Newsweek senior Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer triggered backlash from the far right on Wednesday for his fierce criticism of Tucker Carlson.
The drama started when Hammer wrote an op-ed for the Daily Mail that was published on Wednesday. In the op-ed, he accused Carlson of having betrayed the late Charlie Kirk by interviewing infamous antisemite and provocateur Nick Fuentes, which Carlson did earlier this week.
The Nick Fuentes Interview
(0:00) The Origins of Nick Fuentes
(17:10) The Daily Wire’s Efforts to Destroy Fuentes
(35:02) Why Fuentes Decided to Challenge the Conservative Establishment
(46:25) Why Did Fuentes Attack Joe Kent?
(57:31) Identity Politics
(1:01:55) Why Did Fuentes… pic.twitter.com/slCKkjqKv5— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) October 27, 2025
Hammer specifically accused Carlson of “laundering” and “fawning over” Fuentes’ “repugnant beliefs” and of waging a “war” on “the forces of civilizational sanity on the MAGA Right.”
He also took a stab at Fuentes.
“Fuentes, who has personally called me ‘filth’ and said that Jews like me and broadcaster Mark Levin ‘are not American’ and ‘do not belong here,’ predictably claimed yet again on Carlson’s show that American Jews put the interests of Israel over the interests of their own country,” he wrote.
But it was the final line of his op-ed that has since gone viral and inspired a whirlwind of backlash.
“The fox is now comfortably ensconced in the hen house,” Hammer wrote. “And unless the fox is neutralized, the victim could be the entire extant GOP coalition itself.”
Many of Carlson’s fans have interpreted this as a “Keith Olbermann-style” death wish targeting the former Fox News host.
This is a Keith Olbermann-style Twitter post, not something that should be published by a news outlet. We just witnessed the assassination of Charlie Kirk. This is irresponsible by the Daily Mail. https://t.co/U10wvt2E06
— Jason Whitlock (@WhitlockJason) October 29, 2025
“Hey @josh_hammer @DailyMail what the hell do you mean when you write that @TuckerCarlson must be ‘neutralized?'” comedian Dave Smith tweeted. “Seems like a pretty reckless thing to say in the wake of the biggest political assassination of our lifetime.”
“Also, who the f–k is Josh to decide who ought to be neutralized? Josh has not been elected to anything and has zero popular support. Millions of people LOVE Tucker. Josh is known for being friends with Charlie and getting smoked in a debate with me twice. That’s it,” he added.
The op-ed also angered commentator Candace Owens, who’s been peddling conspiracy theories implicating the late Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s allies, including Hammer, in his assassination last month by Tyler Robinson, a punk leftist.
Josh Hammer is about to call for public executions again.
I cannot believe the @DailyMail allowed this to be published.
Josh behaves like a psychopath behind the scenes. Given his lies about Charlie Kirk’s true feelings in the wake of his death, we should pray for Tucker. https://t.co/uUmBvZsM5A— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) October 30, 2025
Curt Mills, the executive director of The American Conservative, went so far as to accuse Hammer of “insinuating that Tucker Carlson should also be murdered.”
But not everybody took the anti-Hammer side. Some actually defended him by drawing attention to Carlson and Fuentes’ sometimes radical views.
What’s wrong with neutralizing someone’s speech with counter speech?
— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) October 30, 2025
I think you’re overreacting to what Hammer said. He sees the disruption to the right Fuentes is causing and is simply saying we can’t let it take hold.
— William Ward (@BucMan55) October 30, 2025
That’s what you took away from the article? Tucker just said he hated 40 million Christian’s more than anyone else in the world for their beliefs and you’re playing woke word games? Disgusting.
— (͡๏̯͡๏) USAEndgame (@NetWolf55) October 30, 2025
Tucker just had a conversation with a guy who thinks all Jewish people should be put in an oven, so save me your bullshit Tucker has lost his mind, and maybe as his friend, you should help him
— Mark Dodd (@MarkDod16784054) October 29, 2025
Yes, “neutralized” as in countered, made “neutral” in impact or effect. What’s the problem?
You, on the other hand, are pathetically cheering on the platforming of a rank bigot, who wouldn’t urinate on you if you were on fire. Good lord, stupidity.
— Jeff Stillman (@StillmanJeff) October 30, 2025
Writers and editors can be contacted at [email protected] with feedback, tips, or corrections.
V. Saxena is a staff writer with a decade of experience as a professional writer, and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University. Saxena also contributes to BizPac Review.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.