Tucker Carlson Ignites Debate with Call to Strip Citizenship from Americans Serving in Israeli Army
In a speech that immediately sparked a national debate, prominent conservative commentator and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson called for the U.S. government to strip citizenship from American nationals who serve in the Israeli military. His remarks, delivered during a packed Turning Point USA conference on July 11, 2025, in Tampa, Florida, also touched on contentious claims about dual loyalty and even revived conspiracy theories involving Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged ties to foreign intelligence services. The statements have drawn both applause and criticism, fueling renewed discussion about American identity, legal limits, and the boundaries of national allegiance.
Carlson’s Contentious Statement on Citizenship
Speaking before an enthusiastic conservative crowd, Carlson made his position clear. “Anybody… who serves in a foreign military should lose his citizenship immediately,” he declared, adding, “There are a lot of Americans who’ve served in the IDF, they should lose their citizenship. There are 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.”
He reinforced his stance by invoking Biblical language, stating, “No man can serve two masters. You can only really pledge your loyalty to one person or one country.” The crowd responded with loud applause, reflecting both support and the divisive nature of the issue.
“No man can serve two masters. You can only really pledge your loyalty to one person or one country.”
— Tucker Carlson, Turning Point USA Conference, July 2025
Dual Allegiance and American Law
Carlson’s comments have reignited debate over the concept of dual loyalty — a long-standing and often controversial issue in American politics. Historically, accusations of “divided loyalty” have impacted a range of ethnic, religious, and political groups, from Japanese-Americans during World War II to more recent questions raised about U.S. policymakers’ relationships with Israel and Ukraine.
Despite Carlson’s emphatic pronouncement, current U.S. law does not support automatic revocation of citizenship for Americans serving in foreign militaries. The law, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1481, permits expatriation only for treason, formal renunciation, or service in a foreign military during a war with the United States. Neither Israel nor Ukraine is considered an enemy of the U.S., and dual citizenship remains legally recognized and relatively common. As noted by legal analysts, turning Carlson’s suggestion into policy would require substantial legislative action and likely face significant constitutional and legal challenges.
The U.S. State Department stipulates that “Americans may serve in a foreign army as long as they are not fighting against the U.S., nor are they serving in an organization deemed hostile to American interests.” Service alone, without other qualifying acts of expatriation, is not grounds for loss of citizenship.
Surge in Americans Volunteering for Foreign Armies
Carlson’s remarks come amid a wave of Americans volunteering for military service in Ukraine and Israel since the outbreak of the Ukraine war in February 2022 and during periods of heightened conflict in the Middle East. According to CNN reports, more than 20 U.S. citizens have gone missing while serving in Ukraine since 2022. Russian officials estimate that 6,500 out of 15,000 foreign mercenaries fighting for Ukraine have been killed since the conflict began. Data concerning Americans serving in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is less precise, but prior estimates suggest hundreds participate annually, often as part of family heritage or religious conviction.
National Identity, Loyalty, and Political Debate
Carlson’s speech reignited debate about the meaning of American national identity. While some conservative commentators echoed his concerns, critics — including legal scholars, civil rights groups, and Middle East analysts — argued that his stance was unworkable and risked violating constitutional protections. They also warned it could fuel ethnic and religious discrimination at a volatile time in American political discourse.
“Accusations of dual loyalty have a long and painful history in U.S. politics, often used to target minority communities with little evidence of wrongdoing,” said Deborah Lipstadt, U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, in a response published on social media two days after the speech. “It is dangerous to use this kind of language, which can quickly lead to xenophobia and unfounded suspicion.”
Political and Public Reactions
The reaction from political leaders and advocacy organizations was swift. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a civil liberties group, released a statement emphasizing the First Amendment and the right to due process. “The citizenship status of Americans cannot hinge on their heritage, religion, or legitimate exercise of their rights, including service in a foreign army not hostile to the U.S.,” the ACLU wrote.
Many in the Jewish and Ukrainian-American communities expressed concern that such rhetoric, even if not enacted as policy, could foster suspicion and discrimination. “Our community has always contributed to America while maintaining deep connections elsewhere — to be told that makes us somehow less American is deeply troubling,” said Mark Hetfield, CEO of HIAS, a Jewish refugee aid group, in an interview with the Associated Press.
