Joe Rogan would ‘rather go to Russia' than work at UFC event in Canada
Joe Rogan has said he will not be working at UFC 315 in May, as he would 'rather go to Russia ' than Canada, where the event will play out.
UFC 315 is scheduled for 10 May at the Bell Centre in Montreal, Quebec, and given the fight card's status as a pay-per-view event, many fans expected Rogan to be on commentary duties for the UFC.
However, the American has played down the idea. Speaking on his podcast The Joe Rogan Experience on Saturday, the 57-year-old said: 'I won't be there. I don't go to Canada anymore, I don't. I'd rather go to Russia.'
Rogan was also absent from UFC 297, which took place in Toronto in January 2024, so his decision to skip UFC 315 is not necessarily a major surprise. In general, Rogan tends not to work at international UFC events anymore, having cited the amount of travel as an offputting factor.
However, the feeling is that Rogan's decision could be linked to his support of US President Donald Trump, who recently implemented costly tariffs on goods from abroad, including Canada, causing a 'trade war'.
Furthermore, Trump has joked that he could try to make Canada the 51st US state – something that Rogan addressed on the same episode of his podcast.
'I had a conversation with Trump about it,' Rogan said. 'He goes: 'I started calling him Governor [Justin] Trudeau just for fun, but a lot of people are saying good idea. Maybe it is a good idea!'' Rogan and Trump were referring to former Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, who recently resigned from his position.
'That's never going to happen,' Rogan said of annexing Canada. 'That's so crazy, asked them to be the 51st state.'
Mark Carney, Trudeau's successor, said this weekend: 'We are facing the most significant crisis of our lifetimes because of President Trump's unjustified trade actions and his threats to our sovereignty.'
UFC 315 is due to be headlined by two title fights. In the main event, Belal Muhammad is set to defend the welterweight title against Jack Della Maddalena, after the co-main event pits women's flyweight champion Valentina Shevchenko against Manon Fiorot.
In January, UFC president Dana White spoke at a rally held by Trump upon the latter's election victory. White, a friend of Trump, thanked Rogan during that speech.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Blow for Rachel Reeves after UK economy shrinks by more than expected
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
US withdraws embassy staff as Israel ‘prepares strikes on Iran'
The United States is scaling down embassy staff in the Middle East amid reports that Israel is preparing an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. The partial withdrawal was announced by President Trump, who said he was less confident now that negotiations with Iran would succeed. Non-essential staff at the American embassy in Iraq, which has come under attack by pro-Iranian militia in the past, have been ordered home, and military dependents in several neighbouring countries will be allowed to leave. 'They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, and we'll see what happens,' Trump told reporters. 'We've given notice to move out.' Pro-Iran militia in Iraq attacked the American embassy in Baghdad after a US drone strike killed the leading Iranian military commander, Qasem Soleimani, alongside an Iraqi militia leader as they left the Baghdad airport in January 2020.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Could Donald Trump scrap Aukus?
America's policy undersecretary of defence, Elbridge Colby, is one of the brightest brains in Donald Trump's administration. Having served in the first Trump presidency, Colby has an outstanding reputation as a defence and strategic thinker. He is also, however, very much aligned with Trump's America First thinking in respect of foreign policy, and the United States' relationship with her allies. That would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain In tasking Colby on Wednesday with reviewing the Aukus nuclear submarine-centred strategic partnership between the US, the UK and Australia, the president sends a clear message to Britain and Australia: Aukus is part of his inheritance from Joe Biden, and its future therefore is far from assured. In a media statement, the Pentagon said: 'The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's America First agenda. As (Defense) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs. This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.' Colby himself has been ambivalent about Aukus ever since it was established by Biden, and then Australian and British prime ministers, Scott Morrison and Rishi Sunak, in 2021. Addressing a Policy Exchange forum last year, Colby said he was 'quite sceptical' about the Aukus pact, and questioned its viability and ultimate benefits. In a more recent interview with the Australian newspaper, Colby said Aukus's Pillar 1 – the nuclear submarine programme under which Australia would purchase several Virginia-class boats, pending the acquisition of new generation UK-Australian Acute-class submarines – is 'very problematic'. He did say, however, that Pillar 2 – the sharing of military intelligence and technical know-how between the partners – 'is great, no problem'. Colby's long-standing concern is the US's ability to take on China if it ever comes to conflict in the Asia-Pacific, especially over Taiwan. 'How are we supposed to give away nuclear attack submarines in the years of the window of potential conflict with China?' he told the Australian. 'A nuclear attack submarine is the most important asset for a western Pacific fight, for Taiwan, conventionally. But we don't have enough, and we're not going to have enough.' If this is the starting position for Colby's review, its scepticism contradicts the steadfast commitment to Aukus from the current Australian and British Labour governments. Indeed, Britain's latest Strategic Defence Review places high priority on the Aukus partnership as an integral element of British strategic and force planning. Given Colby's previous form on Aukus, the review may well recommend scaling back or discontinuing the nuclear submarine Aukus pillar. But that would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain, let alone for Colby's own strategic vision, outlined in his 2021 book, of an 'anti-hegemonic coalition to contain the military ambitions of China', in which he specifically envisioned Australia. Arguably, it doesn't matter which country mans the attack nuclear submarines assigned to the Asia-Pacific theatre, as long as the boats are there. But will Colby see it that way? In Australia, however, the administration's announcement immediately set a cat amongst the pigeons. Currently, Australia spends just over two per cent of GDP on defence, and the Trump administration, including Colby, is pressuring on Australia to do far more. This month, Hegseth, told his Australian counterpart that Australia should be committing at least 3.5 per cent of GDP to ensure not just Aukus, but that her fighting personnel and ageing military hardware are fit for purpose and contributing commensurately to the Western alliance. After his face-to-face meeting with Hegseth, Australian defence minister Richard Marles seemed open to the suggestion. His prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is not. In his first major media appearance since his thumping election win a month ago, Albanese was asked whether the US could renege on supplying nuclear submarines to Australia if spending is deemed inadequate. 'Well, I think Australia should decide on what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that', Albanese replied. It hasn't escaped notice here that the Pentagon announced its Aukus review less than 48 hours after Albanese made his declaration, and just days before the Australian prime minister is expected to have his first personal meeting with Trump at the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada. That meeting, carrying the risk of a public Trump rebuke, surely will be dreaded by Albanese. Dealing with the Americans' insistence on a near-doubling of Australia's defence investment is politically diabolical for Albanese. He has just won re-election on a manifesto promising huge additional social investments, especially in Australia's version of the NHS and a fiscally ravenous National Disability Insurance Scheme. Albanese must keep his left-wing support base onside by expanding already huge public investments and subsidies in pursuing his government's ideological Net Zero and 100 per cent renewable energy goals. All that on top of a burgeoning national debt. To achieve Nato's GDP defence spending target of 3 per cent, let alone Hegseth's 3.5, something has to give. Albanese cannot deliver both massive social spending and vast defence outlays: to keep the Americans happy, and justify the continuation of both Aukus pillars, he will need to either prove himself a Bismarck-calibre statesman, or risk electoral wrath if he retreats on his domestic spending promises, and cuts existing programmes across his government, to afford adequate defence spending headroom. Australia needs America to be a strong ally in our troubled region, but the United States needs steadfast allies like Australia and Britain. Now the administration's scepticism about Aukus's value to the US is officially on the table, with a review entrusted to its biggest Aukus sceptic in Elbridge Colby, Australia and Britain must justify why all aspects of the partnership are a worthwhile investment with them, as America's partners, committed to playing their part in full. How well they do it will be a measure of their political and diplomatic competence.
