US President Donald Trump in the Oval office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, Sept. 30, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ken Cedeno

US President Donald Trump on Sunday defended online provocateur Tucker Carlson after the far-right podcaster came under fire from prominent conservative figures for conducting a friendly interview with Nick Fuentes, an openly antisemitic white supremacist.

Trump’s defense came hours before a leading conservative intellectual, Robert P. George, announced on Monday his resignation from the board of the Heritage Foundation think tank, a decades-long fixture of right-wing political thought in Washington, DC that has faced widespread backlash for supporting Carlson’s decision to platform Fuentes.

“I think he’s good, we did some good interviews,” Trump told reporters in Palm Beach, Florida, referring to Carlson. “You can’t tell him [who] to interview. If he wants to interview Nick Fuentes — I don’t know much about him — but if he wants to do it, get the word out.”

Trump added that “people have to decide.”

A few minutes later, Trump reportedly said, “Meeting people, talking to people for somebody like Tucker — that’s what they do. You know, people are controversial. I’m not controversial, so I like it that way.”

Trump dined with Fuentes and rapper Ye (formerly known as Kanye West) at his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida in November 2022, when the hip-hop star had begun a media tour announcing a range of antisemitic and pro-Hitler views.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) responded to Trump’s latest comments on X.

“When leaders are asked about antisemitism, there’s only one responsible answer: denounce it,” the civil rights group posted. “President Trump’s refusal to condemn Nick Fuentes — an avowed antisemite — or to call out Tucker Carlson for amplifying him is unacceptable and dangerous.”

George, a well-known professor at Princeton University and one of the most respected scholarly voices on the political right, took a different approach to Carlson’s embrace of Fuentes and the subsequent backing of that relationship by Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts.

“I have resigned from the board of the Heritage Foundation. I could not remain without a full retraction of the video released by Kevin Roberts, speaking for and in the name of Heritage, on October 30th,” George wrote in a Facebook post. “Although Kevin publicly apologized for some of what he said in the video, he could not offer a full retraction of its content. So, we reached an impasse.”

George described Roberts as “a good man” and noted the Heritage head had admitted his error. However, this was not sufficient. “What divided us was a difference of opinion about what was required to rectify the mistake,” George wrote.

The academic who specializes in political theory and public law wrote that his hope for Heritage was that the think tank “will be unbending and unflinching in its fidelity to its founding vision, upholding the moral principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the civic principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.”

He continued, “I pray that Heritage’s research and advocacy will be guided by the conviction that each and every member of the human family, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, or anything else, as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, is ‘created equal’ and ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.’ The anchor for the Heritage Foundation, and for our nation, and for every patriotic American is that creed. It must always be that creed. If we hold fast to it even when expediency counsels compromising it, we cannot go wrong. If we abandon it, we sign the death certificate of republican government and ordered liberty.”

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and the chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, a leading libertarian think tank, expressed support for Roberts’ decision.

“Robert George is right about the moral rot at Heritage, and he’s not the one who needs to leave, though I totally understand his reasons for doing so,” Somin wrote. “I’m a former Heritage intern (way back in 1994) but would never work with them today.”

The Manhattan Institute’s Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the conservative think tank, expressed similar views on X.

“Robby George was the head of the ‘Kevin Roberts showed terrible judgment and there need to be consequences’ camp, which has apparently lost out to ‘everything is well, nothing to see here’ camp,” Shapiro wrote. “Heritage will now decline as an institution (or we will decline as a nation). Sad.”

Additional controversy over Carlson this weekend involved US Vice President JD Vance.

On Sunday, Vance re-shared an X post from conservative journalist Sloan Rachmuth and offered a defense of Carlson’s son, Buckley, who serves as the vice president’s deputy press secretary.

Rachmuth wrote, “Today, we learned that Tucker Carlson’s brother idolizes Nick Fuentes. Racism and antisemitism is a Carlson family trait. Is Tucker’s son Buckley, who serves as JD Vance’s top aide also a vile bigot? America deserves to know how deep the Carlson’s family ethnic and religious hatred runs.”

Vance responded in a post that as of Monday afternoon has gotten more than six million views: “Sloan Rachmuth is a ‘journalist’ who has decided to obsessively attack a staffer in his 20s because she doesn’t like the views of his father. Every time I see a public attack on Buckley it’s a complete lie. And yes, I notice ever person with an agenda who unfairly attacks a good guy who does a great job for me.”

Continuing, Vance wrote that “Sloan describes herself as a defender of ‘Judeo-Christian Values.’ Is it a ‘Judeo-Christian value’ to lie about someone you don’t know? Not in any church I ever spent time in!”

Rachmuth pushed back against Vance on X.

“Mr. Vice President, that ‘someone I don’t know’ is one of your top advisors being paid with taxpayer funds,” she posted. “It’s not the guy who trims your shrubs or cuts your hair. And YES, defending Judeo-Christian values entails speaking out against the antisemitism that’s tearing our nation apart. It also involves questioning those at the highest level of government about their hires, and speaking truth to power when needed. Sir, shall I remain quiet while Jews like me are being targeted by massive media platforms, and while our country is being destroyed by hate?? Or can I continue to ask questions and fight against injustices without being unfairly questioned about my loyalty to my country? I look forward to hearing back from you.”