Meanwhile, a number of right-wing influencers and commentators voiced support for Carlson’s comments, arguing that requiring “exclusive” national loyalty is a foundation of sovereignty.
Historical Precedents and Current Law
U.S. law regarding citizenship and military service abroad is complex and nuanced. In 1967, the Supreme Court, in Afroyim v. Rusk, ruled that the government cannot revoke the citizenship of Americans against their will, absent a voluntary act of expatriation, such as swearing allegiance to a foreign sovereign or formal renunciation. Serving in a foreign military is only cause for loss of citizenship if the unit is engaged in hostilities against the U.S. — a scenario that has not applied to Americans serving with the IDF or Ukrainian forces.
The United States has never ratified the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Recruitment, Employment, and Use of Mercenaries, which bans the recruitment and use of mercenaries. However, the U.S. government has regulations prohibiting the hiring of private military companies for combat roles.
Jeffrey Epstein Allegations Draw Rebuttals
In the same speech, Carlson made startling claims suggesting that Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died in jail, had worked on behalf of Israeli intelligence as part of a blackmail scheme. “The real answer is Jeffrey Epstein was working on behalf of intel services, probably not American. And we have every right to ask, on whose behalf was he working?” Carlson told the crowd, as reported by The Independent and other outlets. He further asserted, without citing concrete evidence, that “no one feels they can say’ Israel was the foreign government involved, arguing that open discussion of these theories was suppressed due to political sensitivities.
These pronouncements were immediately rebuffed by former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett, who stated on social media and in interviews: “The accusation that Jeffrey Epstein somehow worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false.” Bennett’s swift and unequivocal denial exemplified Israel’s official stance on the conspiracy theory, which has circulated for years online but has not been substantiated by credible evidence.
“The accusation that Jeffrey Epstein somehow worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false.”
— Naftali Bennett, former Israeli Prime Minister, July 2025
The Roots and Risks of the Dual Allegiance Debate
The issue of dual allegiance, particularly regarding Israel, has long been thorny in the American political landscape. While tens of thousands of Americans maintain dual citizenship, the percentage who serve in foreign armies is much lower. According to State Department data, dual citizenship is legal and recognized for purposes as crucial as holding political office or voting in U.S. elections.
Legal experts emphasized that Carlson’s proposal would likely necessitate a constitutional amendment or a significant legislative overhaul. “You can’t just unilaterally revoke citizenship for serving in a foreign military unless that military is actively engaged in war against the United States,” said Georgetown Law Professor Paul Smith in an interview with NBC News. “Anything more would be struck down very quickly in court.”
Simultaneously, Jewish and Ukrainian-American advocacy groups highlighted the positive contributions made by Americans serving abroad. “Many of these young people go to Israel to connect with their heritage and gain military experience, returning with a deeper commitment to American and democratic values,” said Rabbi Jill Jacobs, executive director of T’ruah, an organization for Jewish social justice.
Statistics and Public Sentiment
Though the number of Americans currently serving in foreign militaries is not precisely documented, the phenomenon has increased in visibility since the outbreak of conflicts in both Ukraine and Israel. CNN reported that more than 20 U.S. citizens have gone missing while fighting in Ukraine since 2022 — a figure confirmed in Pentagon briefings. Russian officials claim thousands of foreigners have died in Ukraine since the start of the war, though these figures cannot be independently verified.
Polling data, meanwhile, suggests that attitudes toward dual loyalty are sharply divided along ideological lines. A recent Pew survey found that 53% of Americans support the right of U.S. citizens to hold dual citizenship, while 38% express concerns about divided loyalties — figures that have largely remained unchanged over the past decade.
Legislative and Social Implications
Carlson’s remarks come at a time of increasing rhetoric surrounding national loyalty, immigration, and foreign entanglements. Senior congressional aides interviewed by The Washington Post say there is little appetite on Capitol Hill for measures targeting citizenship based on foreign military service, with many members warning that such laws risk undermining the country’s long tradition as a nation of immigrants with diverse backgrounds and connections.
Yet the episode has placed a spotlight on issues that remain deeply emotional for many Americans, especially amid ongoing conflicts abroad and concerns about rising extremism and antisemitism at home. Without clear evidence that foreign military service poses a substantive threat to national security — and in the absence of a change in U.S. foreign policy — legal experts say significant change remains unlikely.