Joe Rogan once again rips ICE raids: ‘Great, you're going to get rid of the landscaper'
Rogan pressed Rep. Anna Paulina Luna to defend her claims about recent immigration protests and challenged the scope of federal enforcement, using his podcast to question whether the government has gone far beyond its promise to target dangerous offenders.
During a conversation Wednesday on 'The Joe Rogan Experience,' Luna, a Florida Republican, alleged that demonstrations against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in June were fueled by 'Chinese money.'
4 Joe Rogan is a critic of certain aspects of the Trump administration's immigration policies.
The Joe Rogan Experience
Rogan said he was open to the idea, but reminded her that the public anger also reflected fear about how the raids were being carried out.
'I absolutely believe this is true,' he said, before adding, 'but also, it was in reaction to some of the ICE raids.'
Rogan described why he thinks the response was so strong, arguing that people recoiled at the idea of officers grabbing ordinary workers.
'It was a visceral reaction that a lot of people had to the idea of people just showing up and pulling people out of schools and pulling people out of Home Depot and pulling people that were just hard-working people,' he said.
'That's what freaks people out.'
He later summed up how many voters saw the administration's pledge, saying the expectation was the removal of violent criminals rather than tradesmen and day laborers.
4 Federal agents, including members of ICE, drag a man away after his court hearing as they patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building in New York City last month.
Getty Images
'When people thought about ICE, they thought, 'Great, we're going to get rid of the gang members,' they didn't think, 'Great, you're going to get rid of the landscaper.''
The exchange underscored a growing split between tough rhetoric around border enforcement and what critics say is the reality on the ground.
Rogan has backed President Donald Trump and his hard-line agenda, but he has increasingly criticized how immigration sweeps have been conducted.
The podcast host pushed back on the familiar refrain that migrants should simply 'get in line' legally, arguing that many of those doing low-wage work lack the resources to navigate the system.
4 Rogan pressed Rep. Anna Paulina Luna to defend her claims about recent immigration protests.
The Joe Rogan Experience
'If you're just a landscaper, you're just a guy who lives in a third-world country and you want a better life, and you say, 'I heard you can get across, and I heard when you get across you can get work,'—like what is that guy going to do?' he asked.
'That guy doesn't have the money to hire a lawyer.'
Luna responded by pointing to the policies of the Biden and Obama administrations, but the two agreed on two themes often heard from both sides of the debate: companies should not rely on undocumented labor, and the border should be secure.
Last month, Rogan criticized enforcement tactics as overly broad, saying the focus has landed on the wrong targets.
'It's insane,' he said on his show last month.
4 Rogan said that some who supported Trump assumed that the administration would target violent offenders.
The Washington Post via Getty Images
'The targeting of migrant workers—not cartel members, not gang members, not drug dealers. Just construction workers. Showing up in construction sites, raiding them. Gardeners. Like, really?'
He added, 'I don't think anybody would have signed up for that.'
Trump has repeatedly pledged to pursue 'the worst of the worst,' but a review by ABC News shows that people without criminal records have increasingly been swept up, reinforcing Rogan's argument that the practice no longer matches the promise.
While the podcast host praised Trump's broader agenda, he has rejected aspects of its execution. He has also criticized the administration on unrelated issues, accusing it of 'gaslighting' around the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
According to the Associated Press, the large majority of those in ICE custody at the end of June had no criminal convictions, a data point that contrasts with campaign promises to focus on serious offenders.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told The Post that '70% of ICE arrests are of illegal aliens who have charges or convictions in the US.'
'And that's just the tip of the iceberg: that statistic does not account for foreign fugitives, terrorists, gang members, and human rights abusers or individuals who have criminal records in foreign countries,' the spokesperson added.
The Post has sought comment from Luna and the White House.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's Orwellian revisionist history rewrites America's reality
On Aug. 4, the National Park Service announced that it will restore and reinstall the statue of Confederate Gen. Albert Pike in Washington. This decision is yet another round in the ongoing fight over the American past. Trump and his supporters want to substitute a comprehensive U.S. history with a purely celebratory one. For the MAGA movement, 'make America great again' means proclaiming that America always was great and expunging from the historical record any fact, event or idea that tarnishes the image of a glorious civilization stretching from 'sea to shining sea.' Authoritarian regimes have always understood the importance of history and tried to control it. 'For Russians, the past is certain; it's the future that is unpredictable,' a Soviet proverb maintains. The adage refers to the practice of subordinating history to an ideology with a vision of a utopian future but no clear path to get there. In his dystopian novel, ' 1984,' inspired both by the Spanish Civil War and Stalinism, George Orwell developed the concept further. 'Who controls the past controls the future,' he wrote. 'Who controls the present controls the past.' When his imaginary state Oceania made peace with Eurasia and went to war with East Asia, its historians and propagandists quickly rewrote their narratives to proclaim that the new enemy had always been the enemy. The MAGA assault on historical truth began in 2019, when a group of scholars led by Nicole Hannah-Jones published the ' 1619 Project.' Trump and his followers interpreted the project's call for a more inclusive historical narrative that acknowledged the evils of slavery and the continuing problem of systemic racism as an existential threat to their cherished vision of American exceptionalism. The president responded by creating the ' 1776 Advisory Commission, ' with a mandate to rebut the '1619 Project' and promote civics education 'to encourage citizens to embrace and cultivate love of country.' The commission's report celebrates the U.S. as the 'most just and glorious country in all of human history.' When Trump left office in 2021, 35 states took up the cause of promoting a celebratory version of U.S. history, passing 'gag laws' that limited public school teachers' ability to discuss slavery, Jim Crow and systemic racism as well as gay and transgender issues. Trump returned to office in January determined to promulgate his preferred version of history with a vengeance. On March 27, he issued an executive order with the provocative title, 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.' It declared the administration's policy 'to restore Federal sites dedicated to history, including parks and museums,' and 'solemn and uplifting public monuments.' Its stated goal is 'to remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity and human flourishing.' The president vowed 'to restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness.' The order prohibits the Smithsonian's museums from spending money on 'exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race' and demands that the American Women's History Museum 'not recognize men as women in any respect.' On Aug. 12, the White House sent a letter notifying the Smithsonian Institute that it would be reviewing 'selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions' to insure they 'align with the president's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism.' The push for a celebratory version of American History did not stop with the Smithsonian. The order also required the secretary of the Interior to ensure that public monuments, statues, makers and memorials 'do not contain descriptions, depictions or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living (including persons living in colonial times).' The monuments should 'instead focus on the greatness of the achievements and progress of the American people or, with respect to natural features, the beauty, abundance and grandeur of the American landscape.' In compliance with the order, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum instructed staff under his jurisdiction to post notices instructing visitors to report 'any signs or other information that are negative about either past or living Americans or that fail to emphasize the beauty, grandeur, and abundance of landscapes and other natural features.' At the president's direction, the Pentagon has restored the names of seven military bases originally named for Confederate generals. The Department of Defense made the change using a clever workaround. For example, Ft. Benning, Georgia, originally named for Confederate Brigadier Gen. Henry L. Benning, is now named for Corporal Fred C. Benning, who won the Distinguished Service Cross in WWI. Statues and other Confederate symbols have been at the center of the debate over the American past since the 2015 massacre of parishioners at the African American Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina by white supremacist Dylan Roof. Amid a storm of protest, the South Carolina legislature voted to remove the Confederate Battle Flag from the state house dome, where it had been raised in 1961 to protest the civil rights movement. The debate intensified with the murder of George Floyd and the birth of the Black Lives Matter movement. It came to a head in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017, when white supremacists protesting the city council's decision to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee clashed with counterprotestors, killing one of them. The confrontation reveals why history matters. To liberate themselves from oppression, marginalized people must reclaim their past from the oppressors who seek to hide it. Most Confederate monuments were erected after 1890 — not to memorialize lives lost during the Civil War, but to assert white power in the Jim Crow era. American history should not be celebratory nor iconoclastic, but inclusive. We can recognize the accomplishments of founders of the republic and still acknowledge that they lived off the proceeds of human bondage. Those two truths are not mutually exclusive. Both are part of the American story and should be included in the history we teach our children.
San Francisco Chronicle
24 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
President Trump ramps up takeover of Washington's police department. Here's what to know
Federal troops are patrolling the National Mall and neighborhoods across Washington in President Donald Trump's extraordinary takeover of the police department in the nation's capital. Now the Trump administration is moving to install its own emergency police commissioner, a big step forward in one of the most sweeping uses of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington went to court on Friday to block Trump's takeover, how it will play out and whether the federal government views this as a potential blueprint for dealing with other cities remains up in the air. Here's what to know about the situation and what might come next: Why is Trump taking over the police in DC? The Republican president this week announced he's taking control over Washington's police department and activating National Guard troops to reduce crime, an escalation of his aggressive approach to law enforcement. But District of Columbia officials say the action isn't needed, pointing out that violent crime in the district reached historic 30-year lows last year and is down significantly again this year. Can he do that? D.C.'s status as a congressionally established federal district gives Trump a window to assert more control over the the district than other cities. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser didn't offer much resistance at first, allowing city workers to clear homeless encampments and work closely with federal immigration agents. But on Friday, the heavily Democratic district asked for an emergency court order blocking Trump officials from putting a federal official in charge of D.C. police. So who is in charge of police in Washington? Right now, it's unsettled. Trump's administration announced Thursday that the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration will take over the police chief's duties, including authority over orders issued to officers. It's unclear where the move leaves the city's current police chief, Pamela Smith, who works for the mayor. Smith says upending the command structure would be a 'dangerous' threat to law and order. What's at stake The showdown in Washington is the latest attempt by Trump to test the boundaries of his legal authority to carry out his tough-on-crime agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally. What are the federal troops doing in DC? About 800 National Guard troops are being activated, with Humvees parked along the Washington Monument and near Union Station. Troops have been spotted standing outside baseball's Nationals Park and neighborhood restaurants. The White House says guard members aren't making arrests but are protecting law enforcement officers who are making arrests and helping deter violent crime. Trump says one of the objectives will be moving homeless people far from the city. How long can this go on? Trump has the authority to do this for 30 days and says he might look into extending it. But that would require congressional approval. Whether Republicans in Congress would go along with that is unclear. Some D.C. residents have protested against the increased police presence. For some, the action echoes uncomfortable historical chapters when politicians used language to paint predominantly Black cities with racist narratives to shape public opinion and justify police action. Washington is very different from any other American city, and the rules that govern it give the federal government much more control than it would have anywhere else. Whether Trump is using this as a blueprint for how to approach cities — largely Democratic cities — that he wants to exert more control over remains to be seen.
Los Angeles Times
24 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Label the Muslim Brotherhood's branches as terrorist organizations
On Tuesday, New York City radio host Sid Rosenberg asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio about whether the State Department intends to designate the Muslim Brotherhood and Council on American-Islamic Relations as terrorist organizations. Rubio responded that 'all of that is in the works,' although 'obviously there are different branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, so you'd have to designate each one of them.' Logistics and bureaucracy aside: It's about time. For far too long, the United States has treated the Muslim Brotherhood with a dangerous combination of naiveté and willful blindness. The Brotherhood is not a random innocuous political movement with a religious bent. It is, and has been since its founding about a century ago, the ideological wellspring of modern Sunni Islamism. The Brotherhood's fingerprints are on jihadist groups as wide-ranging as Al Qaeda and Hamas, yet successive American administrations — Republican and Democratic alike — have failed to designate its various offshoots for what they are: terrorist organizations. That failure is not merely academic. It has real-world consequences. By refusing to label the Muslim Brotherhood accurately, we tie our own hands in the fight against Islamism — both at home and abroad. We allow subversive actors to exploit our political system and bankroll extremism under the guise of 'cultural' or 'charitable' outreach. Enough is enough. Founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood's stated mission has never wavered: the establishment of a global caliphate governed by sharia law. The Brotherhood has always attempted to position itself as a 'political' organization, but it is 'political' in the way Lenin was political. Think subversion through infiltration — or revolution through stealth. Consider Hamas. Hamas is not merely inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood — it is the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestinian-Arab branch. The link is unambiguous; as Article Two of Hamas' founding charter states, 'The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine.' And Hamas' charter also makes clear its penchant for explicit violence: 'Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.' This is not the rhetoric of nuance or moderation. This is the ideological foundation of contemporary jihadism. Yet, while Hamas is rightly designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department, other branches of the Muslim Brotherhood remain off the list. Why? Because Western elites have allowed themselves to be duped by the Brotherhood's two-faced strategy. Abroad, they openly sow the seeds of jihad, cheer for a global caliphate and preach for the destruction of Israel and Western civilization more broadly. But in the corridors of power in the U.S. and Europe, they and their Qatari paymasters don suits and ties, rebrand as 'moderates' and leverage media credulity and overly generous legal protections to plant ideological roots. What's more, CAIR — an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history — has extremely well-documented ties to the Brotherhood. And yet CAIR agents continue to operate freely in the United States, masquerading as civil rights advocates while pushing Islamist narratives that undermine the core constitutional principles of equality that they purport to champion. Today, almost two years after CAIR-linked Hamas executed the Oct. 7 pogrom in Israel, CAIR remains in good standing with many elected Democrats. It shouldn't be so. In November 2014, the United Arab Emirates designated CAIR as a terrorist organization, citing its links to the Brotherhood and Hamas. And the Brotherhood itself is recognized as a terrorist organization by at least Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain and Russia. Jordan also banned the Brotherhood earlier this year. Put bluntly: There is absolutely no reason the United States should have a warmer approach toward CAIR than the UAE or a warmer approach toward the Brotherhood than Saudi Arabia. The first Trump administration flirted with the idea of designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. It was the right impulse. But the effort was ultimately bogged down by internal bureaucracy and international pressure — most notably from Qatar and Turkey, both sometime U.S. partners that harbor strong Brotherhood sympathies and bankroll Islamist causes. And the second Trump administration's troubling embrace of Qatar may well nip any designation in the bud before it even takes off. Critics argue that such a designation would complicate relations with countries where Brotherhood affiliates participate in local politics. But since when did the U.S. place a premium on building alliances with the ideological cousins of Al Qaeda and ISIS? Moreover, designating the Muslim Brotherhood would empower domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies to go after its networks and financial infrastructure. It would send a clear signal that the U.S. government no longer accepts a claim of 'nonviolent Islamism' as a pass when designating terrorist groups. In a time when the threat from Islamic extremism remains global and decentralized, we can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to the architects of the movement. The Muslim Brotherhood is not, as 'Arab Spring' boosters risibly claimed a decade and a half ago, a Western partner in 'democracy.' It is the mother's milk of modern Sunni jihadism. The question is not whether we can afford to designate Muslim Brotherhood offshoots as terrorist organizations. It is: How much longer can we afford not to? Josh Hammer's latest book is 'Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.' This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer
