Vance faces growing backlash for ‘Jewsplaining’ Tucker Carlson’s antisemitism

“Tucker vanished into polite ‘disagreement.’ Fuentes became the lone monster.”

By World Israel News Staff

Vice President JD Vance is facing renewed criticism from conservative and pro-Israel voices over his handling of Tucker Carlson and Israel following his closely watched appearance before the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas.

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley issued a sharp rebuke, directly challenging Vance on X and arguing that Republicans cannot simultaneously align themselves with Carlson and the pro-Israel wing of the party.

“Right is right. Wrong is wrong. In life, you must choose a side,” Haley wrote, tagging Vance.

“You are either with the Tucker Carlson wing of the country or you are with the pro Israel wing of the country. You can’t be both.”

Haley concluded by quoting Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel: “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.”

Right is right. Wrong is wrong. In life, you must choose a side. You are either with the Tucker Carlson wing of the country or you are with the pro Israel wing of the country. You can’t be both. @JDVance

“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the…

— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) September 1, 2026

Conservative activist and staunch Trump supporter Laura Loomer similarly argued that Vance’s continued relationship with Carlson has become a political liability that he cannot simply avoid discussing.

“The Tucker Carlson dilemma is an albatross around the neck of the vice president no matter how much he claims to oppose ‘blood guilt,’” Loomer wrote on X.

“The people don’t want to hear Nick Fuentes’s name or even Joe Rogan’s name as a deflection from addressing Tucker,” she continued. “We want to hear a strong condemnation of Tucker.”

Loomer argued that Vance could have dramatically changed the reaction to his RJC appearance with a clear denunciation of Carlson.

“It could have been a 180 with a forceful condemnation of Tucker,” she wrote. “It’s not going away. Everyday Tucker escalates.”

“Tucker is the kiss of death, and we can’t dance around it,” she added.

It was a big mistake as I said for the Vice President’s speech to be closed press and off the record. I conveyed this to his team as well.

While I was ultimately allowed inside where I listened to @JDVance, it was inevitable that people would record it and leak it to the media.… https://t.co/SykeK3YVqx

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) September 1, 2026

The criticism comes after Vance was pressed about Carlson during Monday’s closed-door RJC event. Chairman Norm Coleman asked the vice president where politicians should draw the line when figures with large audiences promote antisemitism, raising Carlson alongside white nationalist Nick Fuentes.

Vance said attendees might “disagree with things that Tucker Carlson … has said,” but did not personally condemn Carlson, instead shifting the discussion toward distinguishing Fuentes from podcast host Joe Rogan.

CUNY law professor and pro-Israel activist Jeffrey Lax offered a more extensive critique in a Washington Examiner op-ed, accusing Vance of “Jewsplaining” Tucker Carlson’s antisemitism to Jewish Republicans while RJC leaders applauded him.

Lax focused on Vance’s response after RJC Chairman Norm Coleman raised Carlson and white nationalist Nick Fuentes and asked where politicians should draw the line when prominent platforms expose millions of people to antisemitism.

Vance told the audience that people might “disagree with things that Tucker Carlson … has said,” but did not say that he personally disagreed with Carlson. Instead, he shifted his answer toward distinguishing Fuentes from podcast host Joe Rogan.

For Lax, describing Carlson’s rhetoric as a matter of “disagreement” was precisely the problem.

“Vance erased the line,” Lax wrote. “He took grotesque Jew-hatred and recast it as a difference of opinion.”

“Vance didn’t even say that HE disagreed with Tucker,” he continued. “It was all about us Jews misunderstanding. Call it Jewsplaining.”

Lax argued that Vance effectively placed Carlson’s rhetoric in the category of provocative political opinions rather than antisemitism, while using the more openly extremist Fuentes as the line he was willing to draw.

“Tucker vanished into polite ‘disagreement.’ Fuentes became the lone monster,” Lax wrote, accusing Vance of treating Carlson’s antisemitism “as a spicy take that Jews were too sensitive to handle.”

Lax then laid out the record that he argued made such a distinction untenable. He cited Carlson questioning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ancestral connection to the Land of Israel, hosting Fuentes and allowing a reference to “organized Jewry” to go unchallenged, describing Christian support for Israel as a “brain virus,” and repeatedly portraying Israel and Netanyahu as malign influences on American policy.

He also noted that Rep. Randy Fine has called Carlson “the most dangerous antisemite in America,” conservative commentator Mark Levin has repeatedly denounced him and StopAntisemitism named Carlson its “Antisemite of the Year.”

But Lax argued that Carlson is only part of the concern surrounding Vance.

During his RJC appearance, Vance acknowledged that American and Israeli interests do not always align and argued that supporters of Israel must make a concrete case for the alliance to younger Americans who are increasingly skeptical of the relationship.

Lax criticized that approach as overly transactional, arguing that Vance presented Israel primarily through the lens of what it can provide the United States rather than emphasizing the countries’ shared values.

“He did not describe two liberal democracies that share Western values,” Lax wrote. “He described two governments with different maps.”

Lax characterized that approach as consistent with the more restrained foreign policy worldview that has fueled skepticism of Vance among some pro-Israel conservatives.

He was equally critical of the RJC leadership for its response. Coleman told Vance during the event that he wished the organization could “re-endorse” him, while coalition leaders praised the vice president afterward.

“If the Jewish organization that claims to police the Right will honor Carlson’s closest elected partner and hint at 2028 while he shields Carlson, every other conservative shop gets the same license,” Lax wrote.

Lax concluded that Vance’s RJC appearance had reinforced rather than dispelled his concerns.

“Enough is enough,” he wrote, accusing Vance of talking “Israel down when convenient” and treating Jewish criticism as something to be explained away. “And shame on the RJC leadership for lapping it all up.”

WABC radio host and outspoken Trump supporter Sid Rosenberg, who attended the summit, raised broader concerns about Vance’s approach to Israel immediately following the event.

“My honest assessment of Vice President Vance tonight? He was not strong enough on Israel,” Rosenberg wrote.

“In fact he referred to Israel as ONE of our best allies. One of?” he continued. “He had a chance to hammer @TuckerCarlson and @megynkelly but instead spent all his time defending @joerogan over Nick Fuentes.”

“Look, he’s still better than any Democrat candidate but I don’t think he wowed the STRONG Jews in the room tonight.”

The criticism from Haley, Loomer, Lax and Rosenberg highlights the divide Vance’s RJC appearance failed to resolve.

Despite a warm reception from the organization’s leadership, his refusal to forcefully break with Carlson and his more restrained framing of the U.S.-Israel relationship continue to fuel skepticism among some prominent voices on the pro-Israel right.