Daniel Patrick Moynihan at the UN Security Council. Photo: Wiki Commons

On Nov. 10, 1975 — almost 50 years ago to the day — Daniel Patrick Moynihan did something that few diplomats or public figures would dare attempt today: he told the truth in public, when the world preferred a lie.

As the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Moynihan rose before the General Assembly to condemn Resolution 3379 — the infamous measure that declared Zionism to be “a form of racism and racial discrimination.”

Moynihan saw, with prophetic clarity, that this was no ordinary resolution. It was a calculated attempt to turn antisemitism into international law and an effort to delegitimize the Jewish people’s right to self-determination under the guise of anti-racism. 

Moynihan warned plainly, “The United Nations is about to make antisemitism international law.”

And then, in words that still thunder half a century later, he declared: “[The United States] does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act … A great evil has been loosed upon the world.”

I frequently open lectures with that story. I tell my students and audiences that if they remember nothing else from my remarks, they should remember this: courage begins with naming things truthfully. It’s why Moynihan remains one of my heroes. At a time when global institutions and elite opinion had succumbed to moral cowardice, he reminded the world — and America — that truth is not negotiable.

The Corruption of Language

Moynihan once wrote, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

That line, often repeated but rarely understood, expressed his deepest conviction: that words must map to reality, not be twisted to serve ideology. When the United Nations turned Zionism — a movement of liberation — into a synonym for racism, it wasn’t merely lying about Israel. It was corrupting the moral language on which civilization depends.

That corruption of language is what Moynihan fought so fiercely against. His 1975 speech was not only about defending Israel; it was about defending truth. He understood that words matter; that they are the means by which we give order to the world around us, and that once institutions redefine words to suit politics, they lose moral legitimacy.

In Jewish terms, what Moynihan did that day was Kiddush Hashem, sanctifying the divine name by standing for truth before the nations. He refused to let a lie pass unchallenged, even when doing so made him unpopular among diplomats and intellectuals. For him, the duty to speak truth outweighed the instinct to please.

Echoes in Our Time

Half a century later, his words feel hauntingly relevant. The same moral inversion that he condemned at the UN now reappears across Western institutions.

On elite campuses, students chant that “Zionists don’t belong.” Faculty resolutions describe the murder of civilians as “resistance.” Jewish students are told that their identity is oppression and their longing for homeland a form of violence. The language of “decolonization” has become the new euphemism through which antisemitism cloaks itself in moral respectability.

Moynihan foresaw this. He understood that the battle for truth is never merely political; it is cultural and linguistic. His stand in 1975 was not only a defense of Israel but of liberal civilization itself.

As he argued, culture, not politics, determines the success of a society — yet politics can change a culture and save it from itself. At the UN, he embodied both truths and proved that culture and politics alike can be redeemed when courage and clarity converge.

Many in the diplomatic corps thought him reckless; others accused him of inflaming tensions. But Moynihan knew that civility without conviction is just another form of surrender.

In refusing to “tone down” his words, he restored to American diplomacy something that had been fading for years: moral seriousness.

On Dec. 16, 1991 — 16 years after his speech and in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse — the United Nations repealed that infamous resolution. The reversal did not erase the damage, but it vindicated his courage and exposed the Soviet motives he had identified all along.

Geopolitical Tensions Today

Today, Moynihan’s moral framework faces new tests as the Abraham Accords expand into uncharted territory. As debates swirl over bringing Kazakhstan into the Abraham Accords, commentators like Amit Segal argue the move has little to do with Israel and everything to do with containing Iran and Russia.

Kazakhstan, a Muslim-majority state and the world’s largest uranium producer, accounting for about 40% of global supply, sits in a crucial corridor between Moscow’s weakening sphere and Tehran’s growing ambitions. For Washington, its inclusion symbolizes an attempt to expand the US-Israel-Arab alliance into Eurasia — a rebuke to authoritarian revisionism.

But others, like Shay Gal, warn that such moves may blur the moral map Moynihan fought to preserve. By tethering Israel’s normalization efforts to a bloc still tied to Moscow and influenced by Ankara — a government that has positioned itself as Hamas’ diplomatic advocate — the United States risks trading moral clarity for geopolitical convenience.

Moynihan would have understood this tension. He knew that alliances built without a moral spine eventually fracture under pressure. As historian Gil Troy recently wrote, Moynihan “backed Israel for reasons that had almost nothing to do with it.” He was defending the West’s moral vocabulary from Soviet distortion — the same “totalitarian mind” that “reeked of the totalitarian state.”

That distortion is visible today when democracies hesitate to call terrorism by its name or confuse appeasement with diplomacy. Whether in the UN, universities, or Washington’s corridors of power, the temptation to “tone down” the truth — to be “polite” in the face of lies — remains.

