False: 2 – Misleading: 3 – Unverifiable: 8 – The Tucker Carlson Show – June 18, 2025 – Carlson and Cruz Clash Over Israel, Iran, and U.S. Foreign Policy Influence

The Tucker Carlson Show, released June 18, 2025, is distributed via digital platforms on an irregular schedule. The show maintains a provocative, confrontational tone and features long-form interviews. This episode features U.S. Senator Ted Cruz as the guest, engaging in a wide-ranging discussion with host Tucker Carlson. The conversation focuses heavily on foreign policy and national identity, framed by Carlson’s trademark adversarial style.

Senator Ted Cruz is introduced and treated as both a political ally and ideological foil. Carlson praises Cruz’s positions on domestic issues, such as opposition to COVID-19 mandates and border enforcement, while positioning himself as more skeptical of U.S. foreign entanglements. Cruz frames his role as a principled defender of American interests, often invoking constitutional and religious arguments to support his views, particularly regarding the U.S.-Israel relationship.

The episode’s central themes include U.S. regime change efforts, foreign policy realignment, the role of religious belief in governance, and criticism of domestic urban decay. Recurring topics include the defense of Israel, skepticism toward aid to Ukraine, and the role of lobbying groups like AIPAC. The structure is discursive but intentionally returns to Carlson’s critique of prioritizing foreign interests over domestic needs.

Topics discussed in this episode

• Senator Ted Cruz defends U.S. support for regime change in Iran, asserting that a popular uprising would be preferable to military intervention and arguing that Iran's leadership poses a direct threat to U.S. interests.
• Carlson and Cruz debate the effectiveness and consequences of past U.S.-backed regime changes, referencing Syria, Iraq, and Libya to examine whether those interventions served American security.
• The two discuss the U.S. foreign policy doctrine of "peace through strength," with Cruz aligning himself with Reagan-era and Trump-era strategic ideals and rejecting both interventionist and isolationist extremes.
• Carlson questions the justification for continued U.S. military and financial support for Israel, pressing Cruz on the tangible costs and strategic benefits of that alliance.
• Cruz asserts that U.S. military aid to Israel, approximately $3 billion annually, provides significant national security returns, particularly via intelligence sharing and regional stability.
• Carlson challenges Cruz on the role of AIPAC in American politics, arguing that it functions as a de facto foreign lobby despite not registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
• The episode delves into domestic issues, with both Carlson and Cruz criticizing the condition of Washington, D.C., linking urban decay to Democratic governance and policy failures on law enforcement.
• Cruz argues that Republican lawmakers should exert more constitutional control over D.C., citing examples such as proposed vaccine mandates in city schools and legislative resistance to overriding local decisions.
• Carlson expresses concern over what he perceives as disproportionate U.S. concern with foreign adversaries like Iran while domestic crises—like homelessness and drug addiction—go unresolved.
• The conversation becomes confrontational over religious justifications for U.S. policy toward Israel, with Cruz citing biblical scripture and Carlson pressing him on the theological and political implications of that stance.

Claim count validation

• Total factual claims detected: 56
• Validated false claims: 2
• Misleading: 3
• Unverifiable: 8
• Verified factual: 43

False claims

False claim #1: “We’ve been trying to kill Maduro for quite some time. We have troops there.”

Timestamp: Around 1 minute, 23 seconds
Speaker: Tucker Carlson

Context:
Carlson asserts as fact that the United States has attempted to assassinate Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and has troops stationed in Venezuela. This was delivered with full seriousness and affirmed even after guest pushback.

Our Take:
The U.S. government has not officially attempted to assassinate Nicolás Maduro, nor are there U.S. troops stationed in Venezuela. While a failed paramilitary operation (Operation Gideon, 2020) involved former U.S. servicemen, the U.S. government explicitly denied involvement. There are no official U.S. troop deployments in Venezuela, as confirmed by the Department of Defense and independent reporting.

Sources:
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-nicolas-maduro-caribbean-ap-top-news-international-news-bb0c6dd430eb1a6c6aa92e7dba6a98d5
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-usa-idUSKBN22G2J3

False claim #2: “The cause of those riots are Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass. And when you elect communists who hate America… you get what you get on the streets.”

