Who really controls American foreign policy? In a revealing interview with George Galloway, Tucker Carlson questions whether President Trump or powerful unelected interests determine Washington's decisions. He argues that the US is effectively at war with Russia and that Trump's promises to end foreign conflicts have been undermined. From Ukraine and Iran to intelligence agencies, political donors and presidential advisers, Carlson raises serious questions about who holds power, whose interests are served and whether American democracy delivers genuine political choice.
INR Report: Based on George Galloway's interview with Tucker Carlson, published 22 October 2026, with supporting reference to Reuters reporting, United States constitutional provisions and congressional research.
The Presidency and the Question of Real Power
Tucker Carlson began his interview with George Galloway by rejecting suggestions that he should seek the American presidency.
His explanation was more revealing than the refusal itself.
Carlson argued that watching Donald Trump's foreign-policy decisions had convinced him that occupying the White House did not necessarily mean controlling the most consequential decisions of government.
He identified immigration, pandemic policy and foreign affairs as areas in which he believes presidential authority has become constrained by forces operating within or around the permanent institutions of government.
The implication was that American voters can change the occupant of the presidency without necessarily changing the policies pursued by Washington.
This is the central hypothesis running through the interview.
It raises a legitimate question about democratic accountability, although Carlson's assertion that the president does not control major decisions goes further than the evidence presented.
The American president retains substantial constitutional and statutory authority. He appoints senior officials, directs executive agencies, commands the armed forces and conducts diplomacy, subject to constitutional limitations and congressional powers.
However, the practical exercise of that authority involves a large institutional system encompassing intelligence agencies, military commands, congressional appropriations, diplomatic personnel, political advisers and private-sector interests.
The distinction between possessing legal authority and exercising effective political control deserves examination.
America Is Already at War With Russia, Carlson Argues
The interview's most consequential claim concerned the United States' role in the Russia–Ukraine conflict.
At approximately 6 minutes and 20 seconds, Carlson argued that Washington's provision of military intelligence and targeting information to Ukraine meant the United States should be understood as an active participant in the conflict.
His argument rested on the contention that American intelligence enables Ukrainian attacks against targets inside Russia.
This is not an allegation without a factual foundation.
In October 2025, Reuters reported that the United States intended to provide Ukraine with intelligence supporting long-range strikes against Russian energy infrastructure. Earlier reporting also documented American intelligence assistance used to support Ukrainian military operations.
Such cooperation demonstrates a significant operational relationship between Washington and Kyiv.
However, it does not automatically establish that the United States is legally a party to the armed conflict.
International law distinguishes among military assistance, intelligence sharing, participation in specific hostilities and the broader legal classification of an international armed conflict. Whether a state becomes a party depends on the nature and extent of its involvement, not simply on the provision of weapons or intelligence.
Carlson's statement is therefore best understood as a political and strategic characterisation of American involvement rather than a settled legal determination.
Nevertheless, the underlying question is substantial.
If one country provides another with intelligence used to select or attack military targets, what level of operational responsibility follows, and what escalation risks arise?
Who Benefits From Continuing the War?
Carlson's second argument was that the continuation of the Ukraine conflict reflects political interests beyond the immediate security requirements of Ukraine itself.
He alleged that influential figures associated with interventionist foreign policy had obstructed efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict.
He further suggested that some of the same interests were responsible for encouraging American military intervention against Iran.
The interview did not establish the identities, coordination or decision-making authority of a group capable of directing both conflicts.
Carlson himself acknowledged uncertainty about the motives involved.
There are, however, identifiable institutions and interests whose positions can be examined.
The United States defence industry supplies weapons and equipment to American forces and allied governments. Congressional appropriations finance military assistance and procurement. Intelligence agencies provide assessments and operational support. Political advisers and elected officials advocate competing strategies concerning sanctions, deterrence and negotiations.
Those relationships are documented features of American governance.
What remains unproven is the stronger proposition that these actors collectively control presidential decisions or deliberately prolong war for a common concealed objective.
An evidence-based investigation would examine procurement contracts, lobbying disclosures, campaign contributions, official policy decisions and the records of diplomatic negotiations.
It would also examine the reasons advanced by Ukraine and its supporters for continuing military resistance.
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 remains a central fact. Ukraine maintains that it is defending its sovereignty and territory against an invading military force, and any explanation of the war's continuation must account for the decisions of Moscow and Kyiv as well as Washington.
The Risk of Direct NATO–Russia Confrontation
Carlson warned that continued escalation could eventually produce a direct military confrontation between Russia and a NATO member.
