Mark Levin

"the regime's negotiators bragged that they would have a nuclear deal with the president. The negotiators bragged that they would have 11 nuclear bombs in 10 days."

The claim that Iranian negotiators bragged about having a nuclear deal with the president and 11 nuclear bombs in 10 days is directly contradicted by credible reporting. According to a diplomat with direct knowledge of the conversations, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff lied when he made this claim. The diplomat stated Iranian officials actually emphasized that enriched uranium material 'can all go away should we have a deal' and that they were willing to give up enriched uranium as part of an agreement. The White House dismissed the diplomat's account as propaganda, but the reporting provides a direct refutation of the specific claim. · high confidence

"The military operation is not unconstitutional. It's not unlawful. There have been no war crimes."

The claim that the military operation is 'not unconstitutional' and 'not unlawful' is directly contradicted by multiple expert analyses in the search results. Legal scholars and constitutional experts argue the operation, conducted without congressional authorization, likely violates the U.S. Constitution's Article I, which grants Congress the power to declare war. Furthermore, the claim that 'there have been no war crimes' is unsubstantiated and premature, as the cited sources focus on the legality of initiating the conflict (jus ad bellum), not on the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello), which would be the basis for war crimes assessments. The operation's legality under international law is also seriously questioned. · high confidence

"No president has done it before."

The claim is historically inaccurate. Multiple U.S. presidents before Donald Trump have taken significant actions against the Iranian regime, including military strikes, sanctions, and designating its military as a terrorist organization. For example, President George W. Bush labeled Iran part of an 'axis of evil' and pursued sanctions, while President Bill Clinton identified Iran as a 'rogue state.' The claim that previous administrations only tried to 'buy off' or 'appease' Iran ignores decades of bipartisan confrontation and oversimplifies complex diplomatic engagements like the 2015 nuclear deal, which involved international partners and aimed to curb Iran's nuclear program. · high confidence

"And so they're gerrymandering every state they control to try and ensure they take the House to destroy Trump, to destroy the presidency, to impeach him, and then win the 2028 election."

The claim is factually inaccurate. The search results do not support the assertion that Democrats are gerrymandering every state they control for the stated political goals. In fact, the provided evidence points in the opposite direction. The POLITICO article details a redistricting fight in 2025, and the Mother Jones article explicitly describes 'Project 2026' as a plan by President Trump and his allies to use tactics like voter suppression and gerrymandering to influence the midterm elections. The claim falsely attributes a coordinated, nationwide gerrymandering effort to Democrats when the available reporting highlights such efforts by Trump's faction. · high confidence

"Donald Trump has achieved something here as far as this deal as far as decimating Iran that no president would ever even dare to do Republican Democrat George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama."

The specific claim that Trump achieved a deal with Iran is factually accurate based on the BBC report confirming a two-week ceasefire agreement. However, the claim that 'no president, Republican or Democrat, would ever even dare to do' this is misleading. While Trump's inflammatory rhetoric and approach may be unprecedented, multiple U.S. presidents have engaged in diplomatic negotiations with Iran, including the Obama administration's 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) and the Trump administration's own earlier attempts. The framing suggests unique boldness when in reality U.S.-Iran diplomacy has occurred under multiple administrations, though this specific ceasefire emerged from heightened tensions. · high confidence

"The fact is that what has been accomplished thus far is nothing short of spectacular."

The specific claim that the military operation has achieved 'spectacular' results is a subjective opinion, not a verifiable fact. While official White House releases (sources 1 & 2) describe the operation as a decisive success, independent military analysis (source 3) acknowledges operational progress but notes the campaign is incomplete, with significant challenges remaining and the outcome uncertain. Furthermore, strategic analysis (source 4) argues the war has likely worsened the U.S. strategic position regardless of tactical gains. Therefore, the claim presents a one-sided, promotional view as an objective assessment, omitting critical context about the war's ongoing difficulties and strategic costs. · high confidence

"Unleashing an FBI SWAT team to search the president's home."

The specific claim that an FBI search occurred at a president's home is factually accurate, as the FBI executed a search warrant at former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022 [3]. However, the claim is misleading in its framing. It attributes the action to 'The Democrats' as a political directive, when the FBI is a non-partisan law enforcement agency, and the search was authorized by a federal judge based on probable cause of potential crimes [3]. The search was part of a documented investigation into the handling of classified documents, not a politically motivated 'unleashing'. · high confidence

"Twisting the language of the 14th Amendment to try and keep him off the ballot."

