Murdochs urged Tucker Carlson to run against Trump — after they fired him, ex-Fox host claims
After a week of casting himself as the MAGAverse's main character, Tucker Carlson seemed determined to keep his name in headlines this week when he shockingly asserted that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch asked him to run for president against Donald Trump after firing him from Fox News.
Carlson, who was abruptly fired without explanation by Fox News in April 2023, has largely held his fire over the years against his former employer despite the obvious bad blood over his sudden termination.
While the ex-primetime star has floated various theories about what led to his demise at the right-wing network, bouncing between the Dominion lawsuit and his outspoken views on the Ukraine war, it's been speculated that it was just because he 'got too big for his boots' and alienated 'large swaths' of the company.
Still, Carlson has generally stayed fairly complimentary (if a bit trollish) towards the Murdochs since his exit from Fox – until now. Since leading the MAGA isolationist charge against Trump over his Iran saber-rattling, Carlson has not only torn into his former colleagues for being 'warmongers' but also the Fox ownership for firehosing 'propaganda' to their elderly viewing base.
During his latest podcast broadcast, Carlson – who started his own media outlet after departing Fox – brought on former Fox News host Clayton Morris, who has had his own checkered history since leaving the conservative cable giant.
'This is really the first time I've attacked them,' Carlson asserted, noting that 'they canned me over two years ago.' He said it was important to take the Murdochs to task now, though, because he feels that Fox News' purpose is 'to scare old people into obedience.'
While he continued to blast ultra-hawkish hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin for pushing the administration to join Israel's war against Iran, Carlson also shared that his former bosses offered to support him if he threw his name into the 2024 GOP presidential race.
'The Murdochs really hate Trump. Like, there's no one who hates Trump more than the Murdochs,' Carlson declared, referencing the on-again/off-again friendship between Rupert Murdoch and the president.
'I got fired in April of 2023. In May of 2023, they asked me to run for president against Trump and said they would back me,' he continued. Prior to Trump running away with the Republican nomination, the Murdochs had attempted to boost the campaigns of Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy.
'Obviously I'm not gonna be running for any office. You know, I would never get elected anyway, plus I like Trump!' Carlson exclaimed.
After Morris interjected, wanting to know if Carlson was actually claiming they asked him to run for president against Trump, the former primetime Fox star confirmed that was indeed the case.
'Yeah, yeah, yeah! Lachlan Murdoch said, 'You should run, we'll back you, the whole thing,'' Carlson insisted, adding that the Murdochs offered to put not only the 'whole Fox News apparatus' behind him but also the rest of their media empire.
'And not just Fox but, you know, the Wall Street Journal,' he said. 'We'll back you.'
'And that came right from Lachlan?' Morris wondered, prompting Carlson to assert that the offer was made.
'I was already gone; they'd already canceled my show. I was still under contract, but they canceled my show. 'You should run, we support you, you should run,'' Carlson concluded..
Conservatives, meanwhile, have been floating Carlson's name for president going back as far as 2020. There was even a short-lived effort to convince him to run following his termination from Fox News, though Carlson ended up fully backing Trump and finding his way into the president's inner circle during the heat of the presidential race.
