Tucker Carlson Is Begging Trump to Ignore His Old Fox News Ally
Levin, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, was reportedly at the White House this week to lobby for war with Iran, claiming the Islamic Republic is 'weeks away' from developing a nuclear weapon—a claim Carlson dismissed as 'a lie.'
'There is zero credible intelligence that suggests Iran is anywhere near building a bomb, or has plans to. None,' Carlson stated in a fiery post on X. 'Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or dishonest.'
The former Fox News host argued that the same warnings made by Levin about Iran's nuclear capabilities have been recycled for decades without evidence, and suggested that he and other interventionists are more concerned with regime change than nuclear proliferation.
'If the U.S. government knew Iran was weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, we'd be at war already,' Carlson said.
'Iran knows this, which is why they aren't building one. Iran also knows it's unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran's leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.'
He added: 'So why is Mark Levin once again hyperventilating about weapons of mass destruction? To distract you from the real goal, which is regime change—young Americans heading back to the Middle East to topple yet another government.
'Virtually no one will say this out loud. America's record of overthrowing foreign leaders is so embarrassingly counterproductive that regime change has become a synonym for disaster. Officially, no one supports it. So instead of telling the truth about their motives, they manufacture hysteria: 'A country like Iran can never have the bomb! They'll nuke Los Angeles! We have to act now!'
Carlson pointed out that two of Iran's neighbors—Pakistan and Israel—already possess nuclear weapons, yet Levin never mentions them. 'It's not the weapons he hates. It's the ideology of the Iranian government.'
Furthermore, an attack on Iran would result in the deaths of 'thousands of Americans' and plunge the U.S. into a third world war, he added, due to the Islamic Republic's extensive ties to Russia and China.
'An attack on Iran could very easily become a world war. We'd lose,' he wrote. 'Many Americans would die during a war with Iran. People like Mark Levin don't seem to care about this. It's not relevant to them. Instead they insist that Iran give up all uranium enrichment, regardless of its purpose. They know perfectly well that Iran will never accept that demand.'
Carlson concluded: 'The one thing that people like Mark Levin don't want is a peaceful solution to the problem of Iran, despite the obvious benefits to the United States. They denounce anyone who advocates for a deal as a traitor and a bigot. They tell us with a straight face that Long Island native Steve Witkoff is a secret tool of Islamic monarchies. They'll say or do whatever it takes. They have no limits. These are scary people. Pray that Donald Trump ignores them.'
The two Fox alumni have previously clashed on a number of occasions, most recently during a spat last month in which Levin called Carlson 'a little b-----d' after he criticized him for claiming the term 'neocon' was a euphemism for 'Jew.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
16 minutes ago
- Axios
"Stretched to the breaking point": SNAP cuts spook food banks
Reductions to federal food assistance in President Trump's recently signed "big, beautiful bill" will further widen a gap that many in an overextended hunger relief network say will be impossible to fill. The big picture: With millions of food-insecure people projected to be cut from benefits, food banks and pantries across the U.S. are bracing for the impact and already working to rally community support to continue serving those in need. What they're saying: Vince Hall, Feeding America's chief government relations officer, told Axios that the nonprofit's food banking system generated nearly 6 billion meals last year. Feeding America estimates that provisions affecting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) alone could eliminate the equivalent of some 6 to 9 billion meals annually. Those program reductions, he said, would mean that Feeding America's network of more than 200 food banks and 60,000 faith-based and charitable partners would have to "essentially more than double" its amount of food distributed to fill the predicted hole. "That's simply not possible," Hall said. Still, he added the network is "going to do everything within our power to ensure that every neighbor in need gets served" via reach-outs to donors, community leaders, farmers and lawmakers. By the numbers: SNAP, which aids over 40 million Americans, provides roughly nine meals for every one supplied by Feeding America food banks. The other side: White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios in a statement that the legislation restores "commonsense work requirements to SNAP for able-bodied recipients to work, volunteer, or take classes for 20 hours per week." Kelly pointed to tax breaks she said will "put more money in Americans' pockets." Context: The benefit changes come as more Americans are going hungry. In May, 15.6% of adults were food insecure, almost double the rate in 2021, according to recent Morning Consult data. From April 2024 to April 2025, more than half of food banks surveyed by Feeding America reported seeing an increase in the number of people served. "Food banks are stretched literally to the breaking point," Hall told Axios. While some safety net cuts in the legislation don't take effect for years, others are more imminent, and Hall predicts food banks will see an "immediate increase" in demand as a result. Other food bank leaders who spoke to Axios cited stress from the U.S. Agriculture Department's cuts as another challenge to meeting demand. Zoom in: In 2019, the food pantries and soup kitchens that New York City's City Harvest serves saw some 25 million visits, CEO Jilly Stephens told Axios. Last year, they saw more than 46 million — a record high. Long food bank lines were once symbolic of pandemic strain. But "they haven't gone away," Stephens said. In fact, "they've grown, but they're somehow less visible." "We already exist to fill in the gap that's left after government programs," she said. "Now, we're looking at a yawning hole of need, and we have no hope of filling that in, but we will do everything we can." Zoom out: Catherine D'Amato, the president and CEO of The Greater Boston Food Bank, said they'll have to turn to philanthropic partners amid spiking demand. But she added that the impact of reduced support will be visible over time, and "the states can't make it up, and neither can philanthropy." The bottom line: "What we do will never replace SNAP, and we know that," said Evan Ehlers, the founder and CEO of food rescue organization Sharing Excess.
