Mark Levin

"Every war they were attacked first."

The claim that 'in every war Israel has fought, Israel was attacked first' is factually incorrect. Historical records show Israel initiated military action in several conflicts. For example, in the 1956 Suez Crisis, Israel, in coordination with France and the United Kingdom, invaded Egypt first. In the 1967 Six-Day War, while Egypt's actions created a casus belli, Israel launched the first preemptive strikes. Furthermore, Israel initiated the 1982 Lebanon War by invading southern Lebanon. The claim does not hold up to a review of the historical timeline. · high confidence

"I also understand the last 12 hours that they sent out missiles that hit as far away as Saudi Arabia."

The claim that Iran sent missiles hitting as far away as Saudi Arabia 'in the last 12 hours' is false based on the provided search results. The articles describe missile attacks on Gulf neighbors like the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Israel, but none mention a strike on Saudi Arabia within the immediate 12-hour timeframe. The claim about Iran proving its missiles could reach London is also unsubstantiated by these sources, which discuss regional ranges only. The search results focus on Iran's degraded but persistent capacity to strike regional targets, not intercontinental capabilities. · high confidence

"And so NBC News, among the worst of course, MAGA influencers push back on Trump on Iran."

The claim is false. The NBC News article cited in the search results explicitly states the opposite of what is claimed: it reports that MAGA influencers 'fall in line behind Trump after airstrikes hit Iran' and that they 'were divided over bombing Iran until President Donald Trump did just that... now... appear to be rallying around a position that spares Trump criticism.' Other sources confirm initial criticism from some figures but describe a subsequent rallying of support or administration pushback against critics, not NBC publishing a piece claiming MAGA influencers are pushing back. · high confidence

"She's not even a congresswoman anymore."

The claim that Marjorie Taylor Greene 'is not a congresswoman anymore' is factually false. According to her Wikipedia entry and other sources, she is a sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives, representing Georgia's 14th congressional district. She was elected in 2020, re-elected in 2022, and is currently serving. The second part of the claim about her 'bouncing around on the social circuit and left-wing media' is a subjective characterization, but the core factual assertion about her congressional status is incorrect. · high confidence

"You have had a regime that's been at war with us for the last 47 years"

The specific claim that Iran has been 'at war' with the U.S. for 47 years is a rhetorical overstatement not supported by the historical record. While the U.S. and Iran have had a state of deep hostility, proxy conflicts, and no formal diplomatic relations since the 1979 Iranian Revolution (approximately 47 years ago from the 2026 context of the sources), they have not been in a state of declared, continuous, direct war. Sources describe the relationship as one of 'enduring hostility,' 'conflict,' 'rivalry,' and being 'on the brink of war,' with a recent war beginning in 2026. The claim uses the definitive term 'at war' to describe a complex 47-year period that included phases of intense confrontation but also periods of negotiation (e.g., the 2015 nuclear deal) and indirect conflict, which is a misleading framing. · high confidence

"They didn't say a word when Iran was killing its own people"

The specific claim that Iran hanged protesters 'just yesterday' is unverifiable from the provided search results, which lack a specific date for the claim. More importantly, the broader claim that 'Democrats did not say a word when Iran was killing its own people' is false. Multiple sources show prominent Democrats have consistently criticized Iran's human rights abuses and domestic repression. For example, an op-ed from the Center for Human Rights in Iran (published in The New York Times) details the crackdown and implicitly calls for an international response, which aligns with Democratic foreign policy values. Other sources show Democrats expressing deep concern over the Iran conflict and the regime's actions, though their criticism is often framed around constitutional process and strategy. · high confidence

"We were unable to go to some of our NATO summits because of the shutdown that Democrats caused by not funding during a time of war, during a time of national security crisis."

The specific claim that Democrats were unable to attend some NATO summits due to a shutdown is unverifiable from the provided sources, which discuss a DHS shutdown but do not mention NATO summit absences. More importantly, the claim that Democrats 'caused' the shutdown by not funding Homeland Security during a war is structurally misleading. Government shutdowns require failure by all parties—the House, Senate, and President—to agree on funding. Historically, shutdowns have occurred under administrations and congresses of both parties (Reagan had 8, Trump owned the 2018-19 shutdown). The current shutdown appears tied to a policy dispute over ICE and CBP funding, with the President and Republicans demanding specific immigration enforcement provisions. Framing one party as solely responsible ignores the constitutional mechanics and negotiation dynamics. · high confidence

"It did not stop members of the Democrat Senate or the Democrat congress members. So they have been going, whether or not it was the Munich Security Summit, whether or not it was the NATO summit in Brussels, and completely undermining the president's very strong message of America first, America's strength, leadership."