Before sparking Trump's anger in recent days with his criticism of the president's handling of Iran, Carlson was seen as a close adviser. In fact, he is largely credited with convincing Trump to choose JD Vance as running mate, and he had a prime speaking slot at last year's Republican National Convention.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
36 minutes ago
- Reuters
US judge blocks Trump's elimination of union bargaining for federal workers
June 24 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the administration of President Donald Trump from eliminating union bargaining for hundreds of thousands of federal workers. U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco agreed with the American Federation of Government Employees and other unions that Trump's March 27 executive order, opens new tab exempting many federal agencies from obligations to bargain with unions was likely illegal. Donato blocked about 20 agencies from implementing Trump's order pending the outcome of the unions' lawsuit. Eliminating collective bargaining would allow agencies to alter working conditions and fire or discipline workers more easily, and it could prevent unions from challenging Trump administration initiatives in court. In April, a judge in Washington, D.C., blocked Trump's order from being implemented at seven agencies including the departments of Justice, Treasury, and Health and Human Services. A federal appeals court on May 16 paused that ruling while it considers the Trump administration's appeal. Donato's ruling applies to those agencies and the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, State and Labor, among others. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump's executive order exempted agencies that he said "have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work," from collective bargaining obligations, significantly expanding an existing exception for workers with duties implicating national security, such as certain employees of the CIA and FBI. The order applies to the departments of Justice, State, Defense, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services, among other agencies. It affects about 75% of federal workers currently represented by unions, according to filings in the unions' lawsuit. The lawsuits challenging the executive order say it was meant to punish federal worker unions that have sued over Trump's other efforts to overhaul the government, including the mass firings and layoffs of agency employees. Unions also argue that the vast majority of workers covered by the order do not perform national security or intelligence work. The Trump administration filed a pair of lawsuits against AFGE and another union seeking to invalidate existing bargaining agreements in light of Trump's order shortly after he issued it. A judge in Kentucky on May 20 said the Treasury Department lacked standing to sue over a union contract covering thousands of Internal Revenue Service employees and dismissed the agency's lawsuit. A separate case that eight agencies filed against AFGE is pending in Texas federal court.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Trump administration expects deal with Harvard by end-June, Washington Post reports
WASHINGTON, June 24 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is ramping up negotiations with Harvard University and expects a deal by the end of June to resolve the White House's campaign against the country's oldest and richest university, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday. On Friday, Trump said a deal could be announced "over the next week or so" to end a months-long battle with the Ivy League school, which sued after the administration terminated billions of dollars in grants and moved to bar the school from admitting international students.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Judge blocks Trump from withholding EV charger funds awarded to 14 states
A US district judge has blocked the Trump administration from withholding funds previously awarded to 14 states for electric vehicle charger infrastructure. Seattle-based judge Tana Lin, who was appointed to the bench by Joe Biden in 2021, granted a partial injunction to the states that filed suit against Trump's Department of Transportation. She ruled that the states' lawsuit – led by attorneys general in California, Colorado and Washington – would likely succeed. Her ruling did not apply to the District of Columbia, Minnesota and Vermont, which she found did not provide evidence that they would suffer immediate harm. The injunction will go into effect on 1 July, unless the Trump administration files an appeal blocking it. In February, the Trump administration ordered states not to spend $5bn in funds allocated under the Biden administration as part of the national electric vehicle infrastructure (Nevi) program. The program provided up to 80% of eligible project costs to deploy electric vehicle charges. Currently, 16 states have at least one operational EV station, according to EV States Clearinghouse. 'The new leadership of the Department of Transportation … has decided to review the policies underlying the implementation of the Nevi formula program,' Emily Biondi, associate administrator for planning, environment and realty at the transportation department's Federal Highway Administration, wrote in a memo. 'As result of the rescission of the Nevi formula program guidance, the FHWA is also immediately suspending the approval of all state electric vehicle infrastructure deployment plans for all fiscal years. Therefore, effective immediately, no new obligations may occur under the Nevi formula program until the updated final Nevi formula program guidance is issued and new state plans are submitted and approved,' she added. In May, the Government Accountability Office found that the Trump administration violated the law when it withheld the funding. The administration 'must continue to carry out the statutory requirements of the program', it said. The White House challenged those findings, which it called 'wrong and legally indefensible', and ordered the transportation department to ignore them. The department is expected to release a draft of its updated electric vehicle guidance this month. During a hearing before the Seattle judge earlier this month, Leah Brown, of Washington's attorney general's office said, 'This passing reference to revised guidance and to changed priorities is simply insufficient to override congressional intent.' She added that the states aren't 'challenging the ability to revise guidance, but we are arguing that doing so simply is not a sufficient explanation for the actions that they've taken,' the Washington State Standard reported. 'The agency has no intent to withhold funds from the states,' justice department attorney Heidy Gonzalez said. 'It just wants the opportunity to review past guidance and to promulgate guidance that comports with the current administration's policies and priorities.' During his campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump voiced a hatred for electric vehicles that ran counter to his growing friendship with Tesla CEO Elon Musk. At one point in the campaign, Trump said supporters of the vehicles should 'rot in hell' and that Biden's support of EVs would bring a 'bloodbath' to the US's automotive industry. Although he later appointed Musk to serve as head of the 'department of government efficiency', Musk and Trump have since parted ways.
