‘Pay Attention To Me!’: Here Are Key Moments From Joe Kent And Mark Levin’s Showdown

Joe Kent joined Mark Levin’s show Monday night. Was there a clear winner?

Kent, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned earlier in March in protest of the Iran War, arguing in a letter to President Trump that Iran did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S. and that the war was started due to pressure from Israel. Since then, the right has remained divided over his credibility, whether his move was a purely political/career move, and whether Trump went to war because of external pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Some critics have even resorted to smearing Kent’s second wife in an attempt to delegitimize him.

On Monday night, the interview/debate between Kent and Levin (which you can listen to here, starting at 1:30) began somewhat congenially. Although Levin was aggressive, directly confronting Kent about “leaking” reports and hearsay, he didn’t immediately devolve into a tirade.

On whether he has ever leaked classified information, Kent gave him a firm “no.” He also told Levin he has not been contacted by the DOJ or FBI over the reported investigation into leaking allegations. (RELATED: Neocon Chicken Hawks Spread Disgusting Lie To Smear Joe Kent’s Wife)

That being said, Levin lost his temper or else got very heated on a handful of occasions, especially when Kent argued that Israel pressured the Trump administration into the war, or that the Israelis were the ones “driving” American foreign policy. Both Bloomberg and The New York Times reported that Netanyahu pressured Trump before the war’s outbreak.

NEW from @nytimes: Netanyahu embraced a plan by the Mossad chief to ignite a regime change uprising in Iran for a quick victory. He used it to help convince Trump to start the war — despite doubts among some senior US and Israeli officials. It was a critical flaw in war plans. pic.twitter.com/hPG3XEY4G6

— Edward Wong (@ewong) March 22, 2026

In one fiery exchange, Levin claimed he has never “lobbied” President Trump into starting a regime change war with Iran. At the same time, Levin also admitted that Trump watches his show:

LEVIN: What about the media echo chamber your buddies, who didn’t want regime change in Iran? There’s a lot of echo chambers out there, wouldn’t you say?

KENT: It appears that your media echo chamber was much more successful.

LEVIN: No, it wasn’t. I never lobbied the president.

LEVIN: Hey, hey! Pay attention to me!

KENT: I can hear you.

LEVIN: I never lobbied the president. You guys keep putting that crap out there. I met with the president once at his request. And I said to the president, you ready for this, Joe? I said, “They’re telling– they’re saying out there that I’m lobbying you.” You know what he did? He laughed. You know what he said? “Mark. I know where you stand. I watch your show on Saturday and Sunday. Anything I say here–

KENT: So you can–

LEVIN: Pay attention–

KENT: You can lobby him on your show.

LEVIN: I did what?

KENT: You can lobby him by using the power of your show, the power of your–

LEVIN: Oh, come on, brother, you’re not– you’re sounding almost ridiculous now.

Toward the end of the interview, Levin asked Kent about Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet’s suggestion that Kent possibly leaked private messages to Charlie Kirk, which were later published by Candace Owens. Kent denied it.

And this is where one could easily ding Kent, especially in light of comments suggesting he does not believe Tyler Robinson, who confessed to murdering Kirk, acted as a lone shooter, and that he would testify in his trial. A hawkish critic need not debate Kent on the substance of his arguments against war; they only have to point to his suggestion that Kirk was assassinated with the help of a foreign government, and so anything that comes out of his mouth should be assumed to be a lie.

🚨NEW: @BlakeSNeff & @AndrewKolvet react to Joe Kent saying he would testify in Charlie Kirk Assassination trial🚨

KOLVET: “The level of betrayal that I currently feel is dramatic and extreme … this could negatively impact the trial of the assassin.”@DailyCaller pic.twitter.com/SKdCRqyyVv

— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) March 24, 2026

At the end of the day, new evidence, reports, debates, etc., will not persuade anyone on the right already dug in on either side of the war. The only thing that will change their mind is reality.

If the war drags on, and the economic shock is something like the COVID-19 pandemic, and stagflation, most hawks and pundits will begin to backtrack. As was the case with Iraq and Afghanistan, most will blame a myriad of other factors, without admitting they themselves were wrong. Down the memory hole it will go. And if, by a miracle, the war were to end very soon, and the economic damage were limited, those who were sounding the alarm about World War III and the end of the American Empire would do the same.

As someone who dug in on the anti-war side, I obviously favor Kent here. And if I were undecided or uncertain about this war, I would welcome his tone. Throughout the interview, he calmly explained himself. Levin, on the other hand, came across as grating. In general, I find his constant smear campaigns and accusations of “traitor” absolutely un-American.

Yet at the same time, many undecideds will be convinced, by the nature of Kent’s comments about Charlie Kirk, that he is a kook, and so therefore his criticism of the war should be dismissed without any scrutiny. Nothing he says should be taken seriously, and his resignation was a sham. If they’re not irked by Levin’s venomous rants but find Kent’s comments about the Kirk assassination off-putting, they will side with the Fox News host.