The specific claim that Democrats have attempted to use the 14th Amendment to keep Donald Trump off the ballot is factually accurate, as seen in actions like the Colorado Supreme Court ruling and the letter from California's lieutenant governor. However, the claim is misleading because it presents this as a unified, partisan strategy by 'the Democrats.' In reality, the legal challenges have been brought by a mix of advocacy groups and individual citizens, and key rulings have been made by state courts interpreting the Constitution, not by the Democratic Party as an organization. The framing implies a coordinated partisan conspiracy to 'twist' the Constitution, which oversimplifies a complex legal debate about Section 3's application. · high confidence

"I believe what he has done with Iran is historic, humane, and crucial."

The specific claim that Trump's actions toward Iran are 'historic' and 'crucial' is a subjective political opinion, not a verifiable fact. However, describing them as 'humane' is directly contradicted by the historical record. The search results detail a policy of 'maximum pressure,' military escalation including the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, and a subsequent war involving extensive bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, which resulted in significant casualties and regional instability. These actions are widely characterized as aggressive and escalatory, not humane. · high confidence

"Hezbollah has killed more Americans than Iran directly."

The specific claim that Hezbollah is 'firing missiles into Israel by the hundreds still' is supported by recent reports, including a 2026 article citing Israeli officials stating Hezbollah fired over 3,500 missiles and drones since early March 2026, and a 2024 CNN report of a single barrage of over 200 missiles. However, the claim that 'Hezbollah has killed more Americans than Iran directly' is unverified by the provided sources. While a source quotes President Biden stating Hezbollah was responsible for 'killing hundreds of Americans over a four-decade reign of terror,' it does not provide a comparative figure for Americans killed directly by Iran, nor does any other source support that comparative claim. Therefore, the overall statement is a mix of a verifiable fact and an unsubstantiated comparative assertion. · high confidence

"To pretend this enemy is executing its people left and right as we speak."

The claim contains two distinct parts. First, regarding executions: while Iran does carry out executions, the phrase 'executing its people left and right as we speak' is hyperbolic and lacks specific, recent verification in the provided sources. One source from January 2026 details regime violence against protesters, including killings, but does not confirm a current wave of mass executions. Second, regarding missiles: source [4] confirms Iran launched missile attacks into Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan in January 2024, but this is not 'tonight' relative to the claim's implied present timeframe. The claim combines a hyperbolic description of internal violence with outdated missile attacks, creating a misleading impression of simultaneous, ongoing extreme actions. · medium confidence

"Their entire party is organized around destroying Donald Trump. That's been their mission for 10 years, for an entire decade, since the moment he came down the escalator."

The specific claim that Democrats have used various legal and governmental tools (civil/criminal law, Justice Department, FBI, impeachment, etc.) against Donald Trump over the past decade is factually accurate—Trump has faced two impeachments, multiple criminal indictments, civil lawsuits, and investigations involving these entities. However, the framing that the Democratic Party is 'organized around destroying Donald Trump' as its central mission is a misleading characterization. The search results show the Democratic opposition to Trump is primarily framed as responding to his actions that they view as undermining democracy, with significant internal divisions and strategic disagreements about how to effectively oppose him. The claim presents a unified, conspiratorial effort rather than the complex political reality of opposition to a controversial figure. · high confidence

"A sanctuary state, people are getting killed by illegal aliens. They won't turn them over to the Feds."

The specific incident referenced—two undocumented immigrants convicted of murder receiving a plea deal in Virginia—is factually accurate based on the Fox News report. However, the claim is misleading because it uses this single tragic case to imply a broader pattern about immigrants and crime, which contradicts statistical evidence. Research consistently shows that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, commit crimes at substantially lower rates than native-born U.S. citizens. For example, undocumented immigrants are 45% less likely to be incarcerated than native-born citizens, and foreign-born individuals are underrepresented in prison populations relative to their share of the population. · high confidence

"Florida has a massive influx of immigrants Florida has a massive influx of Americans, of people from other states coming into Florida. Texas, the same thing. Tennessee, the same thing. They're escaping Democrats."

The specific claim that Florida, Texas, and Tennessee have a 'massive influx of people from other states' is supported by migration data. However, the claim that this movement is driven by people 'escaping Democrats' is a partisan attribution not substantiated by the search results. The sources cite common reasons for moving such as lower taxes, cost of living, weather, and job opportunities, not political flight. While some new residents may be attracted to Florida's right-leaning policies, the data does not support a broad narrative of people fleeing Democratic states for explicitly political reasons. · high confidence

"And then change the voting system so they can't lose."

The specific claim that 'Democrats want to change the voting system' is partially accurate, as they have proposed election reforms like the Freedom to Vote Act, which would expand access. However, the claim that this is done 'so they can't lose' is a misleading attribution of motive. The search results show Democrats are currently fighting against the Republican-backed SAVE Act, which they argue would restrict voting access. The claim frames Democratic electoral reform efforts as a partisan power grab, ignoring their stated goal of expanding voter access and their opposition to restrictive bills. · high confidence

"the US military within one month, if you told me this, like even like a couple months ago, that we would have this rate of Iran the way we did militarily, where they could barely have a response."

