Donald Trump and Keir Starmer were branded 'slaves' to Israel's interests by U.S. broadcaster Tucker Carlson in a combative BBC interview aired on Sunday in London, where the former Fox News host claimed neither leader was free to make independent decisions.
Carlson's appearance on BBC One's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg — hosted this week by Victoria Derbyshire — was billed as a straight political interview with one of the most recognisable voices on the American right. What it delivered instead was a sweeping assault on Western policy towards Israel, a swipe at freedom of expression in the UK and an unusually sympathetic portrayal of Donald Trump as a man shackled by foreign influence.
Tucker Carlson's 'Slaves' Claim About Israel's Power
Carlson's central claim was stark. Asked about Keir Starmer, he dismissed the idea that the Prime Minister was in charge of his own government.
'I don't think Keir Starmer makes any calls about anything,' Carlson told Derbyshire. 'Keir Starmer is every bit as enslaved as Donald Trump is.'
The word 'enslaved' was his, unprompted and repeated. Carlson tied that accusation directly to Israel, arguing that both the UK and U.S. political classes are effectively captured by a foreign government. At one point he spoke of a 'mechanism of control that allows a country of 9 million to control a country of 350 million.'
He went further, alleging that political speech in Britain has been narrowed to protect Israel from criticism. According to Carlson, 'It is a crime for which you can be arrested in Britain right now for criticising Israel.'
As evidence, he cited the UK government's move last year to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. In his telling, that decision demonstrated that the authorities were prepared to criminalise dissent on Israel and Palestine rather than simply police public order offences.
None of this, it should be stressed, was backed by specific legal references on air. The claim that Britons can be arrested purely 'for criticising Israel' goes well beyond how terrorism legislation and hate speech laws are usually described by ministers and lawyers. No independent confirmation of Carlson's characterisation was provided in the programme.
The 'Mechanism of Control'
Carlson's remarks landed in a UK political climate where Starmer's handling of the Israel–Gaza conflict has already drawn intense scrutiny from both left and right. The Labour leader has tried to maintain a carefully calibrated line, backing Israel's right to defend itself while stressing the need to protect civilian life and support for international law. For some in his own party that has been too cautious; for others it has been too critical of a longstanding ally.
Into that fraught space walked Carlson with a blunt allegation that Starmer is 'a passenger in Number 10,' a man whose room for manoeuvre is so constrained by Israel's interests that he is effectively subordinate. The idea is not new in conspiracy-minded corners of the internet. Hearing it delivered on primetime British television by one of America's best-known conservative commentators gives it a different weight, even if many viewers will regard it as wildly overstated.
The U.S. side of his argument was no less sweeping. Carlson, who built much of his career championing Donald Trump's populist politics, took aim at the president's record on Iran. He called Trump's decision to go to war with Iran 'the single biggest mistake Trump or any American president in my lifetime has made... in an effort to change its regime,' and alleged that Israel had 'intentionally' violated a ceasefire in Lebanon to undermine Trump's diplomatic efforts.
Yet he insisted there was no personal falling out between them. 'I've always liked him... I feel sorry for him, as I do for all slaves,' he said, claiming Trump 'is not free at this moment to do what he thinks is best for himself or his country.' Carlson added that it was 'not totally inaccurate' to say Trump was under the control of Benjamin Netanyahu, though he stopped short of fully endorsing that phrase.
Again, these are Carlson's interpretations and allegations. There was no documentary evidence presented in the interview to substantiate the idea of direct control by the Israeli prime minister, and that characterisation has not been confirmed by any official U.S. or Israeli source.
Mary Beard Pushes Back On Tucker Carlson's 'Skewed' UK Picture
If Carlson expected a gentle ride from the rest of the panel, he did not get it. Historian Mary Beard, appearing on the same programme, offered a brisk and unapologetic rebuttal.
She accused him of having 'very confused' assumptions about the UK, especially around Palestine Action, and dismissed his portrayal of Britain as a place where criticism of Israel is essentially banned.
'He's going on about how it's not possible in the United Kingdom to criticise Israel, because he's somehow got very confused about the whole Palestine Action Group,' Beard said, making clear she saw his version of events as deeply misleading.
Beard argued that far from being uniquely oppressive, the UK's debate on Israel and Palestine remains robust, if often bitter. She drew attention instead to what she called a 'blind spot' on the American right, where some Republican-controlled states have been removing or restricting books in school libraries while simultaneously presenting themselves as free-speech absolutists.
On Starmer, Beard took almost the opposite view to Carlson's. 'I've been quite impressed with what Starmer has done and how he's trod this path,' she said, urging the public to support the prime minister's team rather than rushing to 'boot the poor guy out.' It was a pointed reminder that not everyone on the British centre-left sees Starmer as captured or cowed.
Carlson, aware that his language on Israel sits in a live culture war, was at pains to reject accusations of antisemitism. He called such labels 'the fastest and most expedient way' to shut down argument, and stated: 'I think anti-semitism and racism of all kinds, including anti-white racism, are all immoral and anti-Christian, and I oppose them.'
His critique, he insisted, was aimed at a political 'mechanism of control' rather than a people or a faith. Whether that distinction will survive contact with a polarised public is another matter. For now, very little of what he alleged has been independently verified, and many of his strongest assertions about Israel's power over Starmer and Trump should be regarded cautiously until more concrete evidence is produced.