He suggested that certain advocates of confrontation with Moscow might welcome such an outcome.
The interview provided no documentary evidence establishing that deliberate provocation of a NATO–Russia war is an agreed objective of American or European policymakers.
Nevertheless, the possibility of escalation is a genuine strategic concern.
Military operations involving long-range weapons, intelligence assistance, cross-border attacks and nuclear-armed states create risks of miscalculation.
NATO's collective-defence arrangements further complicate those risks.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty provides that an armed attack against one member shall be considered an attack against all. It does not automatically require every member to declare war or undertake identical military action; each state determines the assistance it considers necessary, which may include armed force.
That distinction is important when assessing claims that any Russian strike against NATO territory would inevitably produce a general European war.
The practical danger lies in the possibility that an incident could trigger decisions under extreme political and military pressure.
Trump, Iran and the Limits of Presidential Independence
Carlson extended his argument to American military action against Iran.
He claimed that Trump had opposed another major Middle Eastern war but had ultimately been persuaded to participate in one.
According to Carlson, advisers and political interests supportive of Israel exerted significant pressure on the administration.
He portrayed the eventual military campaign as evidence that the president's stated preferences had been overridden.
These are Carlson's interpretations of events and private decision-making.
The interview did not produce official records demonstrating that Trump acted under coercion or lacked the ability to reject military recommendations.
A president may be influenced by advisers, intelligence assessments, allied governments, political commitments and changing circumstances without surrendering constitutional decision-making authority.
The critical questions are therefore who recommended particular military actions, what intelligence was presented, what alternatives were considered and who formally authorised the decisions.
Carlson also described his own frustration with Trump's appointments, including senior national security figures whose foreign-policy positions differed from the anti-interventionist rhetoric of Trump's campaigns.
This presents a more directly testable issue.
Appointments are public decisions. The political histories of appointees, their policy records and the decisions made during their tenure can be examined without assuming the existence of a concealed controlling organisation.
The Butler Assassination Attempt and Unproven Connections
One of the interview's most serious allegations concerned the July 2024 assassination attempt against Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Carlson suggested that the attempt, subsequent presidential appointments and later foreign-policy decisions might be connected.
He referred to public comments attributed to former counterterrorism official Joe Kent and questioned whether sufficient investigative material had been released.
However, the interview presented no evidence establishing that the Butler attack was organised by foreign-policy interests, connected to Israel or used to coerce Trump into particular decisions.
Carlson acknowledged that he lacked proof of the suggested connection.
That admission is central to assessing the allegation.
The existence of unanswered questions about an investigation does not, by itself, establish an alternative explanation for the crime.
Nor does the chronological sequence of an assassination attempt, political appointments and later policy decisions demonstrate causation.
Any serious investigation would require authenticated investigative records, credible witness evidence, financial or communications links and independently corroborated findings.
Until such evidence is available, the suggested connection remains speculative.
The Epstein Files and the Demand for Transparency
The conversation subsequently turned to Jeffrey Epstein and the continuing public debate over the release of investigative records.
Both Carlson and Galloway argued that unresolved questions about Epstein's associates, financial relationships and possible influence warranted further scrutiny.
Carlson criticised the Trump administration's handling of records and suggested that important information remained concealed.
He also raised speculative connections involving historical intelligence failures and financial activity surrounding the September 2001 terrorist attacks.
The interview did not substantiate those wider connections.
The existence of Epstein-related records, criminal investigations and previously undisclosed relationships provides legitimate grounds for demands for transparency and accountability.
However, appearing in a document, contact list or communication does not establish criminal wrongdoing.
Similarly, an assertion that records remain withheld must be tested against the actual publication status, legal restrictions and contents of the relevant files.
The evidentiary issue is whether specific records demonstrate misconduct, obstruction or improper influence.
Without that evidence, broader claims concerning coordinated control of political leaders remain hypotheses rather than established findings.
A Two-Party System Without Meaningful Choice?
Beyond foreign policy, Carlson and Galloway challenged the responsiveness of Western electoral systems.
Carlson argued that voters can choose between competing political parties while encountering substantial continuity in foreign-policy and economic decisions.
Galloway described this as a political system in which major parties differ publicly but converge on important questions of state power.
Their discussion raises an issue that can be examined through voting records, government expenditure, military commitments, trade policy and legislative decisions.
There are areas of genuine bipartisan agreement in the United States, including aspects of defence spending and international security.
There are also significant differences between the parties concerning taxation, regulation, immigration, environmental policy, judicial appointments and other matters.
Consequently, policy continuity in selected areas does not demonstrate that the United States operates as a literal one-party state.
