Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasts Pete Hegseth After U.S. Troops Killed in Iranian Attack

WASHINGTON — Former U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene launched a blistering attack on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth following the deaths of two American service members in an Iranian attack in Jordan, exposing the widening divide within the political movement that once united behind President Donald Trump.

After U.S. Central Command announced that two American service members had been killed while defending against Iranian drone and missile attacks in Jordan and a third remained missing, Hegseth paid tribute to the fallen.

"Their sacrifice only stiffens our resolve," Hegseth wrote.

The statement prompted an immediate and profane response from Greene, who retired from Congress earlier in 2026 and has become one of the Trump administration's most vocal critics over its handling of the Iran conflict.

"Sacrifice?? What the f*ck are you talking about??" Greene wrote on X. "They did not willingly sacrifice themselves. They were killed because of the war you, Trump, and the admin, are waging on behalf of a FOREIGN COUNTRY, Israel."

Greene went even further, accusing the administration of leading the United States into what she described as an unnecessary war.

"Their deaths fuel your bloodlust for a senseless war," she wrote.

The exchange represents one of Greene's strongest public condemnations of the Trump administration since breaking with the president over U.S. policy toward Iran and the broader Middle East. Once one of Trump's closest political allies and most visible defenders, Greene has increasingly argued that the administration abandoned its "America First" foreign policy by becoming more deeply involved in military operations against Iran.

President Trump, responding to the deaths of the American service members, called the loss "a very sad thing" while defending the ongoing military mission as necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to protect American interests and allies in the region.

Greene has rejected that justification, arguing that American troops are paying the price for a conflict that she believes does not primarily serve U.S. national interests. Her criticism reflects a growing split among voters and commentators who identify with the "America First" movement, with some supporting the administration's military response while others warn that continued escalation risks drawing the United States into another prolonged Middle East war.

Supporters of the administration argue that responding decisively to Iranian attacks is necessary to deter future aggression, defend American forces stationed throughout the region, and prevent Iran from expanding its military capabilities. Critics counter that each escalation increases the danger to U.S. personnel while raising difficult questions about the mission's long-term objectives and potential costs.

As military operations continue and American forces remain deployed throughout the Middle East, the debate over U.S. involvement shows no signs of slowing. Greene's sharp criticism of Hegseth illustrates just how fractured the coalition that once stood firmly behind Trump has become, particularly on questions of war, foreign policy, and America's role in the region.

International Law Experts Warn Proposed U.S. Strikes on Iranian Civilian Infrastructure Could Violate Laws of War

 

GENEVA — A growing international legal debate has emerged over whether proposed U.S. military strikes against Iran's civilian infrastructure—including bridges, power plants, electrical grids and other public utilities—could violate international humanitarian law and potentially expose military commanders and civilian leaders to accusations of war crimes.

The controversy intensified after reports that the Trump administration considered dramatically expanding military operations against Iran by threatening to target critical infrastructure if Tehran failed to comply with U.S. demands regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Although a ceasefire ultimately delayed any broader campaign, the discussion has drawn significant attention from legal scholars, military experts and human rights organizations who argue that the laws governing armed conflict leave little room for intentionally attacking infrastructure primarily used by civilians.

At the center of the debate is one of the oldest principles of international humanitarian law: the distinction between civilian objects and military objectives.

The Principle of Distinction

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols require all parties engaged in armed conflict to distinguish between military targets and civilian persons or objects.

Civilian infrastructure—including schools, hospitals, electrical systems, water treatment facilities, bridges, transportation networks and power plants—is presumed to be protected from deliberate attack unless it loses that protection by making an effective and concrete contribution to military operations.

Legal scholars say that threshold is intentionally high.

Andrew Clapham, professor of international law at the Geneva Graduate Institute, told Geneva Solutions that bridges generally do not qualify as military objectives simply because they facilitate transportation.

"Fundamentally, a bridge does not contribute to warfare," Clapham argued, adding that broad attacks designed to terrorize civilian populations could themselves violate international humanitarian law.

His comments reflect a widely accepted interpretation of the law that civilian suffering cannot itself become a military objective.

The Pentagon's Dual-Use Argument

Some military planners have reportedly argued that much of Iran's infrastructure serves both civilian and military purposes, making certain facilities lawful targets.

