Carlson accused of stoking antisemitic conspiracy theory at Charlie Kirk memorial

Tucker Carlson drew immediate controversy Sunday at the memorial service for Charlie Kirk in Glendale, Arizona, when he appeared to link the Turning Point USA founder's death to antisemitic conspiracy theories.

In remarks delivered to a large crowd at the State Farm Stadium, Carlson framed a biblical parallel, suggesting that recounting truth about powerful interests can provoke violent pushback. He described a hypothetical room where people plotting to silence a speaker contemplate murder, and he implied such violence would be used to stop the truth from being told. The comments drew swift condemnation from Jewish groups and Israeli figures who said the rhetoric echoed medieval blood libel tropes about Jewish people and responsibility for Jesus Christ’s death.

Several Jewish organizations and Israeli commentators criticized Carlson’s speech as antisemitic dog whistles that revived the blood libel trope. On X, former Israeli government spokesman Eylon Levy said Carlson used the memorial to spread an antisemitic trope, painting Pharisees as conspirators who plot to kill a truth-teller. Critics also pointed to Carlson’s aside about people gathered around hummus and the idea of killing to silence debate, arguing the framing invoked a harmful stereotype about Jewish people and leadership.

Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, described Carlson’s remarks as an old trope repackaged for a modern audience and said they reflected a broader pattern of insinuating Jewish influence in political violence.

Other analysts who weighed in emphasized the historical resonance of the rhetoric. Max Abrahms, a political scientist, said Carlson’s framing amounted to blood libel-like insinuations and warned that such language can fuel harassment and threats against Jewish individuals and communities.

A number of commentators who are not typically associated with Jewish or Israel-focused issues also criticized the approach. Matthew Schmitz, editor of Compact Magazine, posted a judgment that Carlson was spreading antisemitic insinuations that tied Kirk’s death to Jewish actors, prompting a broader discussion about the boundaries of political rhetoric in memorial settings.

Carlson’s remarks were amplified by Palestinian news outlet Quds News Network, which described the speech as suggesting Israeli involvement in Kirk’s death during the TPUSA memorial. The report helped propel cross-border attention to the controversy.

Far-right voices in the United States also contributed to the conversation. Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes used their platforms to push the theory that Israel or Jewish figures were involved in Kirk’s killing, broadening the reach of the discussion beyond the immediate memorial audience.

Representatives for Carlson did not respond to requests for comment. The memorial event featured several high-profile attendees, including President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, who spoke on the same stage as Carlson. Among the speakers with Jewish backgrounds were Stephen Miller and Laura Loomer, who delivered remarks at the service dedicated to Kirk’s life.

The memorial was for Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, and drew a mix of supporters and critics amid a week of high-pitched partisan rhetoric surrounding Kirk’s legacy and Israel policy. Carlson’s remarks came as part of a broader debate over the line between provocative political commentary and rhetoric that could inflame religious or ethnic tensions.

In the aftermath, some political observers noted that Carlson has cultivated a reputation for controversial, attention-grabbing statements. Others argued that the incident underscored risks when political figures address sensitive topics at emotionally charged events. Officials and advocacy groups on all sides of the issue emphasized the need for careful wording in public remarks, particularly at gatherings honoring individuals who have shaped political movements.

As the discussion moved into social feeds and editorial pages, some attendees and commentators defended Carlson’s right to express provocative viewpoints, while others urged caution to prevent the casual invocation of religious trauma or ethnic stereotypes from fueling real-world hostility. The incident has renewed questions about the responsibilities of public figures when discussing violent episodes, especially in memorial settings that are meant to honor a person’s life and legacy.