A growing divide within the conservative movement is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, as longtime commentator Tucker Carlson declared that he no longer considers himself a Republican, citing frustration with what he sees as the party’s abandonment of its America First roots.

Carlson made the remarks during a podcast appearance with hosts Travis Dhanraj and Karman Wong, where the discussion turned to the political landscape ahead of the upcoming midterm elections and whether voters remain satisfied with the direction of the Republican Party.

While Carlson made clear that he remains aligned with many conservative principles, he argued that some Republican leaders have drifted away from the priorities that helped fuel President Donald Trump’s rise and transformed the GOP into the dominant force it is today.

“I’m out,” Carlson said during the interview.

“And if I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out.”

Carlson’s comments came as he discussed polling data and voter sentiment ahead of the next election cycle.

“I would not support the Republican party. There’s no chance I would support the Republican party,” he said.

The former Fox News host argued that certain Republican lawmakers had betrayed their voters by supporting policies he believes put foreign interests ahead of American priorities.

“How could I or any American voter support a political party that’s not loyal to the United States? That puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens?

“It’s not possible to vote for people like that, and I’m not going to.”

Carlson’s remarks highlight a growing debate inside conservative circles over the future direction of the Republican Party.

At the center of the disagreement is not President Trump himself, but rather how some Republicans have approached foreign policy, military intervention, and America’s role overseas.

Trump built his political movement on the promise of putting American interests first, securing the border, rebuilding the economy, restoring energy independence, and avoiding the endless foreign conflicts that frustrated many voters for decades.

Many of Trump’s supporters continue to view the America First agenda as one of the defining achievements of his political movement.

Carlson suggested that some Republicans have lost sight of those principles.

“I think I’ve voted Republican my entire life,” Carlson said.

“I’ve been a consistent defender for 35 years, of the Republican party. I mean, a very consistent defender.”

“But there’s no defending this because it’s immoral and it’s exactly the opposite of what a political party in a democracy is charged with doing — which is representing its own voters, its own citizens, its own nation.”

“And they’re not doing that,” Carlson concluded.

The comments come amid an ongoing debate among conservatives regarding foreign policy, particularly following recent tensions involving Iran and the broader Middle East.

Carlson has been one of the most vocal advocates of a non-interventionist approach that emphasizes American interests above foreign entanglements. Other conservatives, including commentators and lawmakers aligned with a more traditional hawkish worldview, have argued that a strong American presence abroad remains necessary to protect national security.

The disagreement intensified after military operations involving Iran earlier this year, with Carlson and several other prominent voices warning against policies they believe could lead to deeper involvement in overseas conflicts.

Despite those disagreements, Carlson has generally continued to support many of Trump’s domestic policies, including border security, immigration enforcement, energy production, and efforts to prioritize American workers and taxpayers.

The broader divide illustrates the ongoing evolution of the Republican Party under Trump’s influence.

For decades, the GOP was largely defined by traditional establishment conservatives who favored aggressive foreign policy and intervention abroad. Trump’s rise fundamentally reshaped that coalition, bringing millions of working-class voters, independents, and populist conservatives into the party.

Today, debates like the one Carlson has raised reflect a larger question facing Republicans: how closely the party will adhere to the America First principles that helped fuel Trump’s political success.

Whether Carlson ultimately returns to the Republican fold remains to be seen. But his comments underscore a reality that many political observers have noted in recent years: the future of the conservative movement is increasingly being shaped by debates over foreign policy, national sovereignty, and what it truly means to put America first.

As those discussions continue, one thing remains clear: the America First movement that transformed Republican politics is still driving much of the conversation inside the conservative movement today.

In a rare display of bipartisan cooperation, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the amended 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act this week, advancing a package of reforms designed to tackle America’s housing affordability crisis while delivering on several key priorities championed by President Donald Trump.

The legislation passed by a decisive 396-13 vote, reflecting broad agreement that soaring housing costs, rising rents, and limited inventory have pushed homeownership out of reach for millions of Americans.

