Tucker Carlson "Americans who serve in the IDF should lose their citizenship"

Tucker Carlson stirred up a storm at a Turning Point USA conference in Tampa, Florida yesterday (Saturday) with a provocative take on national loyalty. When asked about dual allegiance, the conservative commentator didn’t hold back, declaring that Americans who serve in foreign militaries, like Israel’s IDF or Ukraine’s armed forces, should have their U.S. citizenship revoked immediately.

“Anybody… who serves in a foreign military should lose his citizenship immediately,” Carlson said. “There are a lot of Americans who’ve served in the IDF, they should lose their citizenship. There’s a lot of Americans who’ve served in Ukraine and they should lose their citizenship. You can’t fight for another country and remain an American. Period.” Quoting the Bible’s “no man can serve two masters,” he argued that loyalty to the U.S. can’t coexist with fighting for another nation.

Carlson also tossed in a cryptic jab, hinting that foreign intelligence services, possibly Israel’s, could be tied to figures like Jeffrey Epstein.

Here’s the catch: Carlson’s idea sounds bold, but it’s not exactly a slam dunk. U.S. law (8 U.S.C. § 1481) says citizenship can only be revoked for things like voluntarily giving it up, committing treason, or serving in a foreign military at war with the U.S. Since neither Israel nor Ukraine is fighting Uncle Sam, stripping citizenship from their volunteers would likely need new legislation. Dual citizenship is also perfectly legal in the U.S., so Carlson’s proposal might be more of a talking point than a policy ready for prime time.

Carlson’s comments tap into a heated debate about loyalty and identity in America. Supporters on X are calling it a common-sense stand for national unity, arguing that fighting for another country raises questions about where your heart lies. Critics, though, see it as a divisive jab, particularly at Americans who serve in the IDF, given the U.S.’s strong alliance with Israel. The Ukraine mention seems like a broader brush to avoid singling out one group, but it’s not cooling the controversy. Some also worry this could alienate communities or oversimplify complex personal choices.