The Adam Mockler Show - Entire Trump Admin SCRAMBLES over NEW BOMBSHELL

Episode Date: March 18, 2026

Click below for premium Adam Mockler content 👉 https://www.youtube.com/@adammockler/join 👉 https://adammockler.com/subscribe Adam Mockler breaks down the chaos inside the Trump administration after a top counterterrorism official resigns over the Iran war, triggering public contradictions from multiple officials. The fallout exposes growing confusion and conflicting narratives at the highest levels of government. JOIN THE COMMUNITY: Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/AdamMockler/ Discord: https://discord.gg/y9yzMU3Gff Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adammockler/ Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/adammockler.com/ Twitter: https://x.com/adammocklerr/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@adammockler Contact: [e-mail] Business inquiries: [e-mail] Adam Mockler - Mockler Media LLC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, everybody. The entire Trump administration is currently in frantic cover-up mode, only 24 hours after a swift resignation from our counterterrorism director has everybody shaken. J.D. Vance was on stage hours ago, melting down, attacking the press. Caroline Levitt was stuttering on the White House front lawn and then went on Fox News to lie and stutter even further. And after all of that, Tulsi Gabbard, our current director of national intelligence, just collapsed. during a cross-examination from Senator John Ossuff of Georgia. All of this happened today because this administration is rapidly losing their bearings after starting a war that they cannot keep up with.

Netanyahu very clearly drug us into this war, and in fact, that is exactly what Joe Kent said yesterday when he resigned. Let's just start from the catalyst that's starting this current meltdown in the administration. As always, make sure you drop a like. Make sure you subscribe to the Adam McClure. if you appreciate the work that we do. We are getting closer and closer to 2 million subscribers. Let's blast through that.

I love you all. And, okay, let's jump in. Joe Kent. This dude is actually kind of a right-wing loon. He's kind of a right-wing freak, but he did just resign from a position where he had access to a lot of unique intelligence. And he said, quote,

after much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of National Contraterrorism Center affected today. I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation. And it's clear we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby. We have been saying that on this show day in and day out that Israel very clearly drug Donald Trump into this war, not because I'm making that up, not because it's a conspiracy theory,

but because Marco Rubio is the one that said it out loud on accident, then tried to walk it back, because Netanyahu has been trying to convince American leaders to go to war with Iran, and Trump is the only one dumb enough to do it. And because the reporting shows that Netanyahu is the one who's been sort of controlling this, leading the way. And apparently he's the one who killed the five replacements of the original Supreme Leader because he wanted to lengthen this. He wanted to drag this out for the United States. So just to contextualize this, oil prices are currently surging, gas prices are skyrocketing. The price of everything is skyrocketing due to that. And the entire Trump administration is having trouble

keeping their bearings. I mean, we just got news moments ago breaking. The U.S. is accumulating forces for a weeks-long operation to take control of the Strait of Hormuz, according to Israeli assessments. So now we are now putting more assets, more ships, more fleets, more naval vessels on the line for a war that Trump and Netanyahu started unilaterally. All right, let's jump in with Caroline Levitt getting asked why Joe Kent was appointed if Trump called him weak on security. It makes no sense to call someone weak on security that you appointed. I'm sorry. The president said yesterday that he always thought Kent was weak on security. Why would he name someone to run the Counterterrorism Center who he thought was weak on security?

Again, I just told you, the president gave Joe Kent a chance. He thought he was a good guy with good military experience. And unfortunately, he proved he was not up for the job. And we don't want somebody leading the Counterterrorism Task Force who cannot agree that the number one state sponsor of terror in this world did not pose a threat. threat to the United States. That's what another falsehood he said in his letter of resignation, which is just unequivocally false. He said they did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. It may seem dumb, but there is a very big difference between saying Iran poses an