The specific claim that Democratic members of Congress attended the Munich Security Summit and NATO summit is accurate, as reported by POLITICO. However, the characterization that they 'completely undermined the president's message of America first' and 'have been defending America's enemies' is a highly partisan and unsubstantiated interpretation. The search results describe U.S. lawmakers (including Republicans) providing reassurance to allies about U.S. commitment, which is a standard diplomatic function, not an act of undermining or defending enemies. The claim uses inflammatory language not supported by the factual reporting. · medium confidence

"the polls show 92% and one showed 100% of MAGA, that is the president's base. And 84% or maybe it was 86% of the Republican Party supports the president and what he's doing."

The specific claim that a poll showed 100% of MAGA supporters approve of the president is accurate according to the NBC News poll cited in multiple sources. However, this claim is misleading because it presents a tautological result as meaningful political analysis. The poll defines 'MAGA Republicans' as those who self-identify with the movement, meaning respondents are essentially selecting themselves into a group of committed supporters. As source [2] explains, this creates a circular result that obscures the real question of whether Trump's coalition is fracturing. The claim also cherry-picks the most extreme data point while ignoring broader context about Trump's overall approval ratings. · high confidence

"Because the media is left-wing, it's pro-democrat, it's anti-Trump."

The specific claim that the media is 'left-wing, pro-democrat, and anti-Trump' is a subjective political opinion, but it is widely documented that major media outlets have been critical of Trump and that Trump has repeatedly attacked the press as an 'enemy of the people' [1]. However, the claim that the media 'wants to use miscreants, malcontents, and reprobates who are stabbing the president in the back' is a sweeping, inflammatory accusation that frames all critical coverage as malicious and treasonous. This is a misleading characterization of journalistic scrutiny, which is a normal function of the press in a democracy, especially when covering a president who has made anti-democratic statements [3]. The search results do not support the idea of a coordinated media conspiracy to use 'backstabbers'; they show a contentious relationship and debates about how to cover Trump's rhetoric. · high confidence

"Rejecting Americanism. Embracing Sharia against the Constitution."

The claim that 'the media wants to use people who are rejecting Americanism and embracing Sharia against the Constitution' is a broad, unsubstantiated accusation about media intent. While the search results show political rhetoric about Sharia law (e.g., Senator Tuberville's post stating it disregards the Constitution), there is no evidence provided that 'the media' as an institution seeks to promote individuals who embrace Sharia to undermine the Constitution. The pre-researched reference data shows that Muslims are a small minority (1.1% of the U.S. population), U.S. courts have consistently rejected any application of Sharia law, and the implied threat of a Sharia takeover is not supported by demographic or legal reality. The claim uses a vague, inflammatory premise to suggest a media conspiracy that lacks factual basis. · high confidence

"Carrie Prudine Bowler, a former model who served as a member of the Trump-appointed Federal Religious Liberty Commission. She was fired. She was fired because she was spewing the Palestinian line, the Hamas line. She was spewing the Piker line. And she was removed."

The specific claim that Carrie Prejean Boller was fired from the Trump-appointed Federal Religious Liberty Commission is accurate, as reported by The Jerusalem Post and other sources. However, the radio host's characterization that she was fired for 'spewing the Palestinian line, the Hamas line, and the Piker line' is a misleading and inflammatory framing of the actual events. According to the sources, she was removed by the commission's chair for allegedly hijacking a hearing on antisemitism for her 'own personal and political agenda,' specifically for arguing that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic, stating her Catholic faith does not embrace Zionism, and defending figures like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson against antisemitism allegations. The host's phrasing reduces a complex dispute over political speech and commission decorum to a simplistic accusation of espousing terrorist propaganda. · high confidence

"Nowhere do they mention that 92 percent in a recent poll of MAGA supports Trump and what he's doing."

The specific claim about a CNN poll showing 100% support among MAGA is unverifiable from the provided sources, and the 92% figure appears to be a slight mischaracterization of the data. Source [4] (The UNN) reports that among MAGA Republicans, Trump's approval rating 'consistently hovers around 98 percent,' not 92 percent. The 92% figure cited in the claim actually refers to approval among all Republicans in the latest survey, not specifically the MAGA subgroup. The claim is misleading because it presents unverified polling data (100% from CNN) and misstates the available data point for MAGA support, which is actually higher (98%) according to the source provided. · high confidence

"This is the guy that trashes Christians, trashes Jews, trashes America, trashes the Constitution, embraces Sharia, embraces Qatar."

