wavePod

Get Wave AI

2/20/26 - Unpacking the Supreme Court's Confusing Tariff Ruling - Mark Levin Podcast | Wave AI Podcast Notes

Back to Mark Levin Podcast

2/20/26 - Unpacking the Supreme Court's Confusing Tariff Ruling

Mark Levin Podcast

Sat Feb 21 2026

Summary

Mark Levin Podcast: “Unpacking the Supreme Court’s Confusing Tariff Ruling”

Episode date: February 21, 2026
Host: Mark Levin, Cumulus Podcast Network
Main Theme: Dissecting the Supreme Court’s new ruling on presidential tariff authority, its broader constitutional ramifications, and relevant political developments.

Episode Overview

Mark Levin devotes the core of this episode to an in-depth critique of a highly controversial Supreme Court decision restricting the President's power to impose tariffs under a 1977 emergency statute. Intertwined are political commentaries on contemporary figures, Iran, urban politics in New York, and shifting economic trends. Levin features notable guest journalist John Levine for a deep-dive into New York’s local government radicalism. He also takes listener calls, maintaining his signature passionate, combative, and analytical tone.

Key Topics & Insights

1. Dennis Prager’s Recovery and Patriotism

[00:32] Levin shares a heartfelt update on Dennis Prager’s accident and remarkable resilience.
Quote: "He's paralyzed from the shoulders down, and God must have been looking over him because he's not supposed to be alive... These are great patriots, great people, great men whose legacies will continue far into the future." (Mark Levin, 00:32)
Levin underscores the importance of perseverance and contributing to the country, citing Prager and Victor Davis Hanson as exemplars.

2. Critique of Media Figures & Accusations of Bigotry

[03:00–10:00] Levin launches into harsh criticism of Tucker Carlson, accusing him of anti-Semitism, extremist sympathies, and being influenced by foreign interests.
Quote: "I do now understand why he's attracted to the Third Reich... that's his mindset. In addition to being a mouthpiece for Qatar." (Levin, ~06:00)
Discusses problematic discourse in televised interviews regarding DNA testing for Israelis and its troubling echoes of Nazi ideology.

3. Unpacking the Supreme Court Tariff Ruling

a. Why Levin Finds the Decision Incoherent

[11:30] Levin lambasts the Supreme Court’s majority opinion on tariffs, arguing the case should never have gone into such complex legal territory.
Quote: “It doesn’t matter if you’re for tariffs, against tariffs... I’m talking about the rule of law.” (Levin, 11:45)
Outlines confusion created by concurring and dissenting opinions, stressing the lack of a clear majority rationale.
[16:15] Reads through the convoluted joins and concurrences of Justices, highlighting the decision’s complexity.
Quote: “How preposterous. The reason is they should never have gotten [into] the substance of this. And it became a quagmire.” (Levin, 16:45)
Emphasizes how tariffs represent a shared power between Congress (Article 1) and the President (Article 2), especially due to their foreign policy implications.

b. Levin’s Constitutional Argument

Levin maintains that the President’s tariff authorities fall under both economic and foreign policy powers, and the Supreme Court’s attempt to segregate those is both artificial and historically inconsistent.
Cites historical use of tariffs before the federal income tax and the broad scope of statutes like Smoot-Hawley.

c. Practical Consequences & Policy Damage

[31:19] Discussion with President Trump:
- $175 billion in tariff revenue now in limbo—will the government need to refund it?
- Quote (Trump): “They take months and months to write an opinion and they don’t even discuss that point... Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don’t keep the money?” (31:28)
Levin criticizes the Court for focusing on semantics and neglecting the real-world implications, such as trade policy uncertainty and economic planning.

d. Judicial Overreach & Partisanship

Suggests that justices ruled not on the merits but because of political antipathy toward Trump and his policies.
Quote: “Those three justices—I guarantee you if this were Obama or Biden would have flipped…” (Levin, 28:00)

4. Listener Reactions & Broader Constitutional Concerns

Multiple callers (from [75:49] onward) express frustration over judicial overreach and Congress’s lack of responsiveness.
[77:52] Levin advocates for more assertive use of the Congressional “power of the purse” and, possibly, structural judicial reform (e.g., Convention of States, Liberty Amendments).

5. Iran, Authoritarian Regimes & Foreign Policy

[34:46–41:00] Renewed focus on authoritarianism in Iran, comparisons with North Korea, and the perils of Western complacency.
Quote: “You don’t think they’d fire a nuclear missile at us? Of course they would. That’s the whole purpose of this regime…” (Levin, 39:15)
Levin draws connections between foreign events and the need for robust presidential powers.