imminent threat to the United States so we must attack versus saying that the ideology of the radical Iranian regime is a threat to the Western pro-democracy ideology that Trump doesn't even support anyways. It's backed by intelligence. It's backed by the fact that Iran was building ballistic missiles at a rapid rate to build a shield of immunity so they could build a nuclear bomb. And it's backed by the fact that the president of the United States made the decision to attack Iran before they could attack American troops and our assets and bases in the region. Okay, this is something that Trump has done time and time again. I mean, with Jeff Sessions, the attorney general from his first term, he initially said he was great and backed him fully,

then later said he was weak. With Rex Tillerson, who was a secretary of state, he first said he was world class, a star. Then later on said he was lazy and dumb as a rock. Then John Kelly, his chief of staff. At first, it was great job. He's a star. And later, in way over his head. We have John Bolton, NSA. First, it was very good job. Later saying he begged for a role and would cause World War Six, whatever that means. We have Scaramucci. He first said he has great respect for him. Less than two weeks later, he was saying he's a nut job. I mean, he does this time and time again, where he appoints people, realizes these people are incompetent and awful, and then is bitten by that own mistake. All right, moments after Caroline Levitt walked off the White House front law, and she turns to a Fox News interview.

In this Fox News interview, she's asked when's the last time Trump saw Joe Kent. I mean, this is a big deal right here. Trump is saying that he's always thought this person was weak on security. Okay, so that means 24 hours ago. That means 48 hours ago, basically. And for the past year and a half, we've had some. somebody who is that weak on national security? Our counterterrorism intelligence officer has been weak, in your opinion?

What? Caroline, there was news yesterday when Joe Kent, who works for Tulsa Gabbard over at the DNI, a political appointee said he could no longer stay in his job. He was resigning over the Iran war. So he had objections. When is the last time he saw President Trump? It's been a while. It's been a while since the president has seen him here at the White House.

It's been a while since he's been involved. Okay, that's scary to me. It's been a while since our own president has even spoken to or briefed the people over at the Director of National Intelligence's Office. The counterterrorism director? I mean, the director of counterterrorism, you think would be pretty important when we're going to war with the regime that Trump alleges commits a lot of terrorism against the United States, which does.

In the process of the presidential daily briefs, and he's been actually present for the president's intelligence briefings, this was an individual who was not involved in any of the discussions pre-operation and throughout this operation. I think the president used it as deeply unfortunate that this individual who the president gave the privilege of working for the administration put out this resignation on government letterhead with many falsehoods throughout. Bro, no, did Caroline Levitt just try to say, did she just try to invoke lying on a government letterhead?

Like that's something that the Trump administration doesn't already do. accusing the president of being manipulated by foreign governments. That's laughable and it's insulting. President Trump has been remarkably consistent on this issue of Iran for many, many years. He's also been remarkably consistent that other countries pay the tariffs. That doesn't mean that he's right. He's also been remarkably consistent that windmills cause cancer doesn't mean he's right. He's been remarkably consistent that women will let you do it. That's not right. Just because Donald Trump has said or believed something for 40 years does not mean that it's right. In fact, if he's believed something his entire adult life, it's more than likely

it's wrong. You know, Trump believes that the body is like a light bulb, but it's only got a finite amount of energy that slowly depletes. He's got this weird thesis on the way that health works, and he's just wrong. He's entirely wrong. What about this? Yesterday, Caroline Levitt responded to Joe Kent's letter with this entire novel. The novel ends in America first, but let's just read a little bit It says there are many false claims in this letter, but let me address one specifically that, quote, Iran pose no imminent threat to our nation. This is the same false claim to Democrats and some of the liberal media have been repeating over and over. As President Trump has stated clearly, he had strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack the United States first. Quite literally, one day before, Caroline Levitt said, this post and sorry should be immediately retracted.

they wrote this based on one email, to be clear, no such threat from Iran to our homeland exists, and it never did. It was in response to an ABC article detailing an Iranian threat of a drone or some sort of missile or whatever. So she in one breath will say, there was an imminent threat to the United States, and Joe Kent is lying.