Supporters say the bill addresses one of the country’s most pressing economic challenges by cutting red tape, increasing housing supply, strengthening lending opportunities, and helping ensure that American families—not large corporations—have a fair shot at buying homes.

The legislation combines elements of previous House and Senate proposals and seeks to address housing shortages that have contributed to record-high home prices in many parts of the country.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill praised the measure as a practical, results-oriented solution focused on expanding opportunities for working Americans.

“This bill prioritizes American families by expanding homeownership, enhancing affordability, reducing burdensome regulations that drive up costs, and increasing housing supply nationwide,” Chairman Hill stated.

“Importantly, it delivers on President Trump’s call to limit institutional investors from competing with the American people as they seek to purchase a home,” Hill added.

The legislation includes a variety of reforms aimed at accelerating housing construction and reducing barriers that have slowed development for years.

Among its key provisions, the bill streamlines federal permitting requirements, reduces lengthy environmental review processes for certain redevelopment and infill housing projects, and encourages innovative housing solutions such as modular and manufactured homes.

The measure also provides grants to local governments willing to modernize zoning laws and remove restrictions that limit new construction.

Supporters argue that restrictive zoning policies, excessive permitting delays, and government bureaucracy have significantly contributed to America’s housing shortage.

Rather than relying on massive new federal spending programs, the legislation focuses on empowering local communities, encouraging private-sector investment, and removing obstacles that make housing more expensive.

The bill also raises loan limits for multifamily housing developments, creating incentives for apartment construction and expanding options for renters and first-time buyers alike.

Additional provisions strengthen rural housing initiatives, expand support for veterans seeking housing, modernize financing for smaller mortgage loans, and increase the role community banks can play in local lending markets.

Community banks have long argued that excessive regulations have made it more difficult for them to serve homebuyers and construction projects in their local communities.

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters acknowledged the seriousness of the housing crisis despite broader political disagreements.

“America is in the middle of a full-blown affordable housing and homelessness crisis, and working families are burdened by skyrocketing rents and a housing market that is pushing homeownership further out of reach,” Waters said.

One of the most notable aspects of the legislation is its effort to curb the growing influence of large institutional investors in the housing market.

For years, investment firms and corporate landlords have purchased thousands of single-family homes, often outbidding families and first-time homebuyers. Critics argue that this trend has driven up prices while transforming communities into rental markets dominated by large corporations.

The legislation includes targeted restrictions designed to discourage large institutional investors from acquiring additional single-family homes.

That approach aligns closely with President Trump’s housing agenda.

Throughout his second administration, Trump has repeatedly argued that homeownership should remain a cornerstone of the American Dream and that government policies should prioritize families over Wall Street investors.

In his National Homeownership Month proclamation earlier this month, Trump emphasized the importance of restoring affordability and expanding opportunities for future homeowners.

“During National Homeownership Month, my Administration recommits to making housing more affordable so that young Americans and hardworking families can raise children, build memories, and create a future in a home of their own,” Trump said.

The president has frequently blamed the housing crisis on “reckless spending, burdensome regulations, and failed housing policies” implemented under previous administrations, as well as “mass illegal immigration and large institutional investors” that have increased pressure on housing supply.

Trump has also taken executive actions aimed at reducing institutional ownership of single-family homes, lowering mortgage costs, and strengthening federal housing programs.

“Under my leadership, America will be a Nation where homes belong to families — not corporations,” Trump said.

At the same time, Trump has emphasized the importance of protecting the value of homes already owned by millions of Americans.

“I don’t want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes. Existing housing, people who own their homes, we’re going to keep them wealthy. We’re going to keep those prices up. We’re not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody that didn’t work very hard can buy a home,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting earlier this year.

He has also repeatedly summarized his housing philosophy with a simple message:

“Homes are built for people, not for corporations, and America will not become a nation of renters.”

With overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and growing concern over affordability nationwide, supporters hope the legislation will mark a significant step toward restoring homeownership opportunities and ensuring that the American Dream remains within reach for future generations.