Timestamp: Around 24 minutes, 0 seconds
Speaker: Senator Ted Cruz

Context:
Cruz attributes rioting in Los Angeles to the leadership and ideology of Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass, labeling them “communists who hate America.” This was delivered as a serious, factual diagnosis of California’s civic unrest.

Our Take:
There is no documented evidence tying Gavin Newsom or Karen Bass to the cause of riots in Los Angeles. Riots and unrest have followed police violence and protests over systemic injustice, not incitement by elected officials. Neither official is a communist; both are mainstream Democrats with no affiliation to any communist organization. No credible source supports the claim that either “hates America.” These characterizations are false, inflammatory rhetoric.

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/us/la-police-protests-los-angeles.html
https://apnews.com/article/los-angeles-crime-politics-police-karen-bass-5c33ff8c5eae9e5e9ae706c25594b446

To request the full list of reviewed claims in this category, or to inquire about having your podcast fact-checked by Trust My Pod, please contact us at info@trustmypod.org.

Misleading claims

Misleading claim #1: The Iraq War directly caused the rise of ISIS

Timestamp: Around 13 minutes in
Speaker: Senator Ted Cruz

Context:
During a broader critique of U.S. regime change policy, Senator Cruz asserts that the U.S. invasion of Iraq directly caused the rise of ISIS. He contrasts Iraq with Iran, arguing that toppling Saddam Hussein was a mistake because it “ended up having ISIS rise up.” This is used to frame a pattern in which removing anti-U.S. dictators results in worse threats to American security.

Our Take:
While the invasion of Iraq did contribute to the conditions under which ISIS emerged, the claim that it “caused” ISIS oversimplifies a complex set of geopolitical and sectarian developments. The Islamic State evolved from al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which had already formed by 2004. Its growth was accelerated by the Syrian Civil War, disenfranchisement of Sunni Iraqis under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2011. Cruz’s framing ignores these additional factors and overstates the direct causality between U.S. intervention and ISIS’s emergence, which misleads by exaggeration and omission.

Sources:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/isis-backgrounder
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/isis-in-iraq-a-cause-or-a-symptom/

Misleading claim #2: “Israel only receives $3 billion a year in military aid, and that’s the total cost of U.S. support”

Timestamp: Around 28 minutes in
Speaker: Senator Ted Cruz

Context:
In a discussion about U.S. foreign aid priorities, Cruz states that Israel receives “about $3 billion a year” in military assistance and claims, “that’s the only assistance.” This is used to argue that support for Israel is both limited and beneficial to U.S. national interests, implying there’s no substantial additional cost.

Our Take:
Cruz omits significant indirect costs of U.S. support for Israel, particularly during active military conflicts. While the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) does outline $3.3 billion annually in military aid, additional unbudgeted costs arise during regional escalations—such as emergency weapons resupplies, expanded military deployments in the region, and naval positioning. For example, recent conflicts have involved hundreds of millions in supplemental funding and extensive operational costs. Presenting $3 billion as the full cost of U.S. support is misleading by omission.

Sources:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-costs-us-israel-relations-2024-05-14/

Misleading claim #3: “DC is dangerous because Democrats won’t let police arrest bad guys”

Timestamp: Around 24 minutes in
Speaker: Senator Ted Cruz

Context:
In response to Tucker Carlson’s concerns about crime in Washington, D.C., Cruz claims the city is unsafe because “you have a mayor and a Democrat city council that won't let police officers arrest bad guys.” He extends this to say “Democrat policies destroy every community they’re in charge of.”

Our Take:
This framing distorts the causes of urban crime by attributing it entirely to partisan governance. While D.C. has faced rising crime rates, data shows the dynamics are complex: gun trafficking, poverty, drug abuse, and post-pandemic social dislocation are contributing factors. Arrests have increased in several categories despite claims of police inaction, and policies such as pretrial reform or prosecutorial discretion are not equivalent to “not letting police arrest bad guys.” The claim misleads through causal overreach and sweeping generalization.

Sources:
https://dcist.com/story/24/01/03/dc-2023-crime-stats-violent-homicide/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/07/dc-crime-arrests-police/

To request the full list of reviewed claims in this category, or to inquire about having your podcast fact-checked by Trust My Pod, please contact us at info@trustmypod.org.

