Fox Host Accuses Vance, Top Officials of Pressuring Trump to 'Abandon His Principles' Amid Iran Tensions: 'Let Trump Be Trump!'
Fox News host Mark Levin has accused Vice President JD Vance and other top Trump administration officials of pressuring the president to 'abandon his principles' amid tensions over the Israel-Iran war.
A Fox News host has accused Vice President JD Vance and other top Trump administration officials of pressuring the president to "abandon his principles" as President Donald Trump debates aiding Israel's war with Iran.
Mark Levin took to X Friday morning to share a long tweet, in which he questioned the goals of several prominent officials, including Vance, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
"Is Witkoff negotiating for something less? What's JD's role? It doesn't take 5 minutes for Iran to say, 'we surrender unconditionally' let alone 2 weeks," Levin said, referring to Trump's plan to allow time for Israel and Iran to come to a resolve on their own before intervening.
LET TRUMP BE TRUMP!We got our answer. Iran says no unconditional surrender. Again. And again. And again. They cheat and lie and kill. They're TERRORISTS!Is Witkoff negotiating for something less?
What's JD's role? It doesn't take 5 minutes for Iran to say, 'we surrender… — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) June 20, 2025
The broadcaster continued to accuse "fifth column isolationists" of trying to get Israel to surrender rather than Iran.
"They've lied about Iran's nuclear program. Tulsi Gabbard has some explaining to do . They're a damnable cabal of lunatics, many of whom are antisemites, completely out of step with the overwhelming majority of Americans - of all walks of life and political affiliations - who want Iran's nuke sites destroyed, as the real polls show," Levin stated.
According to a Harvard-Harris poll from last week, 85% of Americans do not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons. However, only 16% of Americans want the U.S. to get involved in the Israel-Iran conflict, a poll by YouGov found.
Levin asserted that it is in "our national security interest and our own survival to stop these bastards cold."
"During the 8-years I served in the Reagan administration, there were RINOs in the administration constantly trying to influence and change the president's agenda and press him to abandon his principles. Others actively sought to undermine him with leaks to the media. I see the same happening now," he said.
"Let Trump be Trump! We've a great and historic president. Enough with the fake MAGA demagogues and grifters," Levin continued.
The possibility of the U.S. getting involved in the Middle East conflict has sparked a harsh divide among Trump supporters. On Tuesday, Vance defended the president in a post on X saying he "has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military's focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens."
Look, I'm seeing this from the inside, and am admittedly biased towards our president (and my friend), but there's a lot of crazy stuff on social media, so I wanted to address some things directly on the Iran issue:
First, POTUS has been amazingly consistent, over 10 years, that… — JD Vance (@JDVance) June 17, 2025
Vance previously stated that he would "absolutely not" support using U.S. military power in Iran during a 2023 interview with CBS News . However, Vance said his stance would change if Iran were to attack the U.S. first.
Meanwhile, Trump dismissed a previous claim from Gabbard, who testified in March that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. The national intelligence director has reportedly been sidelined recently from key discussions over the Israel-Iran war, NBC News reported.
Gabbard is not the only top official allegedly left out of the deliberations. According to a report by the Washington Post , Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also reportedly been excluded from meetings.
Originally published on Latin Times Donald trump Israel Nuclear weapons
© Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
an hour ago
- DW
Why India-US relations have hit a rough patch – DW – 06/23/2025
Tensions are rising between India and the US after Washington claimed it helped broker a ceasefire between India and Pakistan by leveraging trade talks. US President Donald Trump's claim that he personally brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan during last month's conflict has caused some diplomatic friction. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Trump in a telephone call that the ceasefire was achieved through talks between the Indian and Pakistani militaries — and not US mediation, India's foreign secretary, Vikram Misri, said in a statement following the call. "PM Modi told President Trump clearly that during this period, there was no talk at any stage on subjects like India-US trade deal or US mediation between India and Pakistan," Misri said. "Prime Minister Modi emphasised that India has not accepted mediation in the past and never will." There was no separate readout of the call from the White House. Modi and Trump were scheduled to meet on the sidelines of the Group of Seven (G7) Summit in Canada, but didn't because of the US president's hasty departure due to the situation in the Middle East. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Although Modi and Trump enjoy a personal rapport, there is a belief that Trump's unpredictability and transactional approach to foreign policy matters may be straining the relationship. India is currently negotiating a trade deal with the US, but talks have encountered hurdles as the July 9 deadline approaches for the end of a 90-day pause on most tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. Ajay Bisaria, a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, told DW that India has so far handled Trump with strategic composure. "But when the US President repeatedly and publicly claims an outsized role in mediating the recent India-Pakistan conflict, expect public corrections from India," said Bisaria. "Public opinion in India now tends to see the US as an unreliable partner," Bisaria added. Bisaria also mentioned that while Delhi understands that the India-US relationship is deeper than White House pronouncements, it cannot ignore public diplomacy challenges. "Each time Washington indulges Pakistan's military — like President Trump's recent lunch with its army chief General Asim Munir — it sends the wrong signal." India has accused Pakistan of "supporting terrorism" from across the border after the April 22 attack on civilians in India-administered Kashmir that killed 26 people. The attack was claimed by a group calling itself the Kashmir Resistance, which India says is also known as The Resistance Front and is linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a UN-designated terrorist organization. New Delhi blamed Islamabad for backing the attack, an allegation Pakistan denies. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The lunch meeting between Trump and Munir, which took place at the White House last week, was a unique event as it marked the first time a sitting US president officially hosted a Pakistani army chief who was not also serving as the head of state. Many viewed it as a provocative move given the recent tensions. "India's diplomatic message to the US will remain clear — sanction, don't embrace, Pakistan's generals," added Bisaria. However, Meera Shankar, a former Indian envoy to the US, had a different take. She said it was perhaps somewhat clumsy to rebut Trump's claims of having brokered an end to the recent India Pakistan conflict, since India did not seek a full-scale conflict. Shankar added that it is possible that the Trump administration helped to persuade Pakistan to pull back. "The Indian government was facing domestic criticism for allowing foreign intervention and I think the rebuttal was responding to this," she told DW. "The feting of Asim Munir in the US must be seen in the context of the US military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. It is likely that the US was seeking some facilities from Pakistan in this context." Shankar added that there is concern that the India-US Strategic Partnership is coming under stress because of missteps from the US administration. "There is a need to show sensitivity to each other's concerns and to strengthen communication," she noted. Despite the tensions, the US cannot afford to isolate India in countering China's rise in the Indo-Pacific region. India will host the 2025 Quad Summit in September where Trump is expected to attend. The group — made up of the US, Japan, Australia and India — focuses on promoting stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly in response to China's assertiveness. The last time the Indian and US leaders met was in February after Trump was sworn in for his second presidential term, underscoring the importance both men placed on their relationship. Amitabh Mattoo, dean of the School of International Studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University, told DW that the recent developments have introduced friction and mistrust into the relationship. "The US has pursued short-term and deal-based diplomacy and this transactional approach has undermined mutual trust and fostered a sense of unpredictability," said Mattoo. "This raises concerns about India's relations with the Trump administration … but the partnership can overcome challenges and shape a better, durable future — and also offer an opportunity for renewal," added Mattoo. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
DW
an hour ago
- DW
NATO summit: Trump set to win big on defense spending – DW – 06/23/2025
Iran will be high on the agenda at the NATO summit, but its main focus is expected to be on a massive increase in defense spending. The agreement is set to please US President Donald Trump. Much of the attention at this week's NATO summit in The Hague will likely be on US President Donald Trump, following the US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites over the weekend. But ramping up defense spending, a major demand by Trump and his administration since day one, will also be in the spotlight. This goal has become potentially acceptable to almost all NATO countries thanks to the persuasive power of Secretary-General Mark Rutte, particularly after Germany, the biggest European economy, threw its weight behind it. Officials at NATO told DW that it's about giving Trump a win but also "about rebalancing in the alliance," as one senior diplomat put it, stressing that if that's achieved, the summit would be a resounding success. "Hopefully, Trump is not going to leave early like he did from the recent G7 meeting in Canada," Jamie Shea, a former NATO official, told DW. This worst-case scenario is a big concern for some NATO allies and something they want to avoid at any price. Shea said he thinks "it's important for Trump to be there to learn about all of the good things that NATO is doing at the moment, which help America's security and not just Europe's security." The goal of spending 5% of GDP on defense, expected to be approved at the summit in The Hague this week, is highly ambitious, and has the potential to transform societies in Europe. In many EU countries, social justice and economic stability were the clear priorities for national governments for decades; in the future they might concentrate on strengthening military power and becoming more independent from the United States. This scenario has led to growing resistance in some parts of Europe. Spain had been against the measure, but ultimately dropped its opposition on Sunday after a deal was reached for it to be exempt. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Asked about how he would explain his plan to citizens in Europe who are against social cuts in favor of new weapons, Rutte recently said leaders need to act now because "otherwise, four or five years from now, we are really under threat and then you have to get your Russian language course or go to New Zealand." Rutte's idea is to cut the cake into two pieces and to allocate 3.5% of GDP to core defense needs and 1.5% to security-related investments. These investments include building broader roads and bridges that could carry heavy weaponry but also upgrades on cybersecurity, measures against hybrid attacks, civil protection and aid for Ukraine. Members of the alliance will try to factor in what they are already spending, for instance, on infrastructure, diplomats at NATO acknowledge. But they also stress that the fact that allies were able to agree on the exact definition of the 1.5% target is already a significant success. The biggest challenge is getting everyone on board with the 3.5% target for core military spending. Spain, which has the lowest military spending in the alliance, signaled prior to the summit that it wanted a carve-out. Other nations, like Italy, are demanding more time than the proposed seven years to meet the obligation. Many NATO members are ready to spend more but refuse to commit to yearly plans — a kind of control mechanism — also proposed by Rutte. In the end, it comes down to NATO's credibility, Lithuania's former foreign minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis, told DW. The alliance "is moving in the right direction," he said. But like many representatives of the countries on NATO's Eastern flank in proximity to Russia, he warns against not being serious about fulfilling the new spending pledge. "What if it is just to have a nice summit and everyone leaves happy, and then nothing really happens?" In addition, many Europeans are unhappy about the apparent lack of any ambition when it comes to Ukraine. While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been invited to the summit, his aspirations to join NATO are unlikely to take center stage at the summit or be prominently featured in the final declaration "Clearly, the United States in particular has wanted to play it down," explained former NATO official Shea. "So, for Ukraine, it is going to be a rather disappointing NATO summit." There will be a sentence or two as a reference to Russia as a threat in the final document, NATO sources told DW, but no new tough language, given the ongoing US attempts to get both countries to the negotiating table. Kristine Berzina, a NATO expert with the German Marshall Fund think tank, said it's important to look at the bigger picture. "We get so obsessed with the little declarations and paragraphs about such and such," she told DW. What really matters is that "NATO is a strong political alliance and the people at the table believe in each other." That is what she expects to be the summit's strong message. "Of course, it is about Russia. Talking about the ambitious new steps they're going to take is a signal to Russia," Berzina said. Still, the summit declaration is expected to be "short and crisp," as one diplomat put it, and the event is deliberately planned as a brief exchange not to bore Trump, who's known for not being a fan of long speeches by others, and of multilateral organizations in general. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The big risk is that, with the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East, Trump may not travel to The Hague at all, according to media reports in the US. At NATO HQ in Brussels, diplomats have so far said they do not have any indication that Trump won't be there. So, is the NATO summit just about pleasing Trump, as the program, including a dinner with the Dutch king, an invitation to play golf in the Netherlands and the expected big spending splash, indicates? In the end, it's about the Europeans, said Shea. "The 5% of GDP for defense spending is to deter Russia, to keep Europe and NATO citizens safe, sleeping soundly in their beds at night." But he also admitted that "provided the decision on the 5% is taken, Trump should go back to Washington a happy man."To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Int'l Business Times
2 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Toy Makers Blocked From Quick Challenge to Trump's China Tariffs by Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court on Friday declined a request from two American toy companies to fast-track their legal challenge against tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump on goods from China. This means the case will follow the normal legal process, giving the government time to respond within 30 days, NBC News said. Learning Resources and hand2mind, two family-run businesses based in the US, had asked the court to skip over the appeals stage and quickly decide whether Trump had overstepped his powers by applying broad tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). "In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the nation... challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process," the companies said in their filing. The toy makers argue that the IEEPA, a law passed in 1977, does not allow the president to raise import taxes on such a wide scale without going through Congress. They say Trump's actions started a trade war that caused prices to go up for both businesses and shoppers across the country. Toy Companies Challenge Trump Tariffs, Supreme Court Says Wait Since returning to office in January, Trump has reimposed a 10% universal tariff on most foreign goods, including higher tariffs targeting Chinese imports. While these moves are meant to protect American industries, critics say they have added costs for many businesses and raised prices for families. A lower court previously ruled that Trump may have gone too far in how he used the IEEPA to justify the tariffs. But that ruling is currently on hold while the case is being appealed. The toy companies hoped to speed things up by going straight to the Supreme Court. Instead, the justices denied that request, meaning the appeal will now go through the regular court process, starting with the DC Circuit Court. The issue has drawn attention beyond just toy makers. Several states and other small businesses have also filed lawsuits claiming the tariffs are unlawful. Some courts have sided with them, but those decisions have not yet taken full effect. According to DMR News , the Department of Justice responded to the case, saying it will "continue to vigorously defend President Trump's agenda to confront unfair trade practices in court." The toy companies say this legal fight is urgent, as the tariffs have caused serious financial strain and disrupted long-term business plans. Originally published on
