show that Christians have suffered more under PA rule. When Bethlehem was under Israeli administration, Christians were a strong majority. Today, the Christian population in the birthplace of Jesus has dwindled to less than 20 percent.
The decline in the Christian population in Bethlehem, meanwhile, reflects a broader trend in Gaza and the West Bank. Today, Christians make up only 1 percent of the population in the Palestinian territories. Many Palestinian Christians have fled to Israel, where they receive social services and equal rights.
According to a recent report from the Catholic Near East Welfare Association, half of Christian students in Israel go on to college. But in Gaza in 2020, Hamas launched a new policy to discourage the celebration of Christmas. It’s not surprising that there are little more than 1,000 Christians left in Gaza now. Pastors who remain in the West Bank and Gaza, like Isaac, have to reflect the official line of their hosts—or face the consequences.
Tucker, meanwhile, is a Christian in America. He has the good fortune not to live under Palestinian rule and is free to say whatever he thinks. Yet he never challenged Isaac’s assertions. And he even went on to attack evangelical leaders in America who support Israel, saying, “If you wake up in the morning and decide your Christian faith requires you to support a foreign government blowing up churches and killing Christians, I think you’ve lost the thread.”
But it’s Tucker who has lost the thread. Hamas hides its munitions in places of worship and fires rockets from them, including Christian churches. The terrorist organization deliberately built a sprawling bunker of tunnels beneath Gaza’s churches, mosques, hospitals, and schools. Evangelical support for Israel is rooted in a revulsion of Hamas and its tactics that endanger the civilians it is supposed to protect.
Tucker has also kept silent after Iran’s strike on Saturday against Israel—our country’s only democratic ally in the Middle East. He has said nothing about the lunatic fringe rising up in the U.S., which is cheering on Iran. There was a time when Tucker called himself “America First.” But as author Abigail Shrier so aptly put it Sunday: “If you call yourself “America First” and have nothing to say about this, you are a fraud.”
So what the hell happened to Tucker Carlson?
The skepticism that served him well in the Trump years when much of the fourth estate behaved like an opposition political party has led him all the way around the horseshoe. His opposition to the people he hates—liberals and neocons—has turned him into Noam Chomsky in a bow tie.
Tucker was correct when he punctured the relentless speculation and anonymous reporting that led so many journalists to believe President Trump was a Russian agent. He was right when he said the real story was the Democratic Party colluding with the FBI to smear the Trump campaign. But he is wrong when he asserts that Israel and America are no better than their enemies. Once Tucker was too smart to allow his ideological rivals to determine his opinions. Now he proudly apologizes for evil and calls it the truth.
I look forward to his next dispatch, praising the gleaming shopping malls of Tehran.
Eli Lake is a Free Press columnist and podcast host. Follow him on X (formerly Twitter) @EliLake. And for more on this topic, read Peter Savodnik on Why Is the American Right Pandering to Putin?
Become a Free Press subscriber today:
Substacks
Things Worth Remembering: ‘A Game Most Like Life’ Charles Lane

It feels like only yesterday I called up my friend Douglas Murray with a strange idea: What if you wrote a column for us about poetry?
We had no idea if anyone would be interested in it. I still wasn’t sure many people would be interested in The Free Press itself. But I knew I didn’t want this institution we were building to focus solely on what was wrong with the world. As I wrote at the time: “If ours is an era of building and rebuilding, what things are worth saving?”
In the two years since this column began, the world has changed so much. We have a new president. One war has started—and perhaps is now ending. Another still rages.
The Free Press has covered it all. And so has Douglas himself, reporting from Israel and Ukraine, and speaking across the globe. Meantime, he has written nearly 100 editions of Things Worth Remembering—an unbelievable feat. Somehow he also found time to write a forthcoming book about the future of the West.
Given how much is on his plate, for the time being Douglas is stepping back from this incredible column he’s helped to build. He’ll continue to be a beloved contributor to, and friend of, The Free Press. And fear not: Things Worth Remembering will carry on every Sunday.
