Mark Levin on Joe Kent, His Resignation & His Inexplicably Changed Views

Peloni & David Fieldstone

Video Loads at Bottom

On Mark Levin’s March 23 daily radio show – he considers the peculiar case of Joe Kent’s recent resignation, and opposition to Trump’s Iran policy and the US-Israeli Alliance.   Mark begins by explaining that Joe Kent served honorably in the military, but argues that the concerns are about his actions as a civilian, especially after his resignation from public service at a high level.

He explains – he previously had no issue with Kent, and even supported him during a congressional campaign, but now Mark believes Kent has changed. He criticizes Kent’s associations with dangerous persons – such as Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Nick Fuentes, and also opines that Kent’s resignation and public statements were shocking, poorly timed, and in his view deliberately harmful, especially during an ongoing war. Mark argues that if Kent had any serious concerns, then he should have raised them privately with the President – rather than in the public domain – only for “targeting”.

Mark continues by emphasizing the seriousness of the conflict with Iran, describing it as a long-standing enemy – responsible for attacks against Americans, so thereby argues that this is not a moment to undermine the U.S. Leadership. He expresses suspicion about Kent’s actions, citing reports that Kent may have leaked information, or been excluded from key intelligence discussions, though he frames these as public allegations. He also questions why Kent resigned when he had, and suggests the timing was meant to maximize his intended damage. Mark criticizes Kent’s recent statements about Iran not posing an imminent nuclear threat, and rejects Kent’s claim that Israel pushed the United States into war, while pointing to irrefragable statements from U.S. officials – who confirm the exact opposite.

Mark highlights what he sees as contradictions in Kent’s positions, noting that Kent previously expressed strong support for Israel, and a tougher stance on Iran, but now inexplicably criticizes both. He also raises concerns about Kent’s recent media appearances – and statements suggesting with no proof whatsoever – possible foreign involvement in political assassinations, portraying these as irresponsible insinuations. He presses Kent on whether he leaked information, shared private communications, or was sidelined in his role, while repeatedly challenging Kent’s credibility and judgment. Throughout, Mark argues that the President and senior officials acted on real threats, and had made independent decisions relative to US interests, whereas he accused Kent of promoting conspiratorial thinking while undermining U.S. policy during a critical time.