The claim is grammatically incoherent and ambiguous ('had a rate of Iran militarily where they could barely have a response'), making it impossible to determine its precise meaning. The search results do not contain any information about a specific one-month period where the US military achieved such a decisive advantage over Iran that Iran 'could barely have a response.' The results discuss ongoing conflicts, opinion pieces about asymmetric warfare, and general military actions, but none support this specific, unclear claim. · low confidence

"we have a president that does not ever, ever bluff. When he says something, he [10:52] means it and he follows through. And we have not seen that from any president since Ronald Reagan."

The claim is a broad, subjective assertion about presidential character and follow-through that cannot be objectively verified with the provided search results. The results contain general biographical information about Ronald Reagan, a BBC article about Trump's interest in a third term, and opinion pieces, but no credible, non-partisan analysis comparing the promise-keeping records of all presidents since Reagan. Such a sweeping historical comparison would require extensive, nuanced research beyond the scope of these sources. · low confidence

"they are undermining our troops and giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

The claim that 'Democrats are undermining our troops and giving aid and comfort to the enemy' is a broad, conclusory political accusation that cannot be fact-checked as a specific factual statement. The search results contain partisan rhetoric from both sides—Republican sources accuse Democrats of undermining troops and security, while Democratic sources accuse Republicans of the same—but no objective, verifiable evidence is provided to substantiate the core allegation. The phrase 'aid and comfort to the enemy' is a loaded term drawn from the constitutional definition of treason, used here as political hyperbole rather than a legal claim. Without concrete, non-partisan evidence of deliberate actions to assist adversaries, the claim remains unverifiable. · low confidence

"In other words, the entire enterprise is fraudulent."

The claim that 'the entire Mediaite website enterprise is fraudulent' is a sweeping, unsubstantiated allegation. The provided search results contain no information about Mediaite's operations, ownership, or journalistic practices. The results are irrelevant, discussing topics like the Uvalde shooting conspiracy theories, birtherism, Mexican politics, and a media rating company. Without any credible evidence presented to support the claim of fraud, it cannot be verified. · high confidence

"But he's a thoroughly unethical individual"

The claim that Colby Hall is 'thoroughly unethical' and uses Mediaite 'to get even with individuals he dislikes or disagrees with' is a subjective character judgment about motives and professional conduct. The provided search results confirm Hall's role as founding editor of Mediaite and show examples of his critical commentary on political figures and media outlets, but they do not contain evidence that substantiates or refutes the specific allegation of unethical, retaliatory behavior. Without corroborating reports, internal communications, or testimony from affected parties, this claim cannot be objectively verified using publicly available sources. · low confidence

"but shows his true nature as a Jerry Springer type of legal and crime shows on cable TV."

The claim is a subjective opinion about Dan Abrams's 'true nature' and a comparison to Jerry Springer, not a factual statement that can be verified with objective evidence. The provided search results detail Abrams's professional career as a legal analyst, television host, and media entrepreneur, but they do not contain information that objectively confirms or refutes a characterization of his personal 'nature' or the quality of his programming. Such evaluative claims are matters of personal interpretation, not fact. · low confidence

"And here we have a ceasefire that they've already broken."

The claim that 'Iran has already broken' a ceasefire cannot be verified from the provided search results. The sources describe a fragile, recently announced ceasefire that is being tested, with confusion over its exact terms and start time. One source notes that missile attacks occurred, but it's unclear if they happened after the ceasefire officially began. Another source reports Iran accusing the U.S. and Israel of violating the agreement first. Without clear, authoritative reporting confirming that Iran definitively took action in violation of the agreed-upon terms after the ceasefire was in effect, the claim is unverifiable. · medium confidence

"Their military may be destroyed, but the Communist Chinese will still help them."

The claim is a speculative prediction about future actions (China and Russia helping Iran rebuild its military after potential destruction), not a statement of current fact. The search results show China and Russia are currently providing intelligence and material support to Iran during an ongoing conflict, but they do not contain evidence or statements confirming that these countries have committed to a future, post-destruction rebuilding effort. The claim's conditional nature ('may be destroyed... will still help') makes it impossible to verify with present information. · low confidence

"Since the beginning of major combat operations, the United States Joint Forces struck more than 13,000 targets, including in that 13,000 more than 4,000 dynamic targets that popped up on the battlefield and were immediately addressed."