The specific claim that Tucker Carlson's programs are aired by state-run media in Qatar, Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia is partially supported, as RT (Russia Today) is a Russian state-funded outlet and The Cradle article suggests his show is aired in Qatar. However, the sweeping characterization that he 'trashes Christians, trashes Jews, trashes America, trashes the Constitution, embraces Sharia, and embraces Qatar' is a polemical composite not verified by the provided sources. The search results show him defending Christian and Islamic religious sensitivities (RT article) and recounting a personal supernatural experience (Daily Beast), but no evidence he 'trashes' Jews or the Constitution. The claim rhetorically bundles unverified assertions with a partially true detail to create a misleading overall impression. · medium confidence

"with the most strategic and effective military this world has ever known."

The claim contains two distinct assertions. First, that the U.S. military is 'the most strategic and effective military this world has ever known' is a subjective, value-laden statement that cannot be objectively verified by the provided sources. The search results discuss U.S. military power and dominance but do not provide a comparative historical analysis to support this superlative claim. Second, the claim that the U.S. has been 'very surgical in striking military targets on Karg Island' is unverifiable because none of the provided search results mention 'Karg Island' or any specific surgical strikes there. The sources discuss operations in Iran and Venezuela, but not this specific location or action. · medium confidence

"Israel at the same time has been attacking, you know, some of their the infrastructure like I think they did eight bridge sections, which is was moving weapons and equipment across across Iran to be able to conduct further strikes."

The claim that Israel attacked eight bridge sections in Iran used for moving weapons and equipment cannot be verified with the provided search results. The results either discuss unrelated conflicts (2006 Lebanon war), reference older geopolitical analysis about Iranian land corridors (2017), or are inaccessible due to technical issues. No source confirms recent Israeli strikes on Iranian infrastructure involving eight bridge sections. The available information is insufficient to establish the factual accuracy of this specific military claim. · low confidence

"their goal is to destroy Western, you know, the Western civilization, you know, starting with Israel following up the United States."

The claim that 'Iran's goal is to destroy Western civilization, starting with Israel and then the United States' is a statement of intent attributed to the Iranian state. The provided search results describe a fictional or speculative future war scenario in 2026, not official Iranian policy or doctrine. No credible sources in the results confirm this as a stated or documented goal of the Iranian government. Such a sweeping declaration of intent cannot be verified from the available material, which focuses on hypothetical conflict reporting rather than authoritative statements of national ideology. · medium confidence

"the targets that they are already have achieved much of the mission."

The claim 'The U.S. targets have already achieved much of the mission' is too vague to verify. The search results discuss historical military missions (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan) and a proposed domestic economic plan, but none provide a clear definition of what 'the mission' refers to in the present context or evidence of its current level of achievement. Without knowing the specific mission, targets, or timeframe implied by the radio host, the claim cannot be fact-checked against the provided sources. · low confidence

"Blumenthal of Connecticut, the senator calls it war crimes."

The specific claim that Senators Blumenthal and Khanna, and Representative Moulton, made these exact statements cannot be verified from the provided search results. The results discuss the Iran conflict, criticism of Secretary Hegseth's rhetoric, and debates over war powers, but do not contain direct quotes or reports attributing the phrases 'war crimes,' 'war criminal,' or 'Department of War Crimes' to these specific lawmakers in the context described. Without a source confirming these precise utterances, the claim is unverifiable. · medium confidence

"LBJ targeted, you know, power plants in North Vietnam."

The claim lists specific military actions by four U.S. presidents, but the provided search results contain no information about targeting power grids or energy infrastructure in North Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia, or Libya. The results are either irrelevant blog posts about Lyndon B. Johnson's biography and the Kennedy assassination, a general article about war crimes without specific operational details, or a book review. Without direct evidence from credible sources on these specific military operations, the claim cannot be verified. · medium confidence

"Pakistan's Prime Minister asked U.S. President Trump to postpone his deadline for Iran by two weeks and implement a truce for that same period"

The claim that Pakistan's Prime Minister made a specific request to President Trump regarding a deadline postponement, truce, and maritime traffic is not directly supported by the provided search results. While one source mentions Pakistan will play a mediator role in talks, and another references a US postponement of measures, no source confirms the specific diplomatic request described in the claim. The primary source discussing the Strait of Hormuz details Iran's actions to monetize passage, not diplomatic appeals from Pakistan. Without a direct report of the alleged request, the claim cannot be verified. · low confidence

"On Monday, Carlson, Monday night, posted on Twitter X, he claimed that President Trump's expletive, laden, Easter morning, true social post that the U.S. would soon bomb Iran's power plants and bridges was the first step toward nuclear war."

The claim that Tucker Carlson posted this specific statement on Twitter/X cannot be verified with the provided search results. While sources confirm Carlson criticized Trump's Easter post as 'vile' and discussed it on his show, none directly quote him saying it was 'the first step toward nuclear war' in a Twitter/X post. The search results focus on his show monologue and the broader controversy, but do not provide evidence of the exact social media post described. · medium confidence

"This is the guy in the Epstein matter that went to the floor of the house along with his buddy Tommy Massey, both supported by George Soros, no doubt, revealing names of individuals who did absolutely nothing but have been providing support and help to the government's case and all but ruin their lives."