6. Radicalism in New York Urban Politics

[46:13–53:49] Interview with John Levine (Washington Free Beacon)
- Dissects NYC mayor Mandami’s appointments of "Islamists and radicals" and associated anti-Semitic trends.
- Tension between progressive/Islamist block and entrenched city bureaucrats (the “deep state” may slow the agenda).
- Potential property tax hikes as political pressure on Governor Hochul.
- Budget crisis likely to lead to police defunding and diminishing city services.
Quote (Levin): “These are Islamists... people who cheer on Hamas, people who cheer on the Muslim Brotherhood.” (48:34)

7. Economic Exodus From High-Tax States

[55:20–60:00] Commentary on billionaire flight from California and New York; special focus on Steven Spielberg, Mark Zuckerberg.
Critique of punitive wealth taxes and the inevitable consequences of progressive tax regimes.
Quote (Levin): “For a nation to try and tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle.” (59:14)
Tie to broader economic optimism for states with low taxes, referencing Governor DeSantis and trends toward Florida/Texas.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

“It's a messy decision. It's a problematic decision. It's now an unresolved issue... The rationale they gave is incoherent.” (Levin, 14:30)
“Barrett is very thin skinned, I've decided. Very thin skinned. Jackson's very stupid. And of course I call Roberts ‘Hollywood Roberts’ because he cares very much about what the press says about him.” (Levin, 18:52)
“You have three problems: Democrats in Congress... the Fed... and now a majority on the Supreme Court through a real mumbler of an opinion...” (Levin, 60:00)
President Trump: “Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. But they won’t be dancing for long, that I can assure you.” (Trump, 21:54)
“They always talk about taxing the rich… it always winds up in the same place… The costs are borne by you, the people.” (Levin, 69:20)
Caller: “Sometimes they could have called law school ‘ego school’ because it’s a lot of egocentricity instead of justice.” (Caller Karen, 80:31)

Timestamps for Key Segments

[00:32]–[10:15]: Opening thoughts, Dennis Prager, media personalities, Carlson critique.
[11:30]–[32:19]: Main analysis of Supreme Court tariff ruling, legal complexity, and practical effects.
[31:19]–[32:19]: President Trump’s response to ruling, issue of $175B tariff revenue.
[34:46]–[44:00]: Iran foreign policy challenges.
[46:13]–[53:49]: John Levine interview—NYC radical appointments and urban policy.
[55:20]–[60:00]: Hollywood/CA wealth flight, tax analysis.
[69:03]–[70:25]: Angry property tax protests in NYC.
[75:49]–[98:20]: Extended listener calls: reactions to the Supreme Court, constitutional arguments, personal experiences with judicial and political dysfunction.
[98:59]–end: Closing thoughts, show wrap.

Format & Style

Mark Levin’s delivery is fiery, unapologetically partisan, and laden with constitutional history and contemporary analogies. He blends constitutional law, political rant, economic policy, personal anecdote, and impromptu listener engagement in a rapid, conversational manner.

Summary Takeaways

Supreme Court Critique: Levin sees the ruling as judicial overreach, lacking clear constitutional justification, and creating policy confusion that hampers both executive governance and economic predictability.
Political & Media Commentary: He fiercely calls out hypocrisy, especially among progressive politicians, media personalities, and the wealthy who escape high-tax policies they champion.
Broader Constitutional Concerns: Emphasis on Congress’s underuse of its powers, the dangers of bureaucratic delegation, and the need for structural reform.
Civic Engagement: Levin repeatedly urges listeners to stay engaged and not be disheartened by ambiguous legal and political developments.

For listeners seeking a sharp, constitution-focused, and unapologetically conservative analysis of the Supreme Court’s ruling—and its ripple effects in law, policy, and culture—this episode delivers both detail and passion.

Loading summary...

Transcript

Mark Levin (0:00)

He's here.

President Donald Trump (0:01)

He's here.

Podcast Announcer (0:04)

Now broadcasting from the underground command post deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Le Ven.

Mark Levin (0:32)