The claim cites specific numbers of targets struck (13,000 total, 4,000 dynamic) since the beginning of 'major combat operations,' but the search results do not contain these figures or a clear, official source confirming them. The results reference various U.S. military actions (e.g., in Iraq/Syria in 2024, Operation Southern Spear in 2025, and a hypothetical future conflict with Iran in 2026), but none provide the aggregate statistics mentioned. Without a verifiable source for the numbers or a clear definition of which conflict's 'major combat operations' are being referenced, the claim cannot be confirmed. · medium confidence

"She's got 52 new taxes that she wants to put in place, including a new tax for the wealthiest of Virginia."

The claim that the governor of Virginia has 52 new taxes she wants to implement, including a tax on the wealthiest Virginians, is not supported by the provided search results. The results discuss the 2025 Virginia gubernatorial race, policy debates, and historical information about Virginia governors, but none contain any mention of a specific proposal for 52 new taxes or a wealth tax. Without corroborating evidence from credible sources, the claim cannot be verified. · low confidence

"She just bragged today that she brought in companies now, brand new companies that are going to spend $7 billion and create thousands of new jobs. But people pointed out the problem is, Yonkin did it. Those were deals that Yonkin made, the Republican governor, before he left office."

The claim attributes specific economic deals ($7 billion, thousands of jobs) to the previous Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, and asserts the current governor is falsely taking credit. However, none of the provided search results contain information about these specific economic development deals, which governor announced them, or when they were negotiated. Without direct evidence confirming or refuting the timeline and attribution of these deals, the claim cannot be verified. · low confidence

"if the Iranian regime doesn't [01:06] agree to our terms, they're going to end their civilization."

The specific claim that Donald Trump tweeted threats about ending Iran's civilization if they don't agree to terms, while expressing love for the Iranian people and prospects for peace, is supported by multiple credible sources. ABC News reports Trump threatened to 'blow up the whole country' if Iran didn't make a deal, and POLITICO documents threats to 'completely obliterate' Iranian infrastructure. Simultaneously, NPR notes Trump backed down from destruction threats after Iran conceded, suggesting a pathway to peace. The statement accurately reflects both the threatening rhetoric and conciliatory messaging present in Trump's communications. · high confidence

"even when two of our pilots are shot down in an F [09:14] 15, we're able to go into that country and get them out without any US casualties."

The specific claim is accurate. According to multiple news reports, a U.S. F-15E fighter jet was shot down over Iran, and both crew members were successfully rescued by U.S. forces in separate operations without any U.S. casualties. The CBS News report explicitly states the missing crew member was rescued, and the pilot was rescued earlier, with no mention of U.S. casualties during the rescue missions. · high confidence

"you look at what Russia tried to do in Ukraine, [10:18] right? They thought they could march in there and they thought they could go right to Kiev and take over that country within, you know, a couple of weeks. And now here we are four years later plus, and they are stuck in the East in the Donbass region. They cannot even get to the capital city."

The claim is factually accurate. Multiple sources confirm that Russia's initial objective in its 2022 full-scale invasion was a rapid capture of Kyiv and the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, which failed within weeks. The war then shifted to a protracted, grinding conflict focused on the Donbas region, where Russian forces have been largely stalled along extensive front lines, unable to achieve a decisive breakthrough or return to threatening the capital. This assessment is consistent with widespread military analysis and reporting on the war's progression. · high confidence

"He voted against the Obama deal for all the reasons President Trump left the Obama deal in his first term."

The specific claim that Chuck Schumer voted against the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama is accurate. According to PolitiFact and The Hill, Schumer, then a senator, publicly opposed the deal and voted for a Republican-led measure to reject it in 2015. The claim also correctly states that President Trump withdrew from the deal during his first term, which is a separate, well-documented fact. The statement links these two factual events without adding unsupported editorializing about Schumer's motives. · high confidence

"Mayor Zoran Mamdani's administration accuses Hungry Panda of using tricks and traps, including mystery charges and fuzzy math, between 2022 and 2024 as a way to make more money illegally."

The specific claim is accurate. Mayor Zohran Mamdani's administration did accuse businesses, including the food delivery service Hungry Panda, of using 'tricks and traps' like mystery charges and fuzzy math to make more money illegally. This is confirmed by a January 5, 2026, press release from the NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, which details executive orders signed by the Mayor to crack down on such deceptive subscription practices and junk fees. The claim's timeframe (2022-2024) aligns with the period of alleged violations that the new city enforcement actions are targeting. · high confidence

"President Trump and Iran's leadership have agreed, in theory, to a two-week ceasefire to iron out details of a permanent deal."

The specific claim that President Trump and Iran's leadership have agreed, in theory, to a two-week ceasefire is directly supported by multiple credible news sources. The Guardian, NBC News, CNN, The Jerusalem Post, and Bloomberg all report that a two-week conditional ceasefire has been agreed upon, with Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz and the US suspending attacks. The agreement was facilitated by Pakistani diplomacy and is intended to allow time to finalize a more permanent deal. · high confidence