Then the day before, she said, there was no imminent threat to the United States. Make it make sense, Caroline Levitt. One more clip of her, and then we'll go over to J.D. Vance and his meltdown on stage. moments ago. On a truth that was sent out earlier today, 7.22 a.m. Eastern Time. I wonder what would happen if we, quote, finished off what's left of the Iranian terror state and let the countries that use it, we don't be responsible for the so-called straight. That would get some of our non-responsive

allies in gear in fast, President DJT. Has there been any movement overnight on behalf of our allies that has softened their position about going through the Strait of Hormuz? Not overnight, But the president and his team, especially Secretary Hegeseth and Secretary Rubio, continue to be in touch with their counterparts in Europe and, of course, our allies in the Arab-engulfed region to step up and do more to help the United States in securing the Strait of Hermuz. This is to their benefit, more so than it is to the benefit of the United States. Thanks to President Trump, we are a net exporter of energy. We don't need the Strait of Hermuz for our energy here at home.

Okay, pause. Yes, we do. Yes, we do need the straight of four moves. We have already seen a direct spike. If what Caroline Levitt just said were true and we didn't need the straight of four moves for energy at home, we wouldn't have seen an 80 cent spike. 80 cent spike in, at least my home state of Indiana that I drove through like last weekend. I don't know what it is now. In Illinois, I believe we've seen a 70 cent spike. Let me know what it is where you guys are. But if we didn't need the straight of four moves, then it wouldn't be such a massive, massive spike. And Trump, would be scrambling to beg every single NATO ally to help when it's a suicide mission for any ship to go through that right now. So no wonder NATO allies don't want to go on a suicide mission for somebody that bullies them either way. Let's go over to J.D. Vance, who held a rally in Auburn Hills, Michigan. He spoke at a manufacturing plant in which he just lied. He talked about gas prices being up. He downplays it, and then guess what he does? Blames it on Joe Biden. The old trustee blame it on Joe Biden's. I, Mr. Vice President, Brett Kast with WXYZ here in Detroit.

Thank you for taking questions. We're seeing gas prices here climbing at home, in particular here in Metro Detroit, with what's going on with Iran and the impacts on the street of Hormuz. What is the administration doing to help keep gas prices down, and where do you see gas prices going here in the near future? Well, you know, the President of the United States has been crystal clear about this. Look, gas prices are up, and we know they're up, and we know that people are hurting because of it.

We're doing everything that we can to ensure that they stay lower. I will say, you know, the president said this, and I certainly agree with it, this is a temporary blip. Okay. What happened under the Biden administration is the gas prices were high for four years. Gas prices are higher right now, and frankly, they're not even as high as they were during certain parts of the Biden administration because of what's going on in the Middle East. It's not going to last forever.

Ain't no way this is what is happening right now. This is just disrespectful to the average Americans. You get asked a simple question about gas price. is spiking. Not just spiking from when you entered office, but they're higher than they were under Biden. They're higher than they were. They've been for three, four years since we were in the middle of a worldwide crisis. So J.D. Vance mentioned Biden's name about five times. I think I was counting. It was five times he mentioned Biden's name so far in this clip. He tries to downplay the amount of spike we've seen in gas prices by saying, oh, just remember it was high for four

years. When it wasn't, it went down after the COVID pandemic, after the crisis began to settle. Yes, it was high during Biden's term for a bit, as was inflation, but it was globally. It wasn't just high because of an unforced error from the president of the United States. Very important distinction. Very important distinction. And when the president gets us into something like this, that hurts us. He pulled us into it. When Biden is responding to a global crisis, that's helping us. We're going to take care of business. We're going to come back home. And when that happens, you're going to see energy prices come back down to reality. Oh, yeah, soon.

We're going to see it come back down to reality. Well, they said it was obliterated. They said the Iran nuclear facilities were obliterated eight months ago and that that was over. So when are we coming back to reality? When is it over? When is this finally ending? When is the short-term pain going to turn into the long-term gain part? We're still waiting.

They said the same thing with tariffs. Like, I should tweet that shit out right now. Hey, guys, I'm kind of waiting for the short-term pain part to turn into the long-term gain part. Is that going to happen anytime soon? Let's watch one more J.D. Vance clip. Then I want to show you the big one that's going viral of John Ossif, grilling Tulsi Gabbard, our director of national intelligence. Okay. Vice President J.D. Vance then says, we've got a rough. It's going to be a rough road ahead of us for the next few weeks, but it's temporary. And just notice how the crowd is just silence throughout all of this.

They're not enthusiastic about what he's saying. But yeah, we've got a rough road ahead of us for the next few weeks, but it's temporary. Next question. A rough road ahead of us for the next few weeks, but it's temporarily. Temporary. Who signed up for this? Not this guy in the back, bowing his head down. All right. In this clip, John Ossuff obliterates Tulsi Gabbard while grilling her on Trump's claim that the Iranian nuclear facility was obliterated. Quite ironic.

Watch this until the end. It's beautiful. Under the law, you are responsible for providing national intelligence to the president, correct? Yes. And to the heads of executive branch departments and agencies, yes? Yes. And to the chairman of a joint chiefs and senior military commanders. Across the IC, yes.

And to the Senate and the House and relevant committees, correct? Yes. And the law states that the national intelligence you provide to Congress, quote, should be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations, correct? Yes. And you noted in your opening statement you're here fulfilling a statutory responsibility and that your testimony, quote, represents the IC's assessment of threats, correct? Correct?

That opening statement, as submitted to the committee in advance of this hearing, stated that as a result of last summer's air strikes, quote, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated, end quote, correct? That's right. And is that, in fact, the assessment of the intelligence community? Yes. So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's airstrikes.

Yes. In the opening statement you submitted to the committee last night also stated, quote, there has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability, end quote, correct? That's right. And that's the assessment of the intelligence community. Yes. The White House stated on March 1st of this year that this war was launched and was, quote, a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, end quote.

That's a statement from the White House. quote, the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment capability. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no? Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not a number? imminent threat is the president.

False. This is the worldwide threat searing where you present to Congress, national intelligence, timely objective and independent of political considerations. You've stated today that the intelligence community's assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated and that, quote, there had been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. Was it the intelligence community's assessment that nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime. Yes or no? It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent

threat. Okay. That is up to the president based on a volume of information. No, it is precisely, that he receives. It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. This is the worldwide threats hearing where, as you noted in your opening testimony, quote, you represent the IC's assessment of threats. You are here to represent brutal. She says the president is the one. The president is the one who says what a threat is, and he just obliterated that. The IC's assessment of threats. That's a quote from your own opening statement. And so my question is, as you're here to present the IC's assessment of threats, was it the assessment of the intelligence community that as the White House claimed on March 1st,

there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no? Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment. You won't answer the question. It is the nature of the imminent threat that the president has to make that determination based on a collection and volume of information and intelligence that. of information and intelligence that he is provided with. You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations. She is none of those things.

What I'm doing. No, you're evading a question because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House. Yes, and contradict herself from earlier and contradict herself from moments ago. This entire administration has been falling over themselves with contradictions since the beginning of this war, and that should terrify every single American. I mean, we have spent the past 20 years plus in the Middle East with administrations trying to lie to us spending trillions of dollars, and now we've woken up in this administration thinks we're dumb. That is why the entire

admin is collapsing today because they can't explain what the F they've gotten this into. I mean, did Caroline Levitt explain it? No. The Tulsi Gabbard explained it? Hell no. Did J.D. Vance explain it. Hell, hell. No, this guy did the worst. This guy did the worst job in explaining it. I mean, the closest person, unfortunately, was Joe Kent, and he's kind of a right-wing crack job, too, nut job, whatever it is. Joe Kent is the one who called it as it is. Israel got us into this war. I'm going to leave it there. If you appreciate these videos, drop a like, subscribe. I'll see you in the next one. Peace out. Getting ready for a game means being ready for anything. Like packing a spare stick. I like to be prepared. That's why I remember 988, Canada's suicide crisis help line.

It's good to know just in case. Anyone can call or text for free confidential support from a train responder anytime. 988 Suicide Crisis Helpline is funded by the government in Canada.