Sam, Sara, Mark levin here, number 8773-8138-1187-7381-3811. By the way, Mandami in New York. He's loading up his administration with one Jew hater and Islamist after another. We're going to talk about that next hour with our friend John Levine, who's an outstanding reporter. But first, I did an interview today that will air on Sunday with our friend Dennis Prager. Dennis Prager had a horrific accident and we talk about that in his brand new book, which is absolutely fabulous. Again, a Layer Sunday on Life, Liberty and Levin. It's the first TV show he's doing that is airing and he asked if I would do it. And so I interviewed him for two segments because he's not really able to do more than that. And then I decided in the middle of the interview I'm going to bring him back the next Sunday, too, for two segments. What do you think about that, Rich? He's paralyzed from the shoulders down, and God must have been looking over him because he's not supposed to be alive. He was on a ventilator for a long period of time. Even now, doctors are amazed because he's breathing. He's got 80% of his breathing capacity back. But he shouldn't. Why? Because I said he's paralyzed from the shoulders down. There's a lot going on in your chest from the shoulders down. But I'll talk about that a little bit more later. It just really has affected me, that interview, that a man like this who was struggling for his life, who's still struggling every single day, if you're paralyzed from the shoulders down, you can't really do anything without significant help. And in any event, it was really moving and touching. And his book is absolute genius. And he still wants to be involved in promoting the country and defending the country. VICTOR Davis Hanson, I'm not going to get into specifics. I speak every few days. He's a very dear friend of mine. He's been through hell, too, and we almost lost him, to be perfectly honest with you, and he's still fighting. These are great patriots, great people, great men whose legacies will continue far into the future. And his families are and will be proud of them for their legacies. And that's important we have people today on radio, tv, podcasters. I can't imagine their children would be very proud of them. Drop the F bombs. This Tucker Carlson interview with Ambassador Huckabee. Ambassador Huckabee is such a class act, such a decent man. Remember, he was a pastor, a Baptist pastor. Kind, gentle in so many ways, thoughtful, up against a very evil, indecent, disgraceful grifter. And I believe there's a reason for this other than mental illness and emotional obsessions. I truly do. His ties to Qatar are inexplainable. But for support he must be receiving from him. Look, that's my view, support in one form or another. But in part of the interview he's talking about, listen to this America, that the people of Israel, majority of whom are Jew, should all be taking DNA tests to determine whether in fact their ancestry lived in that part of the world. What do you think about that, Rich? That's pretty sick. And of course, Huckabees said, well, what about people who've converted to Judaism? And what about. It's the question. That's the problem. Jews should take DNA tests to determine if that's their homeland. I do now understand why he's attracted to the Third Reich. I do now understand why he's attracted to guests who promote Hitler. I get it now. I really do. That's his mindset. In addition to being a mouthpiece for Qatar, an operator for Qatar, psyop Operation the guy, the guy's mind really is, in my view, set in the Third Reich. And he gets worse by the day. Worse by the day. One should remember Hitler murdered 2 million Christians. I'm not even talking about during the course of war. He exterminated 2 million Christians as he was exterminating 6 million Jews. The Aryan race. He didn't say Christians. He talked about the Aryan race. And we can go on. Of course, the Islamists, these terror groups that are funded by Qatar, many of them are killing Christians in Africa, Christians throughout the Middle East. And how dare he talk about how there are more Christians in Qatar and in Arab countries than in Israel. Everybody knows that's a flat out lie. But he repeats it. He repeats it. You keep repeating the big lie, Goebel said, and people will begin to believe it. I suspect he's studied this very, very thoroughly given the nature of his guests and the nature of his statements. The fact is that he's doing grave damage to the Republican Party. I fear he's doing grave damage to our midterm elections. He's doing grave damage to the Trump Administration, whether they realize it or not, he is grave damage. And no amount of his attempting to intimidate the ambassador to intimidate my stepson is going to work. He's a scumbag, that's what he is. I don't understand why anybody, quote unquote, debates this guy. It's like going into a mental institution and debating somebody who's banging off the padded walls. And I feel bad for them. This punk was born into wealth, went to private schools, never public schools. Remember when he used to wear that bow tie? He's taken 50 sides of every issue. He's worked in virtually every media platform, and he's failed. But now he's succeeding because he's got the formula figured out. That there are enough people in this country and overseas for sure we'll watch him, listen to him, even pay him, As long as he wears effectively that brown shirt, those black boots. Effectively. Just a disgrace. The Supreme Court decision, let's move on. Is also a disgrace. On the tariff issue, it doesn't matter if you're for tariffs, against tariffs. You don't know about tariffs, you don't care about tariffs. It's irrelevant. I'm talking about the rule of law. I texted the President, I don't think he'd mind my telling you this yesterday or the day before. And I said the court's taking a long time for one of two reasons. Either they can't settle on a single rationale and you've got a whole bunch of concurring opinions, or they do have a strong majority, but they can't figure out what the majority opinion should be. And guess what, Mr. Producer, I was right on both counts. So let's begin there. Why is that the case? Because the court shouldn't have been involved in this at all other than to take up the case, reverse the lower court and get out of the case. Because this is not a clear cut constitutional issue. It's not a clear cut separation of powers issue. It's not just a quote, unquote, indirect tax under Article 1. It's also clearly a foreign policy matter, and it affects foreign policy under Article 2, Article 1, Congress, Article 2, the president. There's no bifurcating the two tariffs on international commerce have been going on since the beginning of this republic, just so you know. But only Congress can lay taxes. But only the President can run foreign policy. And so what the court should have done is avoided this because what it wound up doing is issuing a bunch of really contradictory and confusing opinions where they tried to come up with one position which was basically, I'm sorry, the tariffs under this specific law in 1977 involving emergencies doesn't apply. Which is ridiculous to me because it does in fact authorize the President. Authorize the President to. To regulate commerce. Chief justice said, well, that may be true, but there's too many words between regulate and commerce and something to that effect. And he found that disturbing. But now what do we have? It's a messy decision. It's a problematic decision. It's now an unresolved issue. They basically ruled that under this statute and this statute alone, President can't do what he did. Okay, so what about the other statutes? And the rationale they gave is incoherent, absolutely incoherent, because they got involved in politics and policy, even though they. They exclaim that we have not gotten into policy because they have the two dissenting opinions of which Alito agreed with. Clarence Thomas was brilliant as usual. He goes through the history of tariffs and commercial regulation, international commercial regulation, and presidential powers. And Brett Kavanaugh was absolutely outstanding. He went through the law, he went through the Constitution, and he went through the arguments to the other side. And he said, this is actually quite simple and clear cut. And by the way, America, if Congress disagrees with a President using his power to impose tariffs, Congress has the power of the purse to cut off any funding for the implementation of his tariffs. But it's never come up. They've never done it. He'd obviously veto it. So you don't have enough votes to take it. But that's the way the system works. It's supposed to work. You got nine lawyers, six of whom decided that they would substitute their opinions for that of the President in dealing with international commerce, diplomacy, foreign policy, national security. Because John Roberts decided that this is a indirect tax under the power of the purse, Article 1, Congress. But it's more than that and he knows it. So what was this decision? It was result oriented. They had a result they wanted and they came up with a bunch of cockamamie arguments. That's the truth. Now, I want to pursue this when we return because it's very, very fundamental. This is a seminal decision, and yet it's absolutely convoluted and incoherent. I'll be right back. As I posted earlier today, the Supreme Court majority today issued a very messy and problematic decision. Let me give you an example of the language here. Roberts Chief justice announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to parts 1, 2 and A, 1 and 2B which Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson joined in an opinion with respect to Parts 2, A, 2 and 3, in which Gorsuch and Barrett joined. Gorsuch and Barrett filed concurring opinions. Kagan found an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment in which Sotomayor and Jackson joined. Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Get my drift, Mr. Producer? How preposterous. How preposterous. The reason is they should never have gotten the substance of this. And it became a quagmire. The majority had a problem, which I said it would should the court move in this direction. Tariffs are more than indirect taxes. They do, in fact, impact foreign affairs and national security matters and have been used for those specific purposes. Therefore, the question is not who has the power to tax per se, but a more complicated question about where the separation of powers is. The majority apparently chose to duck the question and stick with the indirect tax characterization and focus on a single statute which is outrageous. It could not figure out how to bifurcate the Congress's power of the purse from the president's foreign policy powers, so redefined the issue to reach the outcome. And even then they argued over the rationale. So we're left with even a worse ambiguity. One, if only Congress can rate taxes even indirectly, then how does the court justify the entire regulatory state in the executive branch that raises indirect taxes? Putting aside the specific statute, it appears the president is still free to raise or cut tariffs under other statutes. So what was the purpose of this whole process? And the court succeeded only in creating confusion going forward. I'll be right back.

Mark Levin (17:58)

President Trump on this outrageous ruling. And I'll spend some more time on this on Life Liberty and Levin. And by the way, we're getting record numbers there. I hope you'll join us tomorrow night, 8pm Eastern Time. We have Steve Moore and we're going to get deeply into so called affordability because this is a big issue. President's going to talk a lot about it next Tuesday at the State of the Union. And I want to really dig into this myself and with Steve Moore and Rich Goldberg, one of the great experts on Iran. There's going to be a decision made one way or another and it's not going to be long from now. So it's important we talk about that. And then Sunday I mentioned we have Dennis Prager, I Don't think you're going to want to miss that as well as America's governor. This guy's unbelievable. Ron DeSantis. And they've already pushed through the house in Florida the elimination of the property tax for homesteaders, that is actual residents. And he pointed out on the program that's about one third of the people who pay the property tax. You have commercial property taxes. You also have taxes from a lot of tourists who come in and so forth. He said they're in a great position to do this. He wants to get it on the ballot. You know, this is a man that has, what, two years left in his governorship, a year and a half, and he doesn't, he doesn't let up. You look at him compared to, say, Newscombe, who's on the Internet all day, he's overseas all day, he's on TV all day. And he can't even get water into the fire hydrants. He can't even get water into the fire hydrants where DeSantis is handling hurricanes and water issues and everything else. And you see the difference. So two really great shows, I think, Saturday and Sunday, Life, Liberty and Levin, 8pm Eastern. I would encourage you to set your DVRs. It's the easiest thing to do. Set your DVRs. President Trump today at the White House and the Supreme Court ruling on tariffs, again, it was a really ugly bunch of decisions. You know what it reminded me of? Those of you who've gone to law school. It reminds me of a bunch of young law review editors sitting in a circle, say, in the, in the law library, trying to prove who's smarter than the other, dancing on the head of a pin on semantics. Even in Barrett's concurring opinion, she's defending her approach from Gorsuch's criticism. I'm going, what the hell is this? What is this really? What a mess. Barrett is very thin skinned, I've decided. Very thin skinned. Jackson's very stupid. And of course I call Roberts, Hollywood Roberts because he cares very much about what the press says about him. Friend of Thomas Friedman, who is a self hating moron. But here's the President tonight or this afternoon. Cut one, go.

Mark Levin (22:32)

And he's right. And I want you to think about something, ladies and gentlemen. How the Constitution was contorted again and again and again in order to create a legal imprimatur for the New Deal. When you step back, the New Deal has no defense in the Constitution. None whatsoever. And so they threatened to pack the Court. The justices were old. Eventually FDR replaced most of them. But they were intimidated and they reversed course. They turn on a dime and they started approving all these New Deal policies and programs that went much, much farther than these tariffs, it could even be thought of going, imagined of going. And they turn the law inside out and the logic inside out and the Constitution inside out to advance that agenda. They've done the same for Democrats over the decades. And here we have a straightforward issue on tariffs. Now, a lot of people don't like tariffs. A lot of people like tariffs. A lot of people don't know about tariffs. And that's not the issue. And what was done today, in my view, was a very serious, a very serious usurpation of the two elected branches of government by a handful of lawyers, not even nine, six, interposing themselves in matters of international economics, indirect taxation, foreign policy, national security. And what did they come forward with? A burp. But a burp. A burp that has an effect, an effect of creating confusion, creating more litigation, more cases in front of these radical activists, trial court judges, as I've said before, they took a case where they couldn't cut the baby in half, and yet they've tried to do it. They're not solemn like in any respect. The fact is, despite all the propaganda from some lawyers, from trade groups, from businesses, people in the media and so forth and so on, the President has very broad powers in foreign policy. And the idea that a tariff is not as related to foreign policy as it is to an indirect tax is ridiculous. And let me explain the reason they claim it's a power of a purse issue is because they argue if the President, say, puts a 10% tax on products coming from Botswana, then that increases the price of that product when it's imported into the United States, the importers pass that price onto you and me, Mr. And Mrs. America. Therefore, it's an indirect tax. Now, that may or may not be true, but you can see how many steps you have to go through, how convoluted that is to reach that result. Maybe it's a right result, maybe it's a wrong result. I don't much care. But when it comes to foreign policy, it's a direct result. The foreign policy powers of the president under Article 2, Section 8, it has a direct impact. Direct. Furthermore, this Court, the Supreme court in the 30s, bent over backwards to allow Congress to delegate its core functions, that of legislating, to bureaucrats. And we create these bureaucratic, bureaucratic offices and divisions and buildings. And it would. It would delegate its core function of legislating to these entities in the executive branch. Now, how does that not violate separation of powers? So you literally have unelected individuals and agencies created by Congress delegated the power to legislate and hence raise taxes, not indirectly, but directly through the regulations. How is that constitutional? And of course, not a single justice wanted to discuss that because the whole house of cards comes collapsing down, doesn't it? But it's a point I continue to make because it's important. There is no need for the Court to do this. None. And the President does have other statutory options, and I'm sure he'll use them. And I'm going to talk about them on TV on Sunday. But even there, what if somebody brings a lawsuit? Wait a minute. You know what statute is the broadest that he can use? Mr. Producer, ever hear Smoot Hawley 1930? A lot of people say the Smoot Hawley act of 1930 helped cause the Depression. May well have, but it won't hear. And it gives the President enormous power to impose up to 100% tariffs. My guess is ultimately that's where they'll go. That perhaps they relied on the wrong statute, but perhaps they relied on a. A court that they thought had enough intelligence and integrity more than anything else to do the right thing. Barrett is a mess. As I read her concurrence. Gorsuch is digging and digging and digging and he finds fool's gold. And Roberts, he's got it all figured out. It's a Tax power of the purse belongs to Congress. Article one. That's it. That's it. That's over. Which of course is absurd, it's buffoonish and yet from his perspective, I suppose, and it's not a good one. It was the only way he could get five more votes, the all important six vote majority. Why did it take so long? Because he was negotiating with individual justices, seeing what they could agree with and not agree with. It's highly political. What goes on. Highly political for a body that's not supposed to be political. But it's a lot of interpersonal politics that go on. Barrett, what's it going to take to get your vote? Of course it's what do I need to do to get your vote? Will keep it simple and direct. I'll write a concurrence, I'll raise my own issues because I know I can count on the three libs on the court. They're going to vote no against Trump no matter what. Now this is what's interesting to me. Those three justices, I guarantee you if this were Obama or Biden would have flipped, would have voted the other way for them. That's all that matters. How can you support the New Deal, all the changes in constitutional interpretation that go with it and yet here you find the President overreached. When in fact the strongest argument to me is this is a shared power. There's no red line, there's no firm line, there's no wall between the two. It is a shared power and we're going to allow the policy debate, the politics of it, to work its way through. No, no, no. We got to get involved. Awful disgrace. I'll be right back. Here's the President. Also today about the heat about the Supreme Court decision cut 5 go since Liberation Day.

Mark Levin (36:37)

Yep. He knows what's going on over there. And he's a good man. And he's a good man. You know, from my perspective, you can come up with the greatest deal of deals. Oh, yeah. No nuclear weapons, no ICBMs and ballistic missiles. No more torture, no more murder. We're going to create Shangri La all of a sudden. You know, we're going to have representative government. We're going to have the most fantastic constitution. We're going to do all these great. See, they made this fantastic deal because they have no intention of complying with it. You know what North Korea did? North Korea made deals with the United States, the un, Europe and so forth. And they made deals and they said, okay, we're going to put an end to any pursuit of a nuclear bomb. And in exchange, we require you to denuclearize South Korea. So we denuclearize South Korea. South Korea doesn't have any more nuclear weapons. But he kept at it. He said, well, the fine print on page 17, I think I can actually do the research. Okay, we'll give you billions of dollars in economic aid to help feed your people who you're starving to death if you will stop working on nuclear weapons. Okay, we give them billions of dollars. He kept working on nuclear weapons, and then one day, he cut off all negotiations UN. And he tested a missile and announced that he had a nuclear warhead. Now he has 50 nukes. 50. And he built six to seven every single year. And we are going to have to deal with that or our children and grandchildren, because our generation and the generation before didn't have the guts to stop him when they could. The case of Iran is even easier. They're not next door to Communist China. Their economy is a complete shambles. The people have risen up. They've put their lives on the line. They have no weapons. They have their voices. They have their ability to march. And they've been slaughtered and hunted down and tortured and raped and disappeared, as the Democrats like to say about ice, which is so sickening. But nonetheless, And I cannot believe that our generation will leave to future generations the responsibility for having to confront this. When this regime, well after President Trump has served us three years, will in fact have nuclear weapons, will in fact have ballistic missiles that can reach the United States of America, and will have tens of thousands of ballistic missiles and perhaps hundreds of nuclear warheads, then what are we going to do? And for those of you who don't think they would use them, they're slaughtering their own people. Tens of thousands of them. Actually, I think much more than 32,000. But that's my calculation. You don't think they'd fire a nuclear missile at us? Of course they would. That's the whole purpose of this regime is to destroy us, to destroy the west, to destroy Israel, to destroy Jews and Christians and Muslims who aren't true believers, like, quote, unquote, they are Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, secularists. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. Now, I don't believe the Iranian foreign minister for two seconds, but he said something on a morning schmo show that did trouble me. One of the things that troubles me are these people are terrorists and they have easy access to our media. This foreign minister, he's being interviewed by all the cable shows. It's amazing. Would Hitler's foreign minister be interviewed by all the cable shows? I'm starting to think yes, yes, we give them platforms, we give them access. Crazy. This, this era. It's just crazy. Abbas Arakchi, aka Yabba Dabadoo, Iran's foreign minister on the morning Shmo cut 9go.

Mark Levin (42:15)

Peaceful. Peaceful. They're slaughtering their own people. They keep threatening us. They're already trying to build their nukes back. They're building thousands of ballistic missiles. Anybody believe this stuff? They helped fund the Muslim Brotherhood along with their dear friends the Qataris. They fund Hamas and Hezbollah. They're responsible for a thousand American deaths and God knows how many casualties during the Iraq war. I mean, seriously, how many people are going to believe this crap? Is that the way it seems to you? We even have Islamists in our country from these countries, from these countries in the Middle east, not so much Iran, but from these other countries talking about overthrowing our country right on our streets, right in their mosques on Fifth Avenue, on Times Square, in Dearborn, Michigan, all over the country. Open and notorious. They're not telling us that we can't have dogs or we can't have dogs where we want to have dogs. Oh, it's going to get worse. It's going to get worse. Food requirements. Don't eat in front of me and don't eat. It's Ramadan. Don't eat. We saw some of that in a couple of clips that have been released. Men coming up to girls who are walking dogs, trying to. Trying to beat the dogs and slap the dogs. We see this happening all over Europe, all over Britain, all over France, all over Europe. And now we see it happening in our country. Don't worry. We just need to have confidence building the organization. Care, a Hamas front group. We know it from FBI wiretaps at the Marriott Hotel next to the Philadelphia International Airport. And it's active. It's got chapters in every state, chapters virtually in every county. It's electing people to office. Mondami is using CARE and other entities to put people in positions. And we're going to bring on. John Levine reported with the Washington Free Beacon, who's been writing brilliantly about this to tell us exactly what's going on, particularly in New York City. We'll be right back. You know what PureTalk's favorite holiday is? President's Day. Because they believe wireless service should only cost you a couple of presidents. Just a Jackson and a Lincoln to be exact. For $25 a month, PureTalk gives you unlimited talk text, plenty of data. Now compare that to big wireless. They'd rather celebrate Benjamin Franklin Day so they can charge your family hundreds every month. And he wasn't even a president. That's not right. You deserve better. PureTalk is an American wireless company that supports our veterans and invests in a only customer service team. When you call, you're talking to someone right here at home. PureTalk uses the same towers as the big carriers, so enjoy superior 5G coverage without the inflated price. Just $25 a month for talk text, plenty of data, no contract, no cancellation fee. Don't wait any longer, folks. Go to PureTalk.com Levin PureTalk.com L E V I N. You'll get 50% off your first month again. That's PureTalk.com Levin to make the switch to Pur Talk. We're here with a real journalist, John Levine over at the Washington Free Beacon. How are you, sir?

Mark Levin (55:20)