The claim contains multiple specific assertions that cannot be verified with the provided search results. The results do not confirm that George Soros supports Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, nor do they provide evidence that Khanna and Massie revealed names of individuals assisting the government's Epstein case on the House floor. The search results are primarily Facebook posts and a Wikipedia page that do not address these specific allegations. · low confidence

"Yet they're accused of genocide by people like Zoram Mdani"

Multiple credible news sources directly report that Zohran Mamdani has publicly accused Israel of genocide. The Times of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, and i24NEWS all document him using the term 'genocide' to describe Israeli actions during a mayoral debate, a White House meeting, and a St. Patrick's Day event. The claim is a straightforward report of his public statements. · high confidence

"The President's given an 8 p.m. Eastern time deadline for Iran to surrender or reach some kind of an accommodation that the President thinks is legitimate."

Multiple credible news sources confirm President Trump set an 8 p.m. Eastern Time deadline on Tuesday, April 7, 2026, for Iran to reach a deal or reopen the Strait of Hormuz, warning of severe consequences if the deadline passed. The New York Post, Investing.com, and Gulf News all report the specific deadline and the ultimatum. The claim is a straightforward factual statement about a public declaration and is not presented in a rhetorically misleading manner. · high confidence

"the President warned the U.S. would attack power plants and bridges in Iran, starting Tuesday evening if the Islamic Republic failed to reopen the key waterway."

The claim is factually accurate. Multiple credible news sources, including TIME, Bloomberg, and Al Jazeera, report that President Trump issued a threat on social media to bomb Iran's power plants and bridges if the Strait of Hormuz was not reopened by a Tuesday evening deadline. The TIME article directly quotes the relevant Truth Social post and confirms the 8 p.m. ET deadline. The claim is a straightforward report of a public statement and is not being used to imply a broader, unverified pattern. · high confidence

"Hezbollah is raining missiles down on northern Israel every day and every night."

The claim that Hezbollah is firing missiles into northern Israel daily is supported by credible reporting. The Times of Israel article from March 2026 describes residents living "under a rain of Hezbollah missiles" and notes that the terror group fired thousands of rockets, missiles, and drones into northern Israel over a 14-month period following October 7, 2023. Other sources, including posts from journalists and official accounts, corroborate ongoing attacks. The statement is a factual description of the sustained conflict along the Israel-Lebanon border. · high confidence

"A fellow by the name of Michael Cernovich. They call him a right-wing influencer who has promoted Pizzagate and various other conspiracy theories."

The specific claim is factually accurate. Source [5] directly quotes Michael Cernovich writing to his 1.4 million X followers, 'It’s silly to claim Trump is MAGA.' The same source also confirms his history as a right-wing influencer who promoted Pizzagate and other conspiracy theories. The claim is a straightforward report of his public statement and background, with no significant caveats or misleading framing identified in the provided context. · high confidence

"President Trump denied Tucker Carlson's bombastic reporting that he was considering nuclear war on Iran, blasting the controversial commentator in a phone call with the Post, quote, Tucker's a low IQ person. That is absolutely no idea what's going on, said the president."

The claim is directly supported by the New York Post article (and its republication on AOL), which reports that President Trump, in a phone call with the Post, denied Tucker Carlson's reporting that he was considering nuclear war on Iran. The article quotes Trump calling Carlson a 'low IQ person' and explicitly states he denied the claim. No contradictory evidence is presented in the search results, and the reporting is consistent across multiple sources. · high confidence

"Pushing impeachment of the President of the United States, pushing the 25th Amendment against the President of the United States, throwing around the term war crimes."

The specific claim that Rep. Ro Khanna is pushing for impeachment, invoking the 25th Amendment, and using the term 'war crimes' against President Trump is factually accurate. Multiple sources, including a local news report (KRON4) and articles summarizing his media appearances, directly quote Khanna calling for the 25th Amendment's invocation and stating Democrats 'will impeach' Trump if they regain the House, specifically citing threats of 'war crimes' related to U.S. policy toward Iran. The claim is a straightforward report of his public statements and does not, on its face, employ cherry-picking or misleading framing about broader patterns. · high confidence

"Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is calling for President Trump to be removed from office through the 25th Amendment."

Multiple credible news sources confirm that former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly called for President Trump's removal from office via the 25th Amendment following his threats against Iran. Salon, KOMO News, and WPRI all report her statement, with Salon noting she joined over 70 Democrats in making this call. The claim is a straightforward report of a public statement and is not presented in a misleading rhetorical context. · high confidence