The more precise question is whether the available electoral choices adequately reflect public preferences on particular issues.
That can be assessed by comparing polling, election platforms, legislative votes and policy outcomes over time.
Carlson's concern about democratic responsiveness is therefore capable of empirical investigation without accepting every conclusion he draws.
Russia, National Identity and a Contested Explanation
The interview also moved into arguments concerning Russia's religious identity, immigration and demographic change in Western countries.
Carlson suggested that opposition to Russia was partly driven by hostility among Western political elites towards majority-white Christian societies.
Galloway advanced a similar interpretation.
These claims were not supported by documentary evidence establishing such a coordinated motive.
Demographic changes in Western countries are measurable, but their causes include migration policy, birth rates, economic demand, family reunification, humanitarian obligations and historical population trends.
Population statistics alone cannot establish that political leaders share an intention to eliminate particular ethnic or religious majorities.
Likewise, Western governments have publicly identified multiple reasons for opposing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, including territorial sovereignty, European security, treaty commitments and concerns about the use of military force.
Those explanations can be scrutinised for consistency and effectiveness, but their existence cannot be displaced simply by asserting an unverified hidden motive.
This portion of the interview is therefore better treated as Carlson and Galloway's ideological interpretation than as an established explanation of Western policy.
What the Interview Reveals — and What It Does Not
The most substantial element of Carlson's argument concerns the gap between democratic authority and institutional power.
Presidents operate within complex systems. Intelligence agencies possess classified information unavailable to the public. Defence contractors have commercial interests in government procurement. Political donors and advocacy organisations seek influence. Congress exercises budgetary and legislative powers.
These relationships create opportunities for competing priorities, institutional resistance and conflicts of interest.
They also create legitimate questions about transparency and accountability.
However, institutional influence is not synonymous with secret control.
The interview provides firsthand commentary, allegations and political interpretation, but it does not establish a unified command structure directing American foreign policy from outside elected government.
The strongest investigative approach is to identify specific decisions and trace their origins.
Who proposed the policy? Who approved it? What alternatives were considered? What financial interests were involved? What information was withheld from legislators or the public?
Those questions provide a route from political hypothesis to verifiable evidence.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
Yes — because New Zealand's foreign-policy independence depends on understanding how decisions are made by the larger powers with which it maintains diplomatic, intelligence and security relationships.
New Zealand participates in the Five Eyes intelligence partnership alongside the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.
It also maintains longstanding defence and diplomatic relationships with Western governments while pursuing its own national interests.
Decisions made in Washington can therefore influence New Zealand's strategic environment, even when Wellington has no direct role in making them.
The Ukraine conflict has implications for international law, sanctions, global trade and the security arrangements of countries far beyond Europe.
Conflict involving Iran can affect energy prices, shipping routes and international markets, with potential consequences for New Zealand businesses and households.
The central question for New Zealand is not whether Carlson's allegations should be accepted.
It is whether the government independently assesses the evidence and national-interest consequences of the international positions it adopts.
That includes understanding the legal basis for sanctions, the consequences of military cooperation, the reliability of intelligence assessments and the economic costs of international commitments.
It also includes parliamentary scrutiny.
Where decisions have substantial consequences for national security or public expenditure, democratic accountability requires clarity about the authority under which they are made.
New Zealand's sovereignty is exercised through its own constitutional institutions, not through automatic agreement with the policy preferences of larger allies.
The Question That Remains
Carlson's interview is significant because it places a fundamental issue of democratic government at the centre of the debate over America's foreign wars.
His contention is that voters have been offered political change without corresponding changes in the institutions and interests shaping major policy decisions.
Some elements of that argument concern documented realities, including military assistance to Ukraine, the influence of presidential appointments and the complex distribution of foreign-policy authority.
Other elements involve unverified allegations about concealed motives, foreign pressure and possible connections between unrelated investigations.
Those categories must remain distinct.
The existence of powerful institutions does not prove that elected leaders are powerless. Equally, the formal authority of elected leaders does not eliminate the possibility of institutional influence, conflicts of interest or decisions made without adequate public scrutiny.
The appropriate test is evidence.
If the concern is that American foreign policy has become insufficiently responsive to democratic choices, the investigation must follow decisions, documents, appointments, funding and legal authority.
For New Zealand, the wider question is equally important: how can a smaller country maintain independent judgment when the policies of powerful allies are themselves subject to serious debate over democratic accountability?
The answer begins with examining the decisions themselves, rather than assuming either that official explanations are complete or that alternative explanations have already been proven.
Sources