Now it's funny to watch these leftist billionaires and these leftist Hollywood types, how they jump ship when it comes to their own money. When it comes to their own money, they push Democrats, they push Bernie Sanders types or Newscomb types or Kamala Harris type whatever it is. Big taxers, redistribution of wealth. They donate to them. They have donation fundraising events for them. They go public for them. Here we have Breitbart telling us about Steven Spielberg, who's a billionaire. Steven Spielberg has said goodbye to Hollywood and he joined the growing list of billionaires fleeing California ahead of a hefty new proposed wealth tax as Gavin Newscomb remains committed to taxing the state into prosperity. The Daily Mail and they have some answering to do about their reporter and Tucker Kitarlason utterly unethical and deceiving the readership. They report their director bought a home in the iconic San Remo co op in New York City overlooking Central Park. See, they don't have a wealth tax yet. Mondami is demanding one and if they get one, you know Spielberg will take off for another city. Other high net worth individuals such as Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, Google co founder Sergey Brin have also fled the Golden State and more are tipped to follow in an effort to escape punitive taxation measures so warmly embraced by Newscomb. We're talking about, as Nolte writes over there, Breitbart, a retroactive tax, a wealth tax on billionaires. Retroactive tax that would include those who fled the state. How sick is this? The outlet provides background to the new tax and its broad impact. The much maligned proposal would see residents with a net worth of more than $1 billion pay a one time tax worth 5% of their assets. If the bill passes a vote due in November and you know it will, you know, this is the MOP. Throw them to the MOP. It will retroactively affect billionaires living in the state January 1, 2026 and would include stocks, artwork, intellectual property and the calculation that means movies and books, artwork hanging on your walls, maybe the coin collection or stamp collection. Your stocks, even though you haven't sold them yet, the value of your site, it's a disaster. This is evidence of a state of a state that's not just in decline, it's falling off the cliff. The movement is an attempt to recoup funds for essential services as health care and education. I wouldn't use the word recoup funds. It's not recouping funds. It's stealing funds. Spielberger spokesperson said the primary reason for his Big Apple move was to be closer to his family. Well, of course closer to his family. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg and his wife, pediatrician Priscilla Chan, are considering buying a $200 million waterfront mansion in South Florida, the Wall Street Journal first reported. Oh yeah. Now the property is located in Miami's Indian Creek, a gated barrier island that is an alcove of the wealthy and the influential, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Kushner and Ivanka. Representatives for Zuckerberg declined to comment. If approved, the new tax would reportedly raise roughly $100 billion, although no exact economic reasoning has been given for arriving at that figure. I don't care what it raises initially, but it will have a tremendous negative effect going forward in that state. Nobody's going to want to move there. Critics say it would simply drive the wealthy, their companies and their dollars out of the state. Yes, that's pretty obvious. Indeed, it was Britain's wartime leader, Sir Winston Churchill, who famously argued against high taxation as a means of somehow making society fairer, he said. He said for a nation to try and tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle Buddha. We miss people like Churchill, don't we? Although according to Katalson and his ilk, it was Churchill who started and prolonged World War II. Did you know that? Did you know that? Oh yeah. Lunatic. Lunatic. Yet another very wealthy person Goldman Sachs CEO bucks anti Trump media with upbeat 2026 economic forecast our friends at MRC NewsBusters Joseph Vazquez, CNBC Squawk Box the CEO of Goldman Sachs blew a gaping hole in the never ending media outrage about the Trump economy. Asked by co host Joe KERNAN for his 2026 economic forecast, David Solomon emphatically replied that the macro setup is quite good. I agree with that which shatters doom narratives being promulgated by the Constipated News Network and the New York Slimes and others desperate to make Trumponomics political taboo. You have this combination of strong fiscal stimulus in the United States, he said. We have a huge deregulatory swing in the US Also constructive because when the regulatory pendulum swings hard the other way, people have to invest more in meeting with those regulatory obligations. And when the regulatory pendulum swings back to a deregulatory posture, he said, resources can be freed up to invest in more productive parts of the business. This seems like a lot of common sense, which is why the Democrats reject it. In other words, Trump is gutting the over bloated federal regulatory state and is providing an economic tailwind. That's true. Solomon highlighted findings by Goldman Sachs economist Jan Hatzius, which projected 2.9% real growth this year, 5% nominal. The consensus, according to Solomon's estimation of economics projections, is that we could see better than that. So you've got really strong tailwinds for good, nominal and real growth. And I think a lot of activity. You know, there's three problems. One, the Democrats in Congress who are trying to sabotage this economy, when they shut down the government as they have, it has a real economic effect on the bottom line, even if it's a small part of the government, which it is, but nonetheless it has an effect. Number two, it's only now that the President was able, or is able to soon to put his man as chairman of the Fed. So he had Powell, who was pretty much sabotaging the economy, too. And number three, now we have a majority on the Supreme Court through a real mumbler of an opinion that is creating Havoc with the $175 billion that the country has received as a result of the tariffs. So you have these institutions that are enshrined. They're dug in. We're making it difficult to grow the economy. But bolstering Salomon's optimism was the Bureau of Labor Statistics February 13 report showing inflation easing to 2.4%. Of course, that defied the experts because the experts are always full of crap. We'll be right back. You know what Pure Talk's favorite holiday is? President's Day. Because they believe wireless service should only cost you a couple of presidents. Just a Jackson and a Lincoln, to be exact. For $25 a month, Pure Talk gives you unlimited talk text, plenty of data. Now, compare that to big wireless. They'd rather celebrate Benjamin Franklin Day so they can charge your family hundreds every month. And he wasn't even a president. That's not right. You deserve better. Pure Talk is an American wireless company that supports our veterans and invest in a US Only customer service team. When you call, you're talking to someone right here at home. Pure Talk uses the same towers as the big carriers, so enjoy superior 5G coverage without the inflated price. Just $25 a month for talk text, plenty of data, no contract, no cancellation fee. Don't wait any longer, folks. Go to PureTalk.com Levin PureTalk.com Levin. You'll get 5, 50% off your first month. Again, that's PureTalk.com Levin to make the switch to Pure Talk. Yeah, to me, there's something really wrong about people, especially influential people, wealthy people who bring in this devastation into a community, pushing radical agendas like Soros and. And these actors and actresses. And then when it hits the wall, when it hits the fan, and we all know it will, then they leave. They leave the country. They leave the state for another place. They've unleashed this impoverishing ideology, and then they run from it like locusts. That's why I get disgusted by this. Look at Northern Virginia. It's all blue. The counties have all turned blue, dark blue. People coming in from Washington, D.C. coming in from Maryland, coming in from Afghanistan, wherever. But I'm talking about the Democrats who move into Republican areas and then destroy them. There are people in Florida, I've talked to them at the diners, including teachers, you know, people like that, they have these big pensions they get out of New York City or Albany or wherever, then they move to Florida. And I asked them, why do you move to Florida? Because there's no income tax. And I said, who the hell do you think is paying your pension? The people in New York, the suckers are back there in the cold winter, so forth and so on. Paying former government employees who go to Florida because they don't want to pay an income tax. But somebody's paying a heavy tax to subsidize these pensions because it's not all coming out of people's contributions. When they were working, that. That doesn't add up. And that's why the north and these northern cities go broke. They keep raising taxes, raising tax. It's like almost like a drug fix, a drug addiction. Very much like it, in my view. You know, I've got a lot of clips here. Mr. Producer put together this Tucker Carlson and Mike Huckabee, but I'm on two minds of this. Number one, I don't want to give his podcast my massive audience and platform. But number two, Huckabee really is a class act that runs circles around this guy. And in fact, Katarlsen keeps repeating himself and repeating himself and pressing his points and pressing his points. He's very snarky. And how come he's cool as a cucumber. Cool as a cucumber. But I don't think I'm going to do that because I don't want to give him the attention that he craves, that all mental patients crave, quite frankly. And I think at this point, he is a mental patient or he should be. Just one man's opinion. As far as Mandami goes, you now have black New Yorkers who are rallying. They were rallying yesterday. They don't want their property taxes raised because it's not about billionaires and millionaires. That would be bad enough for chasing people out of New York City. Now you've got people who have nowhere else to go. They can't afford to go anywhere else. They have their homes. They've worked hard to purchase their homes. Some people in these homes are. They're retired. They're on fixed incomes. And Here he comes, Mr. Affordability. Mr. Affordability, ladies and gentlemen. And he wants to raise your property taxes in New York, all of you. All of you, by around 10%. And here's people objecting to this. Cut 17. Go.