Electricity generated by civilian power stations often supplies military bases.

Bridges may carry military convoys.

Telecommunications systems can be used by both civilians and armed forces.

Railroads, ports and highways may move civilian commerce one day and military equipment the next.

Supporters of the broader interpretation argue that modern warfare makes it increasingly difficult to separate civilian and military infrastructure.

However, many international legal experts reject using generalized military usefulness as sufficient justification.

Instead, they argue that each proposed target must undergo an individualized legal analysis.

To qualify as a military objective, the object must make an effective contribution to military action, and destroying it must offer a definite and concrete military advantage.

Simply benefiting a country's economy or indirectly supporting its government is generally considered insufficient.

Why the Legal Standard Is So Strict

International humanitarian law was deliberately written to prevent modern warfare from becoming total warfare.

During both World Wars, entire cities saw their civilian infrastructure intentionally destroyed in efforts to cripple enemy governments and industries.

Those experiences helped shape the post-war Geneva Conventions, which sought to place humanitarian limits on military operations.

Legal experts interviewed by Geneva Solutions warned that lowering the threshold for attacking civilian infrastructure could significantly erode those protections.

One international law specialist explained that many facilities indirectly support a nation's ability to wage war, but that does not automatically make them lawful targets.

Banks finance governments.

Factories manufacture civilian goods.

Roads carry civilian traffic while occasionally transporting military equipment.

Government buildings house policymakers.

If those indirect connections alone justified military attacks, nearly every part of a modern society could become a target.

That, legal scholars argue, is precisely what the Geneva Conventions were designed to prevent.

The Rules of Military Necessity

International humanitarian law rests on several interconnected principles.

Distinction requires separating civilian objects from military objectives.

Military necessity requires attacks to provide a genuine military advantage.

Proportionality prohibits attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm relative to the anticipated military gain.

Precautions in attack require commanders to take feasible steps to minimize civilian casualties and damage.

Failure to satisfy any one of these principles may render an attack unlawful.

Military commanders must also continually reassess targets as battlefield conditions evolve.

A lawful target at one point in time may lose its military character later.

Civilian Infrastructure Already Damaged

The debate is not purely theoretical.

According to Geneva Solutions, multiple civilian locations inside Iran have already sustained significant damage during recent military operations.

Among those cited were:

• A school in Minab reportedly struck during an air attack that local authorities said killed large numbers of civilians.

• The Pasteur Institute in Tehran, an important medical research and public health facility.

• Tofigh Daru, one of Iran's pharmaceutical manufacturers.

• A bridge under construction connecting Tehran and Karaj.

Whether each individual strike complied with international law would require detailed factual investigations examining intelligence available to commanders, military necessity, targeting procedures and proportionality assessments.

International legal experts caution against making definitive conclusions about specific incidents without independent investigations.

Could Military Personnel Be Held Responsible?

One of the most significant legal questions concerns individual criminal responsibility.

Former senior U.S. military lawyers Margaret Donovan and Rachel VanLandingham have argued that service members could face extraordinarily difficult decisions if ordered to attack infrastructure lacking a legitimate military purpose.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires American service members to obey lawful orders.

At the same time, both U.S. military doctrine and international law recognize that soldiers have a duty not to carry out manifestly unlawful orders.

The challenge, legal experts note, is determining where that line exists.

Military personnel generally rely on intelligence assessments, legal advisers and operational commanders when evaluating the legality of targets.

However, commanders themselves may face criminal liability if they knowingly authorize unlawful attacks.

Command Responsibility

International criminal law recognizes the doctrine of command responsibility.

Under this doctrine, responsibility extends beyond the individual pilot who releases a weapon.

Military commanders who issue unlawful orders, approve illegal targeting decisions or fail to prevent violations committed by subordinates may also be held criminally liable.

Civilian leaders who direct military operations can likewise face legal scrutiny under certain circumstances.

The doctrine has been applied by international tribunals following conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and elsewhere.

While prosecution of senior political leaders remains relatively rare, the legal principle is well established within international criminal law.

Political Statements Draw Scrutiny

Legal observers also noted that public statements by political leaders can become relevant evidence when evaluating intent.

Experts interviewed by Geneva Solutions argued that rhetoric suggesting attacks are designed to increase civilian suffering or pressure a population politically could complicate future legal assessments.