Over the years, fans of this column have said to me: “If I had to choose one thing worth remembering, it’d be. . . . ” It made me realize most writers have a poem they return to when they feel lost, a song they replay, or a snippet of some great book that materializes again and again. So we are expanding the column to bring in new voices and choices. I think you’ll love what they have to say.
Today, on Super Bowl Sunday, we start with our deputy editor, Charles Lane, who knows exactly what Americans should remember on this important date: a speech given multiple times, in the late ’60s, by the greatest football coach in the world, Vince Lombardi. It touches on a lot of things we care a lot about at The Free Press: courage, hard work, and excellence. I hope you like it as much as I do—don’t forget to leave your thoughts in the comments.
Happy Super Bowl Sunday, everyone!
—BW
“I sometimes wonder whether those of us who love football fully appreciate its great lessons,” said Vince Lombardi, in what friends and family called “the speech.”
The greatest professional football coach of the twentieth century, Lombardi tried and tested various versions of this talk as an in-demand public speaker during the late ’60s. The text quoted here is from “a representative version” of the speech, which his son Vince Jr. compiled and published in 2001. Lombardi’s words are undeniably magnificent, even to those who might have no interest in tonight’s Super Bowl.
Lombardi acknowledged that his was “a violent game,” suggesting that it would be “imbecilic” to play it otherwise. But this “game like war,” he believed, was also “a game most like life—for it teaches that work, sacrifice, perseverance, competitive drive, selflessness, and respect for authority are the price one pays to achieve worthwhile goals.”
Lombardi’s is not quite the household name it was—time does that to fame. To the extent he is remembered today it is often as the originator of a ruthless coaching doctrine—“Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing”—that someone else actually coined.
Still, every year the Super Bowl restores him, at least for a moment, to popular awareness: The winning team tonight will take home the Vince Lombardi Trophy, a brilliant 20.75-inch–high, seven-pound prize made out of pure sterling by Tiffany silversmiths.
Substacks
February 8, 2025 Heather Cox Richardson
Yesterday the National Institutes of Health under the Trump administration announced a new policy that will dramatically change the way the United States funds medical research. Now, when a researcher working at a university receives a federal grant for research, that money includes funds to maintain equipment and facilities and to pay support staff that keep labs functioning. That indirect funding is built into university budgets for funding expensive research labs, and last year reached about 26% of the grant money distributed. Going forward, the administration says it will cap the permitted amount of indirect funding at 15%.
NIH is the nation’s primary agency for research in medicine, health, and behavior. NIH grants are fiercely competitive; only about 20% of applications succeed. When a researcher applies for one, their proposal is evaluated first by a panel of their scholarly peers and then, if it passes that level, an advisory council, which might ask for more information before awarding a grant. Once awarded and accepted, an NIH grant carries strict requirements for reporting and auditing, as well as record retention.
In 2023, NIH distributed about $35 billion through about 50,000 grants to over 300,000 researchers at universities, medical schools, and other research institutions. Every dollar of NIH funding generated about $2.46 in economic activity. For every $100 million of funding, research supported by NIH generates 76 patents, which produce 20% more economic value than other U.S. patents and create opportunities for about $600 million in future research and development.
As Christina Jewett and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times explained, the authors of Project 2025 called for the cuts outlined in the new policy, claiming those cuts would “reduce federal taxpayer subsidization of leftist agendas.” Dr. David A. Baltrus of the University of Arizona told Jewett and Stolberg that the new policy is “going to destroy research universities in the short term, and I don’t know after that. They rely on the money. They budget for the money. The universities were making decisions expecting the money to be there.”
Although Baltrus works in agricultural research, focusing on keeping E. coli bacteria out of crops like sprouts and lettuce, cancer research is the top area in which NIH grants are awarded.
Anthropologist Erin Kane figured out what the new NIH policy would mean for states by looking at institutions that received more than $10 million in grants in 2024 and figuring out what percentage of their indirect costs would not be eligible for grant money under the new formula. Six schools in New York won $2.4 billion, including $953 million for indirect costs. The new indirect rate would allow only $220 million for overhead, a loss of $723 million.