Axios
16 minutes ago
- Axios
House "crypto week" could change how Americans use, save money
A few years ago crypto was mostly a pariah in the financial services industry. Now, at the urging of the "first crypto president," Congress is on the verge of remaking American finance to embrace it. Why it matters: "Crypto week" could change everything from how Americans make payments to how they invest. It would also grant further legitimacy to an industry that has made the president and his family sudden billions of dollars. State of play: House Republicans declared the next five days Crypto Week, sending a clear message on legislative priorities after passing President Trump's "big, beautiful bill." The agenda for next week consists of three bills. One is stablecoin legislation, and sources familiar with the plans tell Axios that the Senate-passed bill, known as the GENIUS Act, will get a straight-up vote next week. Stablecoins are how dollars go on blockchains, and they enable super-fast, super-cheap global payments. They started as liquidity for crypto traders, but now companies use them for global payroll. The bill would establish rules for who could issue stablecoins and how they manage them. It is expected to lead to a surge of new products and participation from traditional finance firms. How it works: The legislation would "spur more comfort among retailers and others to begin accepting stablecoins as payment," says Tony Tuths, tax principal in KPMG's alternative investment tax practice. Financial markets, meanwhile, could start to move funds in stablecoins — as opposed to cash — for faster settlements with less cost, he added. That could profoundly change how payments are made and processed in the U.S., putting pressure on traditional payment networks like Visa and Mastercard. Market structure legislation is the other big one the table. It would create a framework for regulating broader crypto issuance and trading. If passed — the Senate is currently drafting its own version — it would establish a new category of registered digital assets, flashing a green light for traditional finance. More crypto related products would be expected to enter the mainstream market through retail brokerage accounts, Tuths says, "thereby opening a floodgate of retail capital into the crypto trading ecosystem." The third bill slated for this week is to prevent the Fed from ever creating a digital version of official U.S. currency, or a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Conservatives oppose the concept because they think it would mean more government intrusion into peoples' private lives. What they're saying: "It's one of these industries that, for a very, very, very long time has sought legitimization, either through getting these activities regulated at higher levels around the world, or through, of course, proving their real world use cases," Dante Disparte, head of global policy for stablecoin issuer Circle, tells Axios. Zoom out: So why now? For lawmakers, pressure to move is coming from a couple of different places — the president promising to deliver wins for the industry, plus a trio of linked PACs with more than $100 million on hand keeping tabs on how lawmakers vote. It's a whole different world from when the nation's leading crypto company, Coinbase, requested rule making and got sued by the Biden administration instead. Friction point: Several Democrats will be pushing back next week. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the top Dem on the House Financial Services Committee, is calling next week"Anti-Crypto Corruption Week," calling all three bills "dangerous pieces of crypto legislation." At the center of many Democrats' resistance is President Trump himself, due to his family's considerable personal investments in cryptocurrency putting a the specter of corruption risks over the process. The bottom line: Republican leadership is likely to relish these votes, because they know 90% of their members will fall in line.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
‘One big beautiful bill,' and 4 Republicans who abandoned their principles
On July 4, amid fanfare and flyovers, President Trump signed his 'one big beautiful bill.' The legislation reduces taxes, increases appropriations for the military, border security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement — while cutting spending on Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, better known as food stamps. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the bill's $4.5 trillion decrease in revenues and $1.2 trillion increase in spending will add $3.3 trillion over the next decade to the already astronomical $36 trillion national debt. Despite Trump's claims, the bill is extremely unpopular. Five recent polls found net approval ratings ranging from minus-19 percentage points to minus-29 points for the legislation. 'The more [Americans] learn about this bill, they hate it just as much,' declared Harry Enten, CNN's data analyst. Many Americans haven't yet realized that the tax cuts and estate tax changes, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy, have been made permanent, while the exemption on workers' tips and overtime and reductions on taxes to Social Security benefits will expire in 2028. Most are unaware that, in an attempt to minimize Republican losses in the midterms, legislators delayed until 2027 implementation of the Medicaid cuts (which will result in 11.8 million Americans losing their health insurance) and that reductions in the federal share of SNAP costs won't kick in until 2027. Opposition from so-called Republican 'moderates' and 'deficit hawks' initially appeared sufficient to defeat or at least force substantial revisions of the bill. But virtually all of them caved. For once, Elon Musk had it right. The 'big beautiful bill,' Musk wrote, is a 'disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it. You know you did wrong. You know it.' Here are profiles of four Republicans who shelved their principles. Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), whose district contains one of the nation's highest percentages of Medicaid recipients, stated unequivocally that he would not support legislation 'that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations.' Nonetheless, he voted for the House bill. Valadao then expressed concerns about changes in the Senate: 'I've been clear from the start that I will not support a final reconciliation bill that makes harmful cuts to Medicaid, puts critical funding at risk, or threatens the stability of healthcare providers.' Although the Senate reduced Medicaid appropriations by almost a trillion dollars and cut almost in half the tax states can impose on private healthcare providers, a 'vital stream' of income for the program, Valadao voted for the final bill. It 'was not an easy decision,' Valadao said, but 'no piece of legislation is perfect.' The Senate bill, he claimed, 'does preserve the program for its intended recipients — children, pregnant women, the disabled and elderly.' And it included a fund to give rural hospitals a few years to adjust to reduced revenues. Going forward, Valadao promised to work hard to identify and mitigate risks. In December 2024, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) did not accede to President-Elect Trump's demand that Republicans raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion dollars. 'I'm absolutely sickened,' he proclaimed, 'by a party that campaigned on fiscal responsibility and has the temerity to go forward to the American people and say you think this is fiscally responsible.' This spring, however, Roy voted for the reconciliation bill, which included that $5 trillion increase in the debt ceiling and added trillions to the deficit, after Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) agreed to advance implementation of the work requirement in Medicaid from 2029 to 2026. 'Mediocre but passable,' he said, the bill still needed 'massive improvements if we are to make a dent in our deficit or to change the trajectory of this country.' The Senate 'failed us,' Roy claimed. We can 'amend it, send it back, fix it … Happy to stay here every day until we get it right.' Yet within days, Roy announced he was convinced the Trump administration would use executive orders and other legislation 'to ameliorate those areas' made worse by the Senate — and voted for the final bill. Asked about Musk's characterization of the House bill, Sen Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) replied, 'He's telling the truth.' The legislation doesn't 'bend the deficit curve down. It supports it going up.' Johnson indicated 'there's no way' he would support a bill that sustained this 'new normal.' He was untroubled by the president's threat that anyone who opposed his bill would face a primary challenge: 'I'd be happy to be done with politics.' After meeting with Trump and members of his staff, however, Johnson indicated he was satisfied they were 'committed' to reducing federal spending to pre-pandemic levels: 'A rigorous effort will soon be announced,' he added, 'to review every program and every line of the federal budget, looking for ways to… put America on the path to fiscal sustainability.' Johnson voted for a Senate bill that added about a trillion dollars more to the national debt than the House bill. After the Senate passed Trump's bill, a reporter asked Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) about the assertion by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that instead of joining him, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to defeat the legislation, she engineered 'a bailout for Alaska at the expense of the rest of the rest of the country.' After a long pause, Murkowski, who had 'made very clear' in June that 'we cannot go forward with a bill that makes cuts to Medicare,' replied, 'I know that in many parts of the country there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill … But when I saw the direction that this is going — you know you can either say, 'I don't like it' and not try to help my state, or you can roll up your sleeves.' Murkowski used her leverage to delay the requirement that states with high food stamp error rates, including Alaska, contribute more to the cost of benefits. Alaska and Hawaii received waivers of food stamp work requirements based on high unemployment rates in their states. And the bill provided tax relief for whaling boat captains. 'This has been an awful process,' Murkowski explained, 'a frantic race to meet an artificial deadline.' As the legislation returned to the House, she expressed her 'sincere hope that this is not the final product.' While she had made improvements for Alaska, this bill 'is not good enough for the rest of the nation — and we all know it.' It 'needs more work across chambers and is not ready for the president's desk.' In the months before the 2026 elections, Democrats will almost certainly be quoting Valadao, Roy, Johnson and Murkowski, and making the point that promises by allegedly principled Republican politicians are nothing but 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.' Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.