International humanitarian law prohibits acts or threats of violence primarily intended to spread terror among civilian populations.

Whether any public statements meet that legal threshold would ultimately depend on the surrounding facts and any subsequent military actions.

The Continuing Debate

Military planners argue that modern conflicts increasingly blur the distinction between civilian and military infrastructure.

Cyber warfare, integrated electrical systems, dual-use communications networks and decentralized logistics have made targeting decisions more complex than during previous generations of warfare.

International law scholars acknowledge those challenges but maintain that the legal protections afforded to civilians must remain the starting point.

They argue that relaxing long-established standards would risk expanding armed conflicts beyond legitimate military objectives and expose civilian populations to significantly greater harm.

As geopolitical tensions continue in the Middle East, legal experts expect questions surrounding dual-use infrastructure, command responsibility and the lawful limits of military force to remain central issues in international humanitarian law.

Regardless of political viewpoints surrounding the conflict itself, specialists broadly agree that the legality of military operations will continue to be measured against the longstanding principles of distinction, proportionality, military necessity and civilian protection that form the foundation of the modern laws of war.

If independent investigations are conducted into future or past strikes, their conclusions will likely depend on the specific facts of each incident, including the military purpose of the target, the intelligence available to decision-makers, the precautions taken to minimize civilian harm, and whether the attacks complied with applicable international humanitarian law.

RFK Jr. Defends Questions About Lyme Disease Origins, Points to History of U.S. Tick Research

WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is once again challenging conventional thinking about the origins of Lyme disease, arguing that decades of documented government biological research involving ticks deserve far more public scrutiny than they have received.

During a Senate hearing, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., questioned Kennedy over previous remarks suggesting Lyme disease may have been a military-engineered bioweapon.

"Did you say Lyme disease is an engineered bioweapon?" Bennet asked.

"I did say that," Kennedy replied without backing away from his previous comments.

For Kennedy's supporters, the exchange was less about making a definitive scientific declaration than demanding transparency about Cold War biological weapons research that remained classified for decades.

A History That Raises Questions

One fact is not in dispute: the United States conducted extensive biological warfare research throughout the Cold War.

Declassified military records show the U.S. Army studied insects and ticks as potential disease delivery systems. Historical documents describe field tests involving hundreds of thousands of ticks, including more than 150,000 Carbon-14-tagged Lone Star ticks released to study how quickly they spread across terrain.

Those experiments were designed to understand how arthropods could disperse in a biological warfare scenario.

To Kennedy and others, that history makes it reasonable—not reckless—to ask whether every aspect of those programs has been fully disclosed.

"We know these programs existed," supporters argue. "The question is whether everything the government knows has been made public."

Congress Has Asked Questions Too

Kennedy is hardly the only public figure to question the historical record.

Congress previously directed the Department of Defense Inspector General to review historical military research involving ticks and insects after concerns were raised about whether biological weapons experiments could have contributed to the emergence of Lyme disease.

While no public investigation has concluded that Lyme disease was engineered or intentionally released, supporters of additional investigation argue the review itself demonstrates lawmakers considered the questions worthy of examination.

The Growing Tick Crisis

Regardless of Lyme disease's origins, one reality is undeniable: tick-borne illnesses are increasing across the United States.

Cases of Alpha-Gal syndrome—a tick-triggered allergy that can cause severe reactions to red meat—have grown dramatically over the past decade. Public health officials estimate that hundreds of thousands of Americans may now be affected.

The expansion of Lone Star ticks into new regions has coincided with a sharp increase in Alpha-Gal diagnoses, creating growing concern among physicians and patients alike.

Questions About Biotechnology

Kennedy's supporters have also pointed to research involving genetically modified ticks and other technologies intended to control livestock pests.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has funded research related to livestock health, including projects involving cattle ticks, and has supported research on Alpha-Gal syndrome. Bill Gates has also invested in companies developing plant-based and cultivated meat products.

Some commentators argue the overlap between expanding tick-related illnesses, investments in alternative proteins, and biotechnology research warrants closer examination.

However, no publicly available evidence has demonstrated that Gates-funded research caused Alpha-Gal syndrome or that genetically modified ticks were released into the wild and are responsible for the increase in cases.

Transparency Over Trust

For Kennedy, the broader issue extends beyond Lyme disease itself.

Throughout his public career, he has argued that Americans should not simply accept government assurances when historical evidence shows agencies have conducted secret biological research, withheld information from the public, or later acknowledged previously undisclosed programs.

Supporters say Kennedy's willingness to ask uncomfortable questions reflects a commitment to government transparency rather than blind acceptance of official narratives.

Critics counter that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and note that current scientific research has not established that Lyme disease was engineered as a biological weapon.

Still, Kennedy's supporters argue that documented Cold War tick experiments, classified military research, and unanswered historical questions justify continued investigation rather than dismissal.

As public confidence in government institutions continues to decline, the debate over Lyme disease has become about more than one illness. For many Americans, it has become a test of whether difficult questions about the nation's biological research history should be openly examined—even when the answers remain uncertain.

GOP Rift Over Israel Widens After JD Vance's Rogan Interview Sparks Sharp Rebuke From Loud Mouth Mark Levin

 

A growing divide within the Republican coalition over U.S. policy toward Israel and Iran burst into public view this week after Vice President JD Vance discussed the Trump administration's approach to Israel and Iran during an interview on The Joe Rogan Experience, prompting a sharp public rebuke from radio host Mark Levin.

During the lengthy podcast interview, Vance argued that elements within the Israeli government preferred continued conflict with Iran over a negotiated settlement. He also alleged that some Israeli interests sought to influence American public opinion against a U.S.-brokered peace effort. Vance emphasized that while allies naturally attempt to influence one another, American foreign policy should ultimately be guided by U.S. national interests.

Those comments immediately drew criticism from some of Israel's strongest advocates in American media.

Levin responded on social media by demanding that Vance apologize not only to Israel but also to "millions of its American supporters." Levin rejected Vance's suggestion that Israel had undermined diplomacy, arguing instead that Iran—not Israel—was responsible for the collapse of negotiations.

Republican Coalition Divided

The exchange highlights one of the most visible foreign policy disagreements within the Republican Party since President Donald Trump's return to the White House.

For decades, strong support for Israel largely united Republicans. But the rise of the America First movement has reshaped that debate, with many Republicans arguing that U.S. foreign policy should be driven primarily by America's own interests rather than the priorities of allies.

Vance has emerged as one of the leading voices of that approach. During the Rogan interview, he argued that allies, including Israel, naturally seek to influence U.S. policy but that American leaders have an obligation to make decisions based on what best serves the United States.

Levin's Response Draws Criticism

Levin's response has itself become a focal point of the debate.

Long known for his unwavering support of Israel and a more interventionist foreign policy, Levin has repeatedly criticized Republicans who question the scope of U.S. involvement overseas. His demand that the vice president apologize to Israel and its American supporters was viewed by many America First supporters as an attempt to pressure an elected U.S. official for publicly disagreeing with the policies of a foreign government.

Critics argue Levin has become one of the loudest media voices advocating near-unconditional U.S. support for Israel, frequently dismissing or attacking Republicans who question whether every Israeli policy aligns with American strategic interests. They contend that questioning the policies of an allied government is not anti-Israel but a legitimate part of American foreign policy debate, and that elected U.S. officials should be free to prioritize American interests without being expected to apologize for policy disagreements.

Supporters of Levin counter that Israel remains one of America's closest allies and that public criticism from senior U.S. officials risks weakening that relationship during a period of heightened regional instability.

America First vs. Traditional Foreign Policy

The dispute reflects a broader ideological struggle within today's Republican Party.

One faction argues that unwavering support for Israel remains essential to U.S. national security and stability in the Middle East.

Another faction, represented by Vance and other America First Republicans, believes every foreign policy decision—including those involving close allies—should first be evaluated through the lens of American interests, even if doing so creates disagreements with longstanding partners.

That divide has become increasingly visible as Republicans debate military intervention, foreign aid, and America's role in conflicts abroad.

Social Media Amplifies the Divide

The disagreement quickly spread across social media and political commentary.

Supporters of Vance praised him for openly acknowledging that allies sometimes have different objectives than the United States and for reinforcing an America First foreign policy that places U.S. interests above those of any foreign nation.

Levin's supporters argued that his criticism reflected a commitment to defending one of America's closest allies during a period of heightened tensions with Iran.

The controversy has reignited broader discussions about foreign lobbying, U.S. military commitments in the Middle East, and how closely American policy should align with Israeli strategic objectives.

A Debate That Is Unlikely to End Soon

The public clash between Vice President JD Vance and radio host Mark Levin underscores an ongoing realignment within the Republican Party.

While the Trump administration continues to publicly affirm its support for Israel, Vance's comments—and Levin's forceful response—demonstrate that the nature and limits of that support are now being debated more openly than at any point in recent years.

Whether this disagreement proves temporary or signals a lasting shift in Republican foreign policy may depend on future developments in the Middle East and whether more Republican leaders embrace Vance's America First approach or continue to support the more traditional pro-Israel position championed by Levin.

Misuse of Flock Safety Cameras Raises National Concerns as Police Officers Face Firings, Lawsuits, and Public Scrutiny

 

By Ronald Dwyer

The rapid expansion of Flock Safety's automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras has transformed modern policing across America. Marketed as a crime-fighting tool capable of locating stolen vehicles, identifying suspects and helping solve violent crimes, the technology has been embraced by thousands of law enforcement agencies nationwide.

But as Flock's footprint has expanded, so have allegations of abuse.

Over the past several years, officers have been accused of using the system to stalk former partners, track coworkers, monitor people for personal reasons, conduct unauthorized searches and potentially circumvent constitutional privacy protections. Civil liberties groups argue that while the technology can be effective, its misuse demonstrates the dangers of creating a nationwide surveillance network with insufficient oversight.

The latest controversy comes from South Carolina.

Two Greer Officers Fired

The City of Greer, South Carolina, announced that two police officers were terminated after an internal audit found they violated department policy governing the use of Flock Safety cameras.

According to city officials, the department's policy limits use of the automated license plate reader system strictly to legitimate public safety purposes. Officials stated the officers violated those rules, resulting in their termination. While the city has not publicly detailed every search that led to the discipline, officials emphasized that misuse of the system would not be tolerated.

The case has reignited questions about whether internal policies alone are enough to prevent abuse.

Texas: Officer Accused of Stalking Using Flock

In Pasadena, Texas, a police sergeant resigned while under investigation after allegations that he repeatedly used Flock cameras to monitor and stalk a female coworker.

According to reports, investigators alleged the officer improperly searched the woman's vehicle movements using the ALPR system.

The incident prompted criticism from local officials, who questioned why criminal charges had not been pursued despite the seriousness of the allegations.

Wrongful Arrests and False Reads

Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about the technology's accuracy.

Independent testing has suggested some automated license plate reader systems can misread characters under certain conditions, potentially resulting in innocent motorists being stopped or arrested. Several jurisdictions have reported incidents where mistaken license plate matches led to high-risk police encounters before officers realized the vehicle was not actually connected to a crime.

While Flock Safety says its technology is designed to assist investigations—not replace officer judgment—critics argue officers sometimes place too much confidence in automated alerts.

Communities Walking Away

Several cities have decided the privacy concerns outweigh the benefits.

The Los Angeles Police Department recently allowed its Flock contract to expire after concerns involving civil liberties, data ownership and information sharing.

Other jurisdictions in California, Ohio, Arizona, North Carolina and elsewhere have either ended or reconsidered their contracts following controversies involving privacy, data sharing and unauthorized camera installations.

Killingworth, Connecticut, also voted to remove its cameras after residents questioned the value of the program and expressed concern over reports that license plate data had been accessed for immigration enforcement.

Constitutional Questions Continue

Legal challenges continue to emerge.

A Virginia judge ruled in 2024 that warrantless long-term collection of location data through a city's Flock camera network constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment in that case, preventing prosecutors from using the evidence. The decision has become one of the most significant legal opinions involving automated license plate readers and has fueled additional constitutional challenges nationwide.

Civil liberties organizations argue that recording millions of innocent motorists' movements creates a searchable historical database that can reveal where individuals worship, seek medical treatment, attend political rallies or visit family members.

Supporters counter that the cameras photograph vehicles traveling on public roads, where there is generally a reduced expectation of privacy, and note that many agencies limit data retention and maintain audit logs.

Immigration and Data-Sharing Concerns

The debate expanded beyond local policing after reports that license plate data from some Flock systems had been used in immigration investigations, prompting criticism from local governments that said they had not intended for their data to be accessed in that manner.

The controversy led to policy changes in several jurisdictions and increased scrutiny over how information is shared between agencies.

A Pattern of Misuse

The Greer and Pasadena cases are not isolated incidents. Across the country, officers have faced discipline for improperly accessing law enforcement databases, including automated license plate reader systems, to gather information for personal reasons. Audits have revealed that while most searches are tied to legitimate investigations, a small number of unauthorized queries can significantly undermine public confidence in the technology.

Privacy advocates argue that because ALPR systems create a historical record of a vehicle's movements, misuse can reveal intimate details about a person's life, including visits to doctors, places of worship, political events and family members. They contend that this makes strong oversight, mandatory auditing and criminal penalties for intentional abuse essential.

The Surveillance Debate

Supporters point to significant successes.

Police agencies around the country credit Flock cameras with recovering stolen vehicles, identifying suspects in shootings, locating missing persons and generating investigative leads that might otherwise have been impossible.

Critics, however, argue that every successful case must be weighed against the creation of a massive surveillance infrastructure capable of tracking the daily movements of millions of law-abiding Americans.

The firing of officers in Greer and the resignation of an officer in Texas illustrate a central concern raised by privacy advocates: the greatest threat may not be the technology itself, but the potential for human misuse.

As more departments install AI-assisted surveillance systems, the national conversation is shifting away from whether the technology works and toward who should control it, how long data should be stored, what independent oversight should exist and what penalties should apply when officers misuse their access.

The Greer case serves as another reminder that while automated license plate readers can be powerful investigative tools, they also require strong safeguards, meaningful audits and accountability to maintain public trust.

Mark Levin Accused of Urging Housing Discrimination Against Muslims, Raising Calls for Radio Review

"Conservative" radio host Mark Levin is facing a serious allegation involving religious discrimination after reportedly telling listeners during his Monday, July 13, broadcast that property owners should refuse to sell their homes to Muslims.

If accurately reported, the statement would not merely represent another inflammatory political opinion. It would amount to encouragement for listeners to engage in conduct prohibited by federal fair housing law.

Levin’s nationally syndicated program is distributed by Westwood One, a division of Cumulus Media, and is broadcast on hundreds of radio stations. His official website says the show reaches more than 14 million listeners through radio, satellite broadcasts, streaming services and podcasts. Westwood One has described the program as airing on nearly 400 affiliates, including stations in all 10 of the country’s largest metropolitan markets and 21 of the top 25. 

 Because a complete searchable transcript of the alleged segment was not publicly available at the time of publication, Westwood One and Levin should release the unedited audio and clarify precisely what was said.

Refusing to Sell to Muslims Is Illegal

The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, advertising and financing of housing because of a person’s race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or disability.

Religion is explicitly protected. A homeowner, real estate broker or housing provider generally cannot reject an otherwise qualified purchaser simply because that person is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or belongs to another faith.

The Justice Department states that the law covers overt religious discrimination, including openly treating members of one religion differently. It also prohibits refusing to sell or rent a dwelling because of religion. 

It is important to describe the legal issue accurately. Muslim identity is primarily protected under the law’s prohibition against religious discrimination. Depending on the circumstances, discrimination against Muslims may also overlap with national-origin, racial or ethnic discrimination — for example, when a person is rejected because the seller assumes that an Arab, South Asian or immigrant applicant must be Muslim.

However, Islam itself is a religion, not a race.

Limited exemptions exist for certain owner-occupied buildings and some private sales, but those exemptions are narrow. They do not create a general right for property owners, brokers or agents to advertise that Muslims are unwelcome or to direct real estate professionals to discriminate.

Speech and Illegal Conduct Are Different Questions

Levin’s comments, even if accurately reported, would not automatically establish that he personally committed a Fair Housing Act violation. The First Amendment protects a broad range of offensive, hateful and irresponsible speech.

But listeners who actually refuse to sell or rent housing because a prospective buyer is Muslim could violate federal law. Real estate agents who participate in such discrimination could also face civil-rights complaints, lawsuits and professional licensing consequences.

That distinction does not relieve a broadcaster or syndicator of responsibility for deciding whether it will continue carrying programming that allegedly encourages unlawful discrimination.

The central question for Cumulus Media and Westwood One is therefore not whether the government should censor political speech. It is whether a private broadcasting company should use its stations, advertisers and national distribution system to amplify instructions that could lead listeners to deny Americans equal access to housing.

Part of a Broader Pattern of Anti-Muslim Rhetoric

The allegation cannot be viewed entirely in isolation. Levin has repeatedly used his programs to present Islam and Muslim political participation as threats to the United States.

In 2013, Levin claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood had “infiltrated our government” and described then-President Barack Obama as a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer.

In 2015, he argued that Obama had an “affinity for Islam” exceeding his affinity for Christianity or Judaism.

More recently, official descriptions of Levin’s own broadcasts have promoted the claim that there is a century-long Islamist plan to conquer the United States through immigration and the alleged infiltration of American schools, media, culture and government.

The June 12, 2026, program description asserted that an Islamist agenda to conquer America was already decades underway and accused the Democratic Party of assisting it through immigration.

A June 2026 episode description also claimed that the Democratic Party had become a vehicle through which “Islamists and Marxists” intended to seize control of the United States. Another description generalized that an enemy’s religious belief required the slaughter of those who failed to comply. 

Criticism of Islam, Islamic governments, terrorism, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran’s government or any political movement is protected political and religious commentary. No religion is immune from criticism.

But criticism crosses into anti-Muslim bigotry when hundreds of millions of diverse people are treated as a single hostile population, when Muslim Americans are portrayed as presumptive infiltrators, or when ordinary citizens are told they should be denied housing because of their faith.

A Dangerous Message During a Period of Increasing Hostility

The controversy arrives amid a documented increase in openly anti-Muslim political rhetoric. Recent statements by national political figures have included assertions that Muslims do not belong in American society, demands for mass expulsions and insinuations that Muslim public officials represent an enemy operating inside the country.

Civil-rights advocates and extremism experts have warned that portraying an entire religious community as disloyal or dangerous can encourage discrimination and, in extreme cases, violence. 

Muslim Americans include doctors, veterans, police officers, teachers, business owners, public officials, real estate professionals and families who have lived in the United States for generations. They possess the same constitutional rights and fair-housing protections as every other American.

A homeowner may disagree with Islam. A radio host may criticize Islamic theology. Neither has the legal right to turn the housing market into a religious test.

Cumulus and Westwood One Must Respond

Westwood One and Cumulus Media should immediately review the full July 13 broadcast and publicly answer several questions:

Did Levin tell listeners not to sell property to Muslims?

Was the statement edited out of any subsequent podcast or digital version?

Did producers, executives or affiliate stations object?

Will the companies issue a correction making clear that religious discrimination in housing is illegal?

Will advertisers continue financially supporting the program?

If the recording confirms that Levin explicitly urged Americans to deny housing to Muslims, Cumulus and Westwood One should remove the program from national distribution.

That would not be government censorship. It would be a private media company enforcing basic standards and refusing to distribute programming that encourages listeners to violate civil-rights law.

Radio networks regularly make programming decisions based on accuracy, advertiser concerns, public safety and corporate standards. A call to discriminate against an entire religious community in one of life’s most important transactions — obtaining a home — should be treated at least as seriously as other conduct that has resulted in the removal of nationally syndicated personalities.

The Largest Markets Reached by Levin’s Syndication

Westwood One says Levin’s program is carried in all 10 of the largest metropolitan markets and 21 of the top 25. It does not provide a current, easily searchable public affiliate-by-affiliate list identifying his exact station in every market.

Based on the current Nielsen Audio market rankings, the 20 largest markets potentially carrying or reached by the syndication network are:

1. New York

2. Los Angeles

3. Chicago

4. San Francisco

5. Dallas-Fort Worth

6. Houston-Galveston

7. Atlanta

8. Washington, D.C.

9. Philadelphia

10. Boston

11. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood

12. Seattle-Tacoma

13. Phoenix

14. Detroit

15. Minneapolis-St. Paul

16. San Diego

17. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater

18. Denver-Boulder

19. Long Island

20. Baltimore

The exact station and broadcast time can differ by city, and some affiliates may carry delayed or partial versions of the program. Nielsen’s July 2026 Audio rankings place New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Atlanta, Washington and Philadelphia among the leading radio markets. (

Fair Housing Is Not Optional

The Fair Housing Act was adopted because access to a home cannot depend on whether a seller approves of a buyer’s race, nationality or religion.