States across the country will experience significant losses. Eight Florida schools received about $673 million, $231 million for indirect costs. The new indirect rate would limit that funding to $66 million, a loss of $165 million. Six schools in Ohio received a total of about $700 million; they would lose $194 million. Four schools in Missouri received a total of about $830 million; they would lose $212 million.
Lawmakers from Republican-dominated states are now acknowledging what those of us who study the federal budget have pointed out for decades: the same Republican-dominated states that complain bitterly about the government’s tax policies are also the same states that take most federal tax money. Dana Nickel of Politico reported yesterday that Republican leaders in the states claim to be enthusiastic about the cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency but are mobilizing to make sure those cuts won’t hurt their own state programs that depend on federal money. Oklahoma governor Kevin Stitt told Nickel that governors can provide advice about what cuts will be most effective. “Instead of just across the board cutting, we thought, man, they need some help from the governors to say, ‘We can be more efficient in this area or this area, or if you allow block grants in this area, you can reduce our expenditures by 10 percent.’ And so that’s our goal.”
Yesterday, Tim Carpenter of the Kansas Reflector reported that Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) is concerned about the Trump administration’s freeze on food distributions through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID buys about $2 billion in U.S. agricultural products a year, and farmers are already struggling with rising costs, low prices, and concern with tariffs.
Their spokespeople urge the continuation of USAID: the senior director of government affairs at the American Farm Bureau Federation said that “USAID plays a critical role in reducing hunger around the world while sourcing markets for the surplus foods America’s farmers and ranchers grow.” Moran added: “Food stability is essential to political stability, and our food aid programs help feed the hungry, bolster our national security and provide an important market for our farmers, especially when commodity prices are low.”
Meanwhile, federal employees are telling the stories of the work they’ve done for the country. Yesterday, a public letter whose author claimed to be an employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation whose job is at risk in Trump’s purge of the agency wrote an amalgamation of the FBI agents being purged: “I am the coach of your child’s soccer team,” the letter read. “I sit next to you on occasion in religious devotion. I am a member of the PTA. With friends, you celebrated my birthday. I collected your mail and took out your trash while you were away from home. I played a round of golf with you. I am a veteran. I am the average neighbor in your community.”
But there is another side to that person, the author wrote. “I orchestrated a clandestine operation to secure the release of an allied soldier held captive by the Taliban. I prevented an ISIS terrorist from boarding a commercial aircraft. I spent 3 months listening to phone intercepts in real time to gather evidence needed to dismantle a violent drug gang. I recruited a source to provide critical intelligence on Russian military activities in Africa. I rescued a citizen being tortured to near death by members of an Outlaw Motorcycle Gang. I interceded and stopped a juvenile planning to conduct a school shooting. I spent multiple years monitoring the activities of deep cover foreign intelligence officers, leading to their arrest and deportation. I endured extensive hardship to infiltrate a global child trafficking organization. I have been shot in the line of duty.”
“[W]hen I am gone,” they wrote, “who will do the quiet work that is behind the facade of your average neighbor?”
Less publicly, Joseph Grzymkowski expressed on Facebook his pride in 38 years of service “with utmost dedication, integrity, and passion. I was not waste, fraud, and abuse,” he wrote. “Nor was I the “Deep State…. We are the faces of your Government: ordinary and diverse Americans, your friends and neighbors, working behind the scenes in the interest of the people we serve. We are not the enemy.”
Wth his statement, Grzymkowski posted a magazine clipping from 1996, when he was a Marine Analyst working in the Marine Navigation Department for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), located in Bethesda, Maryland—now known as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) in Springfield, Virginia. That office provides maritime intelligence for navigation, international obligations, and joint military operations.
