“Deepest of the Deep State”? Inside Tucker Carlson’s On-Air Broadside Against Jennifer Griffin—and What It Says About the Right’s Media Civil War

Byline — Analysis | Published 2025

Tucker Carlson has never lacked for dramatic framing. But even by his standards, a late-June monologue—first teased on his June 23, 2025 podcast and amplified across clips days later—landed like a grenade tossed back over the walls of his former employer. In it, Carlson castigated Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin, depicting her not simply as a critic of Donald Trump but as a cog in what he called “the deepest of the deep state.” He accused Griffin of misleading viewers and embodying a liberal bias allegedly protected inside Fox.

The blast radius was immediate. Prominent conservatives cheered; others recoiled. And for those who track the power dynamics of right-leaning media, the episode offered a stark case study in how intramural fights now double as ideological purity tests—especially when national security and “deep state” rhetoric are the cudgels of choice.

The spark: A podcast, a guest—and a target

In his June 23 podcast conversation with former anchor Clayton Morris, Carlson alleged that Griffin routinely shaded coverage against Trump and, in Carlson’s telling, was shielded by Fox management from internal accountability. He characterized her as emblematic of a “deep state media” posture he says corrodes conservative audiences’ trust. The exchange circulated quickly in highlight reels and write-ups that summarized Carlson’s characterizations and broader critique of Fox’s national security reporting. Singju PostMediaite

Carlson did not produce internal documents to substantiate his description of Griffin’s “protected” status. Nor did he provide specific corrections that Fox had allegedly refused to make. Still, the potency of his charge lay less in evidence than in framing: the suggestion that a marquee Pentagon reporter served interests antithetical to the populist right—while enjoying impunity inside the country’s most influential conservative outlet.

The counterpoint: A newsroom closes ranks

The backlash came from a perhaps unexpected direction—inside Fox itself. During a June 26 on-air segment, senior political analyst Brit Hume defended Griffin as “professional,” “knowledgeable,” and “experienced,” calling the attacks on her “unfair.” That defense followed a tense Pentagon briefing where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—a former Fox host—had publicly derided Griffin as “about the worst” and accused her of intentionally misrepresenting remarks about U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Griffin pushed back in the room, disputing his characterization. Hume’s message: whatever critics think of Fox’s editorial stance, Griffin’s reporting bona fides stand. AP Newsmediamatters.orgMediaite

Notably, Hume was responding to Hegseth, not Carlson, underscoring that the Griffin fight had already leapt beyond podcast beef into the halls of government. (Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon—and his combative posture toward press critics—has itself been the subject of intense coverage.) U.S. Department of Defense

Why Griffin, and why now?

Within conservative media, national security is a fault line. For populists, “deep state” has become a catch-all epithet for a bureaucratic and intelligence ecosystem perceived as hostile to the Trump agenda—especially on Russia, Ukraine, Middle East policy, and the legitimacy of whistleblower-driven investigations. Pentagon correspondents with long sources lists—precisely the reporters most likely to break news from inside that ecosystem—can be cast either as vital translators or as mouthpieces, depending on audience priors.

Griffin, who has covered the Pentagon for years, inhabits that tension. During Trump’s first term she frequently reported stories that contradicted White House talking points—earning praise from traditionalists and ire from segments of the MAGA base. Carlson’s current salvo reprises that skepticism but raises the stakes by pairing it with a purity argument: that allowing such a voice inside Fox amounts to internal sabotage of the movement.

The ‘deep state’ frame: powerful—and slippery

Rhetorically, “deep state” is effective because it collapses disparate actors—career civil servants, intelligence officials, military commanders, allied journalists—into a single, malign will. It turns disagreement into plot. In the short term, that sharpens audience engagement. Over time, it can also flatten nuance, making it harder to parse when a source is genuinely spinning, when a newsroom is applying standard verification, or when the government is, in fact, acting within normal legal and policy bounds.

That slipperiness is the point. As a narrative device, “deep state” does not require documentary proof; it demands allegiance. Carlson’s case against Griffin therefore lands less as a line-by-line critique of her reporting and more as a plea: trust me, not them.

What actually happened at the Pentagon podium

The clash that drew Hume’s defense wasn’t hypothetical. In a June 26 briefing, Hegseth castigated Griffin by name over her Iran coverage; Griffin defended her sourcing and framing. The news value was twofold: a sitting defense secretary publicly attacking a reporter’s integrity—and a Fox elder statesman, Hume, rebutting that attack on Fox air. Whatever else one takes from the episode, it is a reminder that press-government contention is not merely performative; it shapes how facts reach the public in security crises. AP Newsmediamatters.org

The Fox question: Who controls the narrative?

Carlson’s critique also functions as a referendum on Fox itself. Is the network a broad church—opinion hosts firing from the hip, reporters operating by traditional rules—or should it align more tightly with populist priorities? For years Fox has tried to be both, with periodic blowups (over election-night calls, vaccines, Ukraine, Jan. 6) exposing the seams.

Carlson’s framing implies the coexistence model is a bug, not a feature—that a single out-of-step correspondent can “discredit the channel.” Hume’s defense implies the opposite: that credibility requires reporters who will tell the audience things it may not want to hear. Viewers are left to choose which definition of loyalty they prefer: loyalty to movement narratives, or loyalty to reporting standards that sometimes cut against those narratives.

What we know—and what remains allegation

Verified: Carlson criticized Griffin on his show and podcast in late June; coverage by mainstream and partisan outlets logged and amplified his remarks. Mediaite

Verified: At a June 26 Pentagon briefing, SecDef Pete Hegseth disparaged Griffin’s reporting; Griffin objected; Fox’s Brit Hume later defended her on air as a first-rate Pentagon journalist. AP Newsmediamatters.org

Verified: Carlson’s June 23 conversation with Clayton Morris included broader claims about Fox’s editorial posture and national security coverage. Singju Post

Allegation: That Griffin is a “deep state operative,” a “shill,” or “protected” by Fox management for ideological reasons. Those are assertions by Carlson (and echoed by some commentators), not supported by documentary evidence he has made public. (Griffin has not, as of this writing, issued an extended public response beyond defending her work in briefings and segments; Fox’s news division has historically stood by her reporting.)

The stakes for audiences

For viewers navigating this fight, the practical question is less “Who’s right?” than “How do I evaluate claims when insiders attack insiders?” Some guidelines:

Separate process from posture. Is the critique pointing to specific factual errors, sourcing failures, or corrections? Or is it primarily about factional alignment?

Check cross-outlet corroboration. When Griffin reports a defense development, do other reputable national security reporters match the broad strokes?

Watch the verbs. “Suggests,” “indicates,” “confirms,” “alleges” are not interchangeable. In war and diplomacy coverage, those distinctions matter.

Don’t outsource trust. A pundit’s confidence is not a method. A newsroom’s methods—documents, named officials, on-the-record transcript—are testable.

The politics behind the media fight

Carlson’s attack also maps onto a changing Republican coalition. A populist wing distrusts traditional national security institutions and the journalists who cover them; a more hawkish, establishment-adjacent wing still prizes those beats and the reporters fluent in them—even when coverage bruises Republican administrations.

By training the spotlight on Griffin, Carlson is disciplining Fox’s middle lane from the outside: rewarding the opinion programming that reinforces his line, punishing the news desks that don’t. Hume’s reply was a reminder that Fox retains a core of editors and analysts who see reporting as a distinct value proposition that must sometimes resist partisan gravity.

Where this goes next

Inside Fox: Expect continued friction whenever defense and intelligence stories dominate. Griffin will keep appearing in high-stakes slots; her defenders will cite her sourcing and track record; skeptics will call foul.

On the right: The “deep state” frame will remain a powerful sorting tool, not only for government actors but for journalists who cover them.

For Griffin: The Pentagon beat virtually guarantees more confrontations. Public attacks from senior officials often backfire with traditional media audiences, strengthening a reporter’s standing—while further polarizing the reporter among partisan viewers. AP News

Bottom line

Carlson’s broadside against Jennifer Griffin wasn’t just personal score-settling; it was a referendum on how the right wants to consume national security news. Is the measure of a reporter whether her stories flatter the movement—or whether they withstand scrutiny when the government, of any party, would prefer less of it? Fox’s Brit Hume planted a flag for the latter. Carlson planted one for the former.

Between those poles sits the conservative audience, asked once more to pick a definition of “truth-telling” it can live with. The fight will not be resolved by a single monologue or briefing-room clash. But it has clarified a core divide: whether the biggest threats to a movement come from without—or from reporters inside the tent who refuse to bend their copy to fit it.

And that, more than any “deep state” label, is the story worth watching.

Sources & further reading

Carlson’s late-June critique of Griffin summarized in multiple outlets; see Mediaite coverage of his remarks and podcast segment. Mediaite

Pentagon briefing clash: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticized Griffin; she defended her reporting; Associated Press account. AP News

Fox’s Brit Hume defended Griffin on air, calling attacks “unfair,” citing her professionalism and expertise. mediamatters.orgMediaite

Carlson’s June 23, 2025 conversation with Clayton Morris (transcripts/clips available). Singju Post

Hegseth’s status as defense secretary and recent Pentagon-related controversies.