Unverifiable claims

Unverifiable claim #1: “We’ve been trying to kill Maduro for quite some time.”

Timestamp: 01:23
Speaker: Tucker Carlson

Context:
In a discussion on U.S. foreign policy toward Venezuela, Carlson asserts that the U.S. government has attempted to assassinate President Nicolás Maduro. This statement is made definitively after his guest expresses skepticism, with Carlson replying, “we have,” as if the matter is settled fact.

Our Take:
This claim refers to a covert action that remains unconfirmed in public records. While Venezuelan authorities have long accused the U.S. of plotting to kill or overthrow Maduro—especially after the failed 2020 “Operation Gideon” attempt involving American contractors—there is no conclusive public documentation or acknowledgment from the U.S. government supporting the claim of an active assassination campaign. Such a statement, presented as fact and unbacked by evidence, remains unverifiable.

Sources:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-security-usa-idUSKCN1VJ0W2
https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-nicolas-maduro-coup-usa-5a3a38d183d8ed65ae7fe58f37a519a5

Unverifiable claim #2: “The US government pays opposition groups, militarized opposition groups in Iran to overthrow the government.”

Timestamp: 17:12
Speaker: Tucker Carlson

Context:
While critiquing U.S. regime change policies, Carlson claims that the U.S. is funding armed Iranian opposition groups with the aim of overthrowing the Islamic Republic.

Our Take:
Although the U.S. has supported Iranian dissident groups through media, civil society, and democracy promotion, no publicly verifiable evidence confirms current funding of armed or “militarized” opposition groups for regime change. Claims of U.S. support for violent groups like MEK have circulated, but remain unsubstantiated in recent years. Without confirmation from multiple reputable sources, this assertion about covert militarized funding cannot be verified.

Sources:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/covert-regime-change-american-strategy-in-the-middle-east/
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-says-us-backs-armed-opposition-2022-05-23/

Unverifiable claim #3: “We are commanded to support Israel. The Bible says, ‘Those who bless Israel will be blessed.’”

Timestamp: 50:37
Speaker: Sen. Ted Cruz

Context:
Cruz explains his long-standing support for the state of Israel as rooted in Christian theology. He paraphrases a biblical verse, presenting it as a divine command to support modern Israel as a nation-state.

Our Take:
Cruz is paraphrasing Genesis 12:3, where God tells Abram, “I will bless those who bless you.” However, biblical scholarship does not universally interpret this passage as a command to support the modern political state of Israel. The text predates the 1948 founding of Israel by thousands of years and refers to Abraham's descendants more broadly. Linking this scripture to contemporary geopolitical alliances is a theological belief, not a verifiable fact. Cruz presents it as a factual mandate, but it remains an interpretive claim and cannot be verified through independent evidence.

Sources:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+12%3A3
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/10/01/evangelical-protestants-views-on-israel/

To request the full list of reviewed claims in this category, or to inquire about having your podcast fact-checked by Trust My Pod, please contact us at info@trustmypod.org.

Conclusion

Across the 56 factual claims extracted from this episode, 43 were verified as accurate, resulting in a verified factual rate of approximately 77 percent. Two claims were found to be false, three were misleading, and eight were unverifiable based on current, reputable, and independent sources. The bulk of verifiable content focused on U.S. foreign aid figures, military policy histories, and statements about congressional authority over Washington, D.C. Topics like regime change efficacy, intelligence sharing with Israel, and lobbying classifications presented more difficulty, often due to a lack of public documentation or definitional ambiguity.

The tone of the episode is assertive and, at times, overtly combative. Carlson operates in a prosecutorial mode, framing questions to challenge assumptions and provoke ideological contradiction. Senator Cruz counters with a rhetorical style grounded in religious conviction, constitutional interpretation, and anecdotal logic. Evidence use is heavily partisan: Cruz appeals to ideological history (e.g., Reagan, Trump), while Carlson invokes cost-benefit realism and populist sentiment. The episode’s framing implicitly prioritizes American domestic stability over global military engagement, though it veers into accusations of bad faith and emotional manipulation during contentious moments, particularly on questions of lobbying and religious influence.

CREDIBILITY SCORE: 77/100 TRUSTWORTHY