Joe Rogan Publicly Criticizes Trump's "Insane" ICE Raids, Says Feels "Betrayed" - Eight Months After Trump Endorsement

Joe Rogan publicly criticized President Trump’s immigration enforcement tactics on his July 2, 2025 podcast episode, calling ICE raids “insane” and expressing feeling “betrayed” by Trump’s broken campaign promises. Rogan stated: “There’s two things that are insane. One is the targeting of migrant workers — just construction workers, just gardeners.” The criticism came just eight months after Rogan’s election-eve Trump endorsement and eight days after Bernie Sanders warned him about Trump’s authoritarianism. The public break demonstrated that Bono and Sanders’ principled engagement with Rogan’s platform had successfully influenced his position—proving that persuasion works even after electoral endorsement when trusted voices make compelling moral arguments.

The Public Criticism

On July 2 episode, Rogan directly challenged Trump administration tactics:

“Not Cartel Members, Not Gang Members, Not Drug Dealers — Just Construction Workers”: Rogan emphasized ICE targeting nonviolent workers rather than criminals Trump promised to deport

International Students: Questioned deportation of Turkish Tufts University student: “That’s enough to get you kicked out of the country?”

“Horrific” Deportations: Previously described deportations to El Salvador as “horrific,” warning “innocent people” caught in enforcement

Broken Promises: Rogan felt Trump had betrayed campaign rhetoric about targeting dangerous criminals, not workers

The Direct Engagement

Washington Post reported Rogan went beyond public criticism:

June 30, 2025: Rogan dined with Trump just two days before public criticism

Direct Lobbying: Rogan “discussed immigration policy with Trump and pushed him to back off deporting workers who have not committed crimes”

Personal Appeal: Attempted to persuade Trump directly before going public with criticism

This showed Rogan’s engagement wasn’t performative—he tried private persuasion first, then public criticism when that failed.

The Persuasion Sequence

Rogan’s criticism was culmination of monthlong influence campaign by principled voices:

1. May 31: Bono calls USAID cuts “evil,” humanizes cost of Trump/Musk policies (300,000 deaths)
2. June 24: Sanders warns about Trump authoritarianism, media intimidation, Musk’s power
3. June 30: Rogan dines with Trump, attempts private persuasion on immigration
4. July 2: Rogan publicly breaks with Trump, calls ICE raids “insane”

The timeline proves sustained principled engagement works. Bono planted humanitarian concerns, Sanders reinforced authoritarianism warnings, and combination created conditions where Rogan’s libertarian principles (opposing deportation of non-criminal workers) overcame partisan loyalty.

Libertarian Principles vs. Partisan Loyalty

Rogan’s criticism revealed tension between:

Libertarian Values: Anti-authority, pro-immigrant-worker, skeptical of government overreach Trump Loyalty: Eight-month-old endorsement based on anti-establishment positioning

When Trump’s ICE tactics conflicted with Rogan’s libertarian principles, the principles won—but only after Bono and Sanders had created space for that choice through moral arguments about humanitarian costs and authoritarian patterns.

Mark Ruffalo’s Response

Actor Mark Ruffalo criticized Rogan as “a little late” with his Trump criticism:

Project 2025: Referenced warnings about aggressive deportation plans before election

Too Late: Suggested Rogan should have recognized Trump’s intentions before endorsement

Performative: Implied criticism was self-serving after already helping Trump win

Ruffalo’s critique highlighted cost of late-stage persuasion: Rogan influenced millions to elect Trump, then criticized resulting policies. Bono and Sanders succeeded in changing Rogan’s mind, but only after electoral damage done.

Significance: Persuasion Works, But Timing Matters

Rogan’s ICE criticism proves three critical points:

1. Engagement Beats Boycott

Bono and Sanders went into “belly of the beast” and successfully influenced Rogan’s position. Had they boycotted Rogan post-Trump-endorsement, ICE criticism likely wouldn’t have happened. Principled engagement created space for mind-changing.

2. Humans Can Still Choose

Even eight months after Trump endorsement, Rogan remained open to moral arguments from trusted voices. People aren’t permanently captured—they can be reached with compelling cases about human costs and authoritarian patterns.

3. Pre-Election Persuasion More Valuable Than Post

While Rogan’s post-election criticism demonstrates persuasion works, the critique came too late to prevent Trump victory Rogan helped secure. Bono and Sanders succeeded, but similar engagement in September-October 2024 might have prevented the endorsement entirely.

The Counterfactual

What if Bono and Sanders had engaged Rogan before October 2024 Trump interview?

• Humanitarian costs of Trump 1.0 (family separation, etc.)
• Authoritarian patterns (January 6, fake electors, etc.)
• Putin alignment concerns
• Similar moral arguments, better timing

Rogan might never have endorsed Trump—or endorsed more cautiously. The 2025 persuasion success shows what might have been possible with sustained progressive engagement throughout 2024.

Pattern: The Malleable Platform

Rogan’s trajectory shows he’s neither permanently captured nor immune to influence:

2019: Bernie persuades him → endorses Sanders 2021-2022: COVID contrarians persuade him → promotes ivermectin 2024: Trump persuades him → endorses Trump 2025: Bono/Sanders persuade him → criticizes Trump

He’s a “high-bandwidth persuasion surface”—whoever engages most compellingly shapes his positions, which then influence 14M+ listeners per episode.

Lessons for Democratic Resistance

Rogan’s ICE criticism offers blueprint:

Don’t Boycott, Engage: Bono and Sanders’ willingness to appear created persuasion opportunity Moral Arguments Work: Humanitarian costs and authoritarian patterns penetrated despite Trump loyalty Sustained Presence: Single conversation rarely converts—repeated principled engagement accumulates Respