ICE's 'Speedway Slammer' propaganda gets IndyCar — and America — wrong
The IndyCar racing series — which shares corporate ownership with IMS — acted swiftly to extricate itself from a conversation it hadn't wished to enter, asking DHS to stop using intellectual property. DHS insisted no such violation occurred, but quietly deleted the image — only to post another one Aug. 8 with a fleet of slightly modified ICE-liveried racecars.
Many fans remain upset about the incident, with many blaming the series for not criticizing the Trump administration's immigration policy more forcefully — and even calling for boycotts.
There's more to a sport than its ownership. The series' response hardly scratched the surface of why using IndyCar and the Speedway for literal government propaganda, promoting immigration detention, felt to so many of us like a violation of a racing series and a set of traditions that we dearly love.
First of all, let's talk about why DHS is doing this to begin with.
Using state facilities to detain immigrants helps muddy the waters about who's actually responsible. In Florida, where a facility called "Alligator Alcatraz" is ostensibly operated by a state department that doesn't have a written agreement with the feds, detainees have been served maggot-infested food and had to clean out toilets with their bare hands.
But it's also happening because the government simply needs the space. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been ordered to meet astronomically high arrest quotas, which can only be met by sweeping people up first and checking their immigration status later.
Frequent reports of U.S. citizens getting arrested and detained have raised real concern that ICE is resorting to industrial-scale racial profiling to make its numbers. Court cases show government lawyers have argued that agents should target people based on factors like speaking Spanish, looking Mexican, or working in gardening.
The message being sent is that some people are presumed unwelcome, particularly Latinos. Communities around the U.S. have heard it loud and clear: community parades, ethnic restaurants and Spanish-language church services have all shuttered or been cancelled out of fear of ICE. And the message is reinforced by the government's jokey, sneering tone on social media, posting 'soothing' videos of clanking chains alongside recruitment pitches to join ICE and 'protect your culture.'
That's the culture war DHS dragged IndyCar into — casually appropriating the series and the Speedway as if it owned Americana, as if anyone who loves American traditions would share its vision of who counts as 'real America.'
It couldn't be more wrong.
Take Pato O'Ward, my very favorite racing driver, whose IndyCar No. 5 showed up in AI-mangled form on the original (deleted) image DHS posted. O'Ward races under the Mexican flag but has roots in Texas as well. He's not politically outspoken and mostly demurred when asked about the 'Speedway Slammer' image, but did say 'I don't think it made a lot of people proud, to say the least.'
The word choice was striking; O'Ward's pride in representing his community — and its pride in him — is one of the great joys of IndyCar in 2025. The same people who are being scared out of public life by ICE in other regards are some of the most visible fans at every IndyCar race.
Of course they're welcome. Of course everyone is welcome.
First-time Indianapolis 500 attendees, or newcomers to the racing series from the driver's seat to the broadcast booth, are consistently bowled over by just how welcoming IndyCar is. What makes the last Sunday in May the best day of the year is the combination of traditional ritual and an unpretentious, open vibe.
You don't have to be a Hoosier to choke up at 'Back Home Again in Indiana,' any more than you have to be a gearhead to hold your breath at the greatest spectacle in racing. When I evangelize for the 500 to my coastal friends, I always tell them it's the Midwest at its best. It's America at its best.
ICE doesn't own the rights to IndyCar, and it doesn't own the rights to America. The rest of us get a say in the meaning of the things we love.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tariff rebate checks in 2025? What we know about current legislation
(WJW) – It's not a pandemic stimulus check, but Congress is currently weighing the possibility of sending the American people more money. As part of the American Worker Rebate Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri in July, people would receive hundreds of dollars in tariff rebate checks, which work to counteract the financial burden imposed on families by the Trump administration's tariffs. As the bill stands now, a household would get $600 for every child and adult – meaning a family of four would receive $2,400. Check amounts go down for those U.S. residents who are making more than $150,000 as a family or $75,000 individually. The bill has not been passed by the Senate or the House, and it must overcome multiple obstacles before being brought to President Trump's desk to sign. However, last month, Trump did say he was 'thinking about' approving a rebate. If the revenue from the latest tariff rollout exceeds projections, the bill leaves room for a larger rebate to be sent out to the American people. So far, there has been no word from Congress or the IRS on the possibility of a fourth stimulus check, like those issued during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A rebate is a refund of something already paid for, while a stimulus is simply money given to pump up the economy. The U.S. Senate is currently on break for the summer and will be back in action on Sept. 2.
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Watch live: Newsom outlines plan to combat Trump, GOP redistricting
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will speak to reporters Thursday afternoon as the mid-decade redistricting battle heats up across the U.S. ahead of the 2026 midterms, a day after announcing the ' Liberation Day ' event. His remarks come as Democrats push back against GOP 'gerrymandering' efforts in Texas that could give Republicans five additional seats in next year's election. Newsom sent a letter to President Trump and red state leaders earlier this week urging them to end the redistricting war. After Trump missed the deadline to respond, the governor said the Golden State would also be redrawing its House maps to counteract attempts to 'rig' the lines in the Lone Star State. The event is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. EDT. Watch the live video above.
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
