Tucker Carlson Accuses Mark Levin of 'Pro-Violence' Rhetoric in Fiery Rant

It was meant to be another wide-ranging conversation about free speech and government power, but Tucker Carlson ignited the debate when the subject turned to war, rhetoric, and responsibility.

In an impassioned podcast commentary, the former Fox News host accused fellow conservative Mark Levin of promoting violence through his language, arguing that words have consequences and that America is already witnessing the repercussions.

Carlson On Violent Language

Carlson did not mince his words when discussing figures he believes have normalised violence. He argued that calls to 'hold people accountable' in Gaza amounted to endorsing mass killing, especially when civilians and children are dying.

'Violence is not the answer,' Carlson insisted, adding that defending the deaths of innocents was morally indefensible.

He went further by naming Levin directly, accusing the radio host of using inflammatory labels that invite real world harm. Carlson pointed to comments made after the killing of Charlie Kirk, claiming Levin suggested that harsh rhetoric such as calling someone a Nazi could justify violence.

'That is an invitation to shoot somebody,' Carlson said, before accusing Levin of continuing to use the same language against critics of US aid to Israel.

For Carlson, this was not abstract debate. He warned that violent rhetoric creates an atmosphere where physical attacks become more likely, especially when political passions are already running high.

A Rejection of Censorship

The rant began with a broader argument about free speech and the role of the US State Department. Carlson expressed outrage at suggestions that the government should police online speech in the name of combating antisemitism. He said censorship was incompatible with American values and likened enforced silence to a form of bondage.

'If you cannot say what you believe, you are not being treated as a free human being,' Carlson said. He criticised past efforts to suppress information, including during the Covid pandemic, arguing that once censorship is normalised, it is inevitably used to protect those in power.

Carlson also rejected the idea that certain groups should enjoy special protection from criticism. He stressed that while he opposed antisemitism, he was equally opposed to all forms of racial hatred and believed none of them justified silencing dissent.

Gaza War Rhetoric Sparks Moral Outrage

The most emotional part of Carlson's comments came when discussing the war in Gaza. He described the scale of civilian deaths as a crime and said it was shocking that a first world country could carry out such an operation with vocal support from US commentators.

'Is there anyone who seriously believes this has killed more terrorists than it has created?' he asked. Carlson argued that celebrating or excusing mass death only guarantees more violence in the future, both abroad and at home.

He acknowledged that fear and historical trauma shape how some supporters of Israel view the conflict, but insisted that fear could not justify killing innocents. For Carlson, moral clarity was essential, even when it placed him at odds with powerful voices on the right.

Conservative Media Splits: Speech and Responsibility

Carlson's attack on Levin highlights a growing divide within conservative media. While many figures continue to support Israel unconditionally and dismiss critics as extremists, others are questioning both the policy and the language used to defend it.

Carlson warned that if peaceful debate is shut down through censorship or intimidation, violence becomes the next step. He argued that open discourse, not suppression, was the only way to prevent further bloodshed.

The clash has sparked fierce reaction online, with supporters praising Carlson for saying what others will not, while critics accuse him of inflaming tensions. What is clear is that the argument goes beyond one podcast rant. It reflects a broader struggle over how America talks about war, power and human life, and whether words will be used to calm the fire or pour fuel on it.