Mark Levin (70:46)

Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number, 877-381-3811-381738-13811. Somebody told me we're not taking enough calls. And I don't mean management. I mean somebody on the street. I try to take calls every day. Doesn't always work out that way. And when I try to take calls, I usually take them in the last half hour. Sometimes we'll have a guest and it bleeds over to the last half hour. But I just told Mr. Producer, let's start collecting people who are interested in calls and we'll do a little bit more of that on this Friday evening if that's what you would like to do. Please don't forget tomorrow night Life, Liberty and Levin, very important program Saturday, 8pm Eastern. Please set your DVR so you never have to think about it. Same with Sunday. The old Sunday show is still here, 8pm Eastern time. And we're gonna have Dennis Prager, which is such a touching interview from such a brilliant man. And speaking of brilliant men, America's governor, we call him Ron DeSantis. And as a resident of that state, I want to tell you that's not Puff. This is a serious, serious man. I also want to thank you. We launched our Liberty's Voice video podcast this week. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday it will be for now on unless there's a holiday or I have some event. Monday, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Monday, Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. So this Monday I hope you'll check in and really you can go to YouTube, YouTube and you can sign up there and subscribe there. It's absolutely free. Liberty's Voice and Rumble, you can follow there, as they call it, sign up. But you can always view it. You can always view it. Just enter it. Liberty's Voice, Mark Levin. It'll pop up. And I do these programs for you. I think you're going to like them. They're kind of long form. We're getting into some very, very interesting subjects on the 250th anniversary. Of course, we're going to get into other things off and on as well. We have maximum freedom, complete freedom. And this is where the people without character and the people who are grifters, I think ultimately destroy themselves because there's no governor on their mouths, there's no governor on their conduct. And deep down, the evil that they have, whether it's Christian hatred or Jew hatred or their grifters or whether they're foul mouthed at home, it starts to show at their in their podcast. You're going to see it. I'm not going to talk to you on my video podcast any differently than I would talk to my family members. In other words, there's not going to be all these cuss words. I'm not going to, you know, do anything as these other people do for a buck. I despise the racism and the bigotry. I despise the anti Semitism and the Christian bashing. I despise the phony support for radical Islamism. Many of these people are on the take, whether it's by intermediaries, billionaires, whomever they are, they are not transparent. They're psyops, they're plots. Some of them truly are mentally ill. Mentally ill. And some of them are just racist bigots and bastards. So if you want some normalcy, if you want somebody that loves this country, somebody that shares your values and your patriotism, that's me. And so again, on Rumble, we're doing fantastic on Rumble.