The grand opening of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago was supposed to be a celebration of Barack Obama’s legacy. Instead, it has reignited a growing debate over what critics say is a billion-dollar political operation masquerading as a traditional presidential library.

The sprawling complex officially opened last week on Chicago’s South Side after years of construction, fundraising, and controversy. But as visitors began touring the facility, critics quickly pointed out a striking reality: unlike every other modern presidential library, the Obama Presidential Center does not actually house President Obama’s official presidential records.

Instead, Obama’s presidential papers are being stored elsewhere, while the center itself functions primarily as a museum dedicated to his presidency and as the headquarters of the Obama Foundation, the former president’s private nonprofit organization.

For many critics, that distinction is significant.

The 19-acre campus features conference facilities, foundation offices, leadership programs, a “Democracy in Action Lab,” community spaces, and a major athletic complex. Throughout the property, visitors are greeted by slogans such as “Bring Change Home” and “A Home For Action”—language that critics argue sounds more like a political movement than a presidential archive.

The Obama Foundation itself has repeatedly described the project as a “living institution” designed to inspire future leaders.

“We are building more than a campus. We are creating a living institution that will inspire, empower, and connect the next generation of leaders,” the foundation’s 2024 annual report states.

Presidential historian and former George W. Bush administration official Tevi Troy said the center represents a dramatic departure from the traditional presidential library model.

“Usually, these libraries are a monument to a presidency and the presidency is in the past, it’s in the rear-view mirror,” Troy said. “It looks like Obama wants to use it as some kind of activism center, something that continues to promote his ideas and his political views.”

Troy added that the direction does not surprise him.

“Obama was a community organizer. He’s an activist. That’s how he came up, and it doesn’t surprise me that he wants to go in this direction,” Troy said.

Obama himself appeared to reinforce that vision during the opening ceremony.

“We designed the center not to be some lifeless mausoleum,” Obama said while highlighting activists and foundation leaders from around the world.

Later in the ceremony, he made clear that the center intends to advocate for specific values and causes.

“While we are non-partisan, we are not value-neutral. We have a point of view,” he said.

Those comments only intensified criticism from opponents who argue the facility is designed not merely to preserve history, but to advance Obama’s political and ideological legacy for decades to come.

The controversy extends beyond the center’s mission.

The project sits on roughly 19 acres of Chicago’s historic Jackson Park under a controversial 99-year agreement approved by city officials for a reported one-time payment of just $10. Critics have long argued that transferring valuable public parkland to a private foundation violated the public trust and deprived residents of public space.

Richard Epstein, a prominent New York University law professor who represented opponents of the project, remains deeply critical of the arrangement.

“The public trust doctrine is meant to be a restraint on the legislature,” Epstein said. “This has been an epic frustration.”

Questions have also been raised about the financial structure surrounding the project. Critics point to reports that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on roads, utilities, transportation improvements, and surrounding infrastructure connected to the center. Others have highlighted disputes involving subcontractors who claim they are still owed millions of dollars for work performed during construction.

Perhaps the most pointed criticism came from Illinois Republican Party Chairman Bob Grogan, who argued that Chicago residents were initially sold one vision of the project and ultimately received something very different.

“This isn’t a presidential library. It’s a Democratic headquarters on the South Side,” Grogan said.

“They go and sell it with the most palatable thing,” Grogan said. “Then they just incrementally, drip by drip, make it worse until they get back to the reality.”

“It’s not just a museum. It’s the home base for the foundation and everything it does,” he added. “They’re not going to go and pay rent someplace else when they’re going to have this big mausoleum here to go and hold their meetings and plot their plans.”

The National Archives has confirmed that the Obama Presidential Center operates outside the federal presidential library system and is run entirely by the Obama Foundation. That means the foundation—not the federal government—controls exhibits, programming, messaging, and how Obama’s presidency is presented to future generations.

For supporters, the center is a modern reimagining of what a presidential institution can be. For critics, it represents something entirely different: a taxpayer-assisted political and activist hub built on public land while carrying the branding of a presidential library.

As the center begins welcoming visitors, the debate surrounding its true purpose appears far from over.