On January 6, 1996, a historic blizzard dumped snowfalls of 19 to 31 inches on the East Coast. Stranded alone in the station when his relief couldn’t get through the snow to work, Grzymkowsky stayed at the radio. “I realized there were mariners who needed navigation safety messages delivered, and I wasn’t about to jeopardize the safety of life or cargo at sea simply because we were experiencing a blizzard,” he told a journalist. “One doesn’t leave a watch on a ship until properly relieved, and I felt my responsibility at the watch desk as keenly as I would have felt my responsibility for the navigation on the bridge of a ship.”
For 33 hours, he stayed at his desk and sent out navigation safety messages. “I had a job to do and I did it,” he recalled. “There were ships at sea relying on me, and I wasn’t going to let them down. It’s nothing that any other member of this department wouldn’t do.”
—
Notes:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43341/45
https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/report/20
https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget
https://www.unitedformedicalresearch.org/nih-in-your-state/alabama
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/us/politics/medical-research-funding-cuts-university-budgets.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/06/trump-usaid-money-american-farms/
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/07/republican-state-doge-budget-013596
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12HuhGA67_QPIibLa6nB32BtepQR3zQE_DvDTDGrZ5dU/edit
Grzymkowski article is from a 5th Anniversary Special Edition (1996–2001) of NIMA’s Edge magazine, an authorized, internal information publication published for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency personnel and its customers.
https://msi.nga.mil/
Bluesky:
dianamonkey.bsky.social/post/3lhocfav66s2p
X:
By_CJewett/status/1888208159866544526
Substacks
The Pot of Gold at America’s Western Edge A.M. Hickman

The boughs of the pomegranate bush clattered in the morning wind, branches drooping with heavy, frost-bruised fruits. The bush lilted her morning greeting to the rows of olive and grapefruit and palm, nodding to the yerba santa and the blue oaks. My own eyes seemed to be covered in a golden gauze as I rose to survey the variegated domain of fertile hills sprawling out before me. Everything was yellow with the spicy nicotine and ocher diamonds of the impossible California skies.
For those who have never been to California before, picture this: a heady sabbatical in Tuscany with Dr. Seuss. Everything in this westernmost state seems to ebb and flow in brief fits and starts through manicured vineyards, blossoming pastures, ranch roads, and hazardous gravel switchbacks slung high above dusty, half-filled reservoirs. It is America’s shimmering Eden, her promised land, the trophy of our young Republic that stands proudly as proof that every ounce of westerly motion was worth it.
To the pioneers, it was the end of the road. It was as far as a wagoneer could travel, cresting high over the infamous Donner Pass, if they had not yet succumbed to madness or scrofula, nor to hunger, smallpox, or cannibalism. Catching sight of the Pacific Ocean, the good earth bowed for the pioneers and did her curtsy. God Himself was the conductor of this symphony of holy life and sun-kissed valleys and endless deep-green ridgelines—and at the end of His great rhapsody, a frontiersman would build his fence lines and furrows and aqueducts.
In some sense, California is the mother of the very particular, feverishly intense, and unstoppable optimism that makes the United States what it is. All Americans are Californians at heart. We are, at our best, a fanatically optimistic sort of people—who might push for a half-year’s time across rough country just to see if the rumors of gold might be half true.
And in the case of California, the rumors were true: There was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. From the earliest “salad days” of these western farmers to the oil booms, the mining frenzies, the rise of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and later, the heady madness of Silicon Valley’s technological revolution. The incredible winnings of California’s early settlers course through the blood of Americans the whole country over, whether they have each seen California for themselves or not.
It all began the first moment that the pioneers caught sight of the poppies along the Sacramento River.
-
Awakening Video1 year ago
This is What Happens When You Try to Report Dirty Cops
-
Substacks11 months ago
THE IRON-CLAD PIÑATA Seymour Hersh
-
Substacks1 year ago
The Russell Brand Rorschach Test Kathleen Stock
-
Substacks1 year ago
A real fact-check of Trump’s appearance on Meet the Press Judd Legum
-
Substacks1 year ago
Letter to the Children of Gaza – Read by Eunice Wong Chris Hedges