I have long observed the conservative political sphere, and the situation that is developing between Tucker Carlson and Laura Loesser is more than gossip to me; it is a symptom of a deep internal conflict. The catalyst? A White House high-stakes meeting concerning the oil of Venezuela.
On January 10, 2026, President Donald Trump met with the executives of major oil companies to discuss the massive potential of Venezuela’s energy reserves. This followed Washington’s action to remove Nicolas Maduro and tighten its control over the country’s exports.
The aim was simple: to strategize on how the U.S companies could tap and renew the ageing oil fields in Venezuela. It was a conference over billions of possible investments and remaking the hemispheric energy politics.
And sitting in that room was Tucker Carlson.
This alone fact has brought a firestorm. Shortly afterwards, one conservative activist and media personality, Laura Loomer, went on a public spout of a blistering attack against Carlson. To her, having him there was not only shocking, but it was hypocritical.
Why the Attack by Loomer Strikes a Nerve.
Loomer is not making the criticism out of the blue. You must see her timeline that she is pointing to know the fury.
The Critique: Carlson had been publicly critical of the operations of the administration in Venezuela before the meeting. In his show and commentary, he positioned the intervention as a possible quagmire; he cautioned that it would lead the United States into a wider war that could prove to be expensive and unnecessary.
The Meeting: At that time, he was present in person at a strategy meeting at the White House, which was directly on how to cash in on that very intervention. To the critics such as Loomer this appears to mean telling one thing to a crowd of millions and acting differently in the halls of power.
The Old Wounds: Loomer did not go so far. She resurrected old complaints over the foreign policy of Carlson, especially his previous outreach to Qatar and stance, which she describes as anti-Jewish and excessively friendly to the governments of Islamic extremists. This placed his presence there as both hypocrisy and as an ideological betrayal that went deeper.
In my opinion, it is not a single meeting. It has something to do with two competing visions on the right.
The Further Rift of Conservative Politics.
This is a very open, and in fact, a very bitter argument between Loomer and Carlson that has been smouldering years. Let me break it down:
The Populist-Nationalist Wing (camp of Loomer):
Foreign Policy: Unashamedly activist in situations that are obviously in the American economic and strategic interests, such as the acquisition of oil.
Alliances are staunchly pro-Israel and strongly distrustful of Middle Eastern governments associated with Islamist movements.
Purity Test: Requires an unswerving consistency in what is said in public and what is done in a more secretive way. It is an unforgivable sin to attack a policy, then go to the planning session of that policy.
The Populist-Restraint wing (the sphere of Carlson):
Foreign Policy: Strongly opposed to national military interventions and nation-building, he is an America First person, focusing on non-intervention and diplomacy.
Alliances: Ready to cooperate with non-conventional partners as long as there is no confrontation and as it is to the advantage of the U.S. This usually conflicts with the hawkish, pro-Israel establishment.
Pragmatism: May may find it difficult to distinguish the danger of military risks of a policy critiqued, and the economic opportunities of a policy advised.
The clash of the two worldviews was experienced in the White House meeting on Venezuela’s oil. To Loomer, Carlson was in the enemy camp. To the supporters like Carlson, he was merely playing where it counted, and he may have been able to influence the course of policy internally.
The Implication of This to the Movement and 2026.
The consequences of this conflict in reality are not limited to social media drama.
It Dilutes Cohesive Messaging: Inter-organizational, public conflicts of the sort disintegrate the conservative discourse. It presents the critics with a simple point to attack: It cannot find agreement even with itself.
It Challenges Trump Coalition: President Trump has long been maneuvering between these groups. This overt conflict leaves leaders in his circle to take sides, which is likely to put significant pressure on his wide alliance.
It underlines one of the 2026 Problems: Venezuela and energy hegemony take the central stage. The manner in which this discussion is solved will indicate how conservative foreign policy will take a new turn- can it be both at the same time, a blanket resource nationalism or one which is more careful and moderate?
Rapid Nuggets: The Venezuela Oil Feud.
The Trigger: Tucker Carlson has attended a January 10, 2026 White House event with President Trump and oil executives about gaining access to Venezuela reserves.
The Accuser: Laura Loomer publicly charged him with hypocrisity after he criticized the Venezuela operation, and then attended a strategy meeting on it.
The Old Battle: Loomer related this to the old provocations on the foreign policy opinions of Carlson toward Qatar and Israel.
The Big Picture: It is not about me, but a conflict between interventionist and non-interventionist populism on the right.
FAQ: Your Questions, Answered
Q: What was the white house meeting all about?
A: It was a strategy meeting of president Trump, the senior officials and the major oil industry executives, to discuss how the U.S. companies can invest and explore vast oil deposits in Venezuela after the political transformation there.
Why is Laura Loomer angry at Tucker Carlson?
A: She thinks that he is a hypocrite to publicly warn the people against the Venezuela operation and privately participate in a meeting because he stands to gain some money out of it. She is also in total disagreement with his foreign policy stances of the past.
Q: Is it all a mere personality conflict?
A: No. Although it is personal, this is a significant ideological division within the conservative movement regarding the role of America in the world, the importance of military intervention, and who the allies of the country could and should be.
Q: What is it that Tucker Carlson says about this?
A: Even at the time of writing, Carlson has not officially commented on the precise attack on the White House meeting by Loomer. His historical commentary indicates that he provides a differentiation between the opposition to war and the discourse of the economic development.
I believe it is a watershed moment watching this feud go on. That Tucker Carlson fight in the White House meeting on Venezuela oil is symbolic of a battle over the soul of a political movement. It is principle versus pragmatism, ideology versus influence and what America First is actually about in a complex world.
By