Conservatives, liberals, Christians, Jews, Muslims and people of no faith all benefit from a system in which property rights operate alongside equal protection under the law.

Mark Levin frequently describes himself as a constitutional conservative. Constitutional government, however, means respecting laws protecting Americans whose faith or politics may be unpopular with a powerful radio audience.

Should the full recording confirm that he urged listeners to reject Muslim buyers, Levin did not defend liberty or property rights. He encouraged religious discrimination and placed ordinary listeners at risk of committing a serious civil-rights violation.

Cumulus Media, Westwood One, affiliated stations and advertisers should demand the recording, examine the evidence and act accordingly. If the allegation is confirmed, the Mark Levin Show should be removed from the radio airwaves. 

Former Iranian President Ahmadinejad Reportedly Placed Under House Arrest Over Alleged Israeli Intelligence Contacts

Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reportedly been placed under house arrest after Iranian authorities uncovered alleged secret contacts between him and Israeli intelligence, according to reports published Monday.

The allegations, which have not been publicly confirmed by the Iranian government, are reportedly based on information provided by several senior Iranian officials and people familiar with American and Israeli intelligence operations.

According to the reports, Ahmadinejad is being held under the authority of the intelligence branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, commonly known as the IRGC. Iranian investigators reportedly discovered evidence of extensive communications between the former president and representatives of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency. (Jerusalem Post)

The reports allege that Israel had spent years attempting to develop a relationship with Ahmadinejad despite his long history of hostile rhetoric toward Israel and his reputation as one of Iran’s most controversial political figures.

Some accounts claim the alleged contacts were part of a wider Israeli plan to weaken or replace Iran’s clerical government. Israeli officials reportedly considered Ahmadinejad a possible transitional figure because of his growing political conflict with Iran’s ruling establishment.

Alleged Plan to Reshape Iran’s Leadership

Earlier reports claimed the United States and Israel had explored the possibility of using Ahmadinejad in a post-government transition following the death of Iran’s supreme leader and an expected collapse of the existing leadership structure.

According to those reports, an airstrike near Ahmadinejad’s Tehran residence earlier this year may have been intended to release him from government restrictions rather than kill him. However, Iranian media and outside analysts challenged that account, and neither the United States nor Israel publicly confirmed such a plan. (Al Jazeera)

Ahmadinejad reportedly became dissatisfied with the operation and eventually stopped cooperating after concluding that the effort to overthrow the Iranian government was unlikely to succeed.

The latest reports now claim Iranian authorities uncovered enough information about the alleged contacts to place him under renewed house arrest.

Extraordinary Allegations Remain Unconfirmed

The accusations would represent a stunning development if independently verified.

Ahmadinejad served as Iran’s president from 2005 to 2013 and became internationally known for his confrontational policies, disputed statements about the Holocaust and harsh criticism of Israel and the United States.

His relationship with Iran’s political establishment deteriorated during and after his presidency. Ahmadinejad increasingly criticized powerful clerics, government institutions and security officials, leaving him politically isolated despite retaining support among some working-class and nationalist Iranians.

He has also publicly claimed that Israeli intelligence deeply infiltrated Iran’s security agencies. In a 2024 interview, Ahmadinejad alleged that the Iranian intelligence official responsible for hunting Mossad agents was himself working for Israel. (Reuters)

That history makes the latest accusations particularly striking. A former president who once portrayed himself as one of Israel’s most uncompromising enemies is now reportedly suspected of maintaining secret contacts with the very intelligence service he repeatedly accused of penetrating Iran.

However, no formal charges, court documents or direct evidence supporting the allegations have been released publicly.

Iranian state media had not officially confirmed Ahmadinejad’s detention as of Monday, and neither Ahmadinejad nor his representatives had issued a detailed public response. Israeli officials also had not publicly acknowledged any intelligence relationship with the former Iranian president.

Until independent evidence or official statements emerge, the allegations should be treated as a developing and highly sensitive intelligence story rather than established fact.

The reported detention nevertheless highlights the deep mistrust within Iran’s political and security establishment as authorities continue searching for suspected Israeli agents and collaborators inside the country.