Moynihan mocked that instinct in 1975: “What is this word ‘toning down’; when you are faced with an out-right lie about the United States and we go in and say this is not true. Now, how do you tone that down? Do you say it is only half untrue?” he asked. “What kind of people are we? What kind of people do they think we are?”

He asked that question then. We should ask it again now.

The Lesson for Us

In my lectures, I tell students and audiences that moral courage isn’t about volume or virality. It’s about standing for something when every incentive points the other way. Moynihan didn’t posture. He told the truth in an unfriendly room — and did it with moral gravity. His example reminds us that education and citizenship alike begin with facts, not feelings, and that democracy cannot endure if we lose the courage to call things by their right names.

When Moynihan declared that “a great evil has been loosed upon the world,” he wasn’t speaking only of 1975. He was naming a permanent temptation: to believe that truth is negotiable, to mistake moral complexity for moral cowardice.

Moynihan’s life proves that civic courage and Jewish moral witness are inseparable. The fight against the world’s oldest hatred is not only Israel’s fight — it is the test of whether the West still believes in truth itself.

When the powerful grow timid and relativism reigns, we must remember Moynihan’s example: a man who refused to be silent while the world applauded a lie.

Because when a great evil is loosed upon the world, truth must be spoken aloud. Daniel Patrick Moynihan did just that. And that is why, half a century later, I begin my classes with his words and count him among my heroes.

Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks in a televised message, after the ceasefire between Iran and Israel, in Tehran, Iran, June 26, 2025. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS

“Water water, everywhere, Nor any drop to drink” — from Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s Rime of the Ancient Mariner — is a suitable motto for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

With the Persian Gulf in the southwest, the Sea of Oman in the south, and the Caspian Sea (an inland brackish water lake) in the north, Iran is surrounded by water — yet there is very little to drink. Iran’s experts, of course, blame Israel and the US for manipulating the weather and causing a drought so severe that the Islamic Republic’s president says he may “have to evacuate Tehran.”

If only Iran’s Mullahs had spent their money on desalination plants instead of nuclear facilities, the people of Iran would not be facing death from dehydration.

According to a new report by the Middle East Forum, Iran is at the precipice of “water bankruptcy” stemming from “the regime’s profound failure to adapt in a region where other arid states have successfully implemented sustainable water management strategies.” Whereas its neighbors have long planned for the absence of rainy days, investing in the infrastructure to provide water for its subjects, the Islamic Republic has wasted all its resources foolishly pursuing nuclear weapons.

Kuwait built eight desalination plants that provide 93% of the necessary drinking water to its 5 million people. Qatar built 109 desalination plants that provide 48% of the drinking water to its 3 million people, and the UAE built 70 plants that provide 42% of its drinking water for 11 million people. Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest producer of desalinated water, built 30 “super plants” that provide more than half of drinking water to its 34 million subjects.

Iran’s desalination plants, however, provide a mere 3% of the potable water for its 92 million thirsty people. It was one of the last nations in the Middle East to begin installing desalination plants, and they are small and inefficient, mostly relying on old technology and antiquated methods. In spite of Iran’s efforts to ramp up its desalination capabilities, the situation is dire.

Blinded by its nuclear ambition and hatred of Israel and the US, Iran has unwisely spent its money on expensive nuclear reactors and even more expensive nuclear bombmaking.

In the US, where environmental and regulatory fees inflate the prices, a nuclear reactor costs billions of dollars. The newest one in the US is the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, which has cost approximately $30 billion. In Iran, we can assume that the total price tag is lower, but the added expenses of burying facilities deep underground probably make the total roughly the same.

On top of the money Iran has spent on nuclear reactors, it has also spent untold billions on enrichment facilities, many of them also subterranean. It has spent liberally on research and development into trigger systems and the ballistic missiles to deliver bombs.

By contrast, a desalination plant costs in the millions of dollars. In 2010, Texas put the price tag at $658 million for a 100 MGD desalination plant. Today, a desalination plant might run $1 billion. That means that for every $20 billion-dollar nuclear site it built, Iran might have built 20 state-of-the-art desalination plants.

Without a steady supply of desalinated sea water, Iran has resorted to unsound policies to provide potable water, causing great harm to the land. These policies have led to drastic groundwater depletion, according to the Middle East Forum report, causing Iran’s cities to literally sink into the ground due to “aquifer compaction,” putting the nation well along the path to “aquifer death.”

Of course, the Islamic Republic will never acknowledge the folly of its ways. Instead, it will continue to blame the US and Israel, where five major desalination plants provide 80% of the nation’s drinking water.

The irony of Iran’s situation is that the entire world would step up to help the people of Iran avoid impending disaster were their nation not run by a bellicose government motivated by hatred. And Israel — the object of that hatred — would be among the nations most willing to help.

Chief Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) Political Correspondent A.J. Caschetta is a principal lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a fellow at Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum where he is also a Milstein fellow. A version of this article was originally published by IPT.