Ben Shapiro rants about “nut” Tucker Carlson, “coward” Megan Kelly, and “little bitch” Piers Morgan
Published
Citation
From the March 12, 2026, edition of The Daily Wire's The Ben Shapiro Show
BEN SHAPIRO (HOST): Yes, they're lying. Megyn is lying and so is Tucker. I mean, period. They're just lying. OK? I started originally criticizing Tucker Carlson for his economic programs back in 2018. And then in the more modern post-Fox iteration of Tucker, I started criticizing Tucker over his going to Russia to sniff the bread and kiss Vladimir Putin's ass.
My generalized critique of Tucker in the last few months has been one, he hosted and glossed a Nazi, Nick Fuentes, which doesn't have to do with Israel. It has to do with glazing a Nazi, Nick Fuentes. And then I did a speech at Heritage in which I went through the fact that Tucker Carlson is in no way, shape, or form a traditional conservative, that he's a conspiratorial near anarchist at this point, seeking to tear down the fundamental ideas and institutions of the United States.
...
In any case, my critique of Megyn on the stage was, why don't you call out Candace Owens for implicating Erika Kirk in the murder of Charlie Kirk? That was my critique on the stage. And why don't you call out Tucker Carlson for glazing Nick Fuentes, the leading enemy of Charlie Kirk? Because Nick Fuentes hated, despised Charlie Kirk, and the feeling was mutual. That was my critique of Megyn. And then she went on to claim that I was lying about Candace and that, actually, Candace was even, quote, unquote, defending in her own way Erika Kirk. Well, that didn't age amazing as it turns out.
And then at TPUSA, I called out Candace and Tucker for refusing to call out Candace Owens for what she had been doing to Erika Kirk, for refusing to tell the truth on issues and instead programming toward the clicks, for their unique cowardice in making conspiratorial claims without evidence about, say, Jeffrey Epstein and President Trump. I did not mention Israel one time in the TPUSA speech. Zero is the number of times I mentioned Israel.
So here's what's actually happening. What's actually happening is that there is a game that has now emerged on this part of the right. The game goes something like this. I don't accuse you of antisemitism. You instead claim that I did. And then you say, how dare he call me an antisemite? He's trying to cancel me. It's the Jussie Smollett of political claims. You attack yourself, and then you claim that I attacked you as an antisemite. That's absurd. I think that Tucker Carlson has fostered antisemitism by having on some of the worst antisemites in America over and over and over and then essentially laundering their views.
I have never remotely called Megyn Kelly an antisemite, nor, by the way, did I call Piers Morgan an antisemite. I said that his show is the Jerry Springer of politics, a clown car of stupidity. And it is. That's all. That's literally all. I didn't say that he should be taken down. I didn't say that people should stop watching his show if they want to. I said I did not wish to appear in the clown car of stupidity, which seems to me an aspect of free speech. I don't have to associate with Piers' dumb show. I mean, lots of people like it. Good for him. And Piers measures his morality by clicks, and so I assume he sleeps fine at night. That's fine. That's his prerogative. It's a free country.
...
But, again, honesty is not a top priority for many of these people. The grift is the priority. The clicks are the priority. I stand by every single word I said at that TPUSA speech. There are enormous group of people in the commentariat, enormous number of people in this space, whose chief desire is for fame and clicks. That is what they care about. And so their principles morph over time.
Now listen. I don't think Piers's principles ever morph. I don't think Piers had any principles. I think his principle was always clicks. I think that for Megyn, maybe she had principles at one point. I'm not sure anymore. Because, again, this would all stop very easily if, for example, Megyn Kelly had the stones to actually just condemn Candace Owens for what she's been doing. That's been my critique for months, and she still hadn't done it. She said she would die before she did it. That's her principle. OK. Alright.
And, again, as for Piers, I'm still bewildered as to why Piers is so pissed off. Seriously. Stop being a pissy little bitch. Seriously. It's really kind of ridiculous. I said that I don't wanna go on your show. Oh, wah, I'm sorry. I said that I think your show's Jerry Springer, that you fill up the screen with a six box of people, none of whom you would want to talk to in a cafe. And then you have them argue with each other and yell at each other and scream. You have Cenk Uygur with his head blowing up like a red balloon on the air, next to Norman Finkelstein, next to whatever kook you found on a street corner, next to maybe one legitimate person, and then you're like, this is a solid debate. OK. You want to do that? That's your that's your choice, my dude. You can. But I don't understand why it's not my choice to say I don't wish to participate in your dumb show and why that somehow represents censorship. That is not censorship. You don't have to come on my show. I don't have to come on your show. Nobody has to go on anybody's show. And I'm not saying that people can't watch your show or that you should be deplatformed.
The the expansion of censorship to include, I'm not allowed to somehow criticize Megyn Kelly for her cowardice, and she's a coward. Or that I'm not allowed to criticize Piers Morgan for being a click whore, and, yes, he's a click whore. Or that I'm not allowed to criticize Tucker Carlson for being a nut because he's being a nut. And that somehow these critiques amount to a campaign of cancellation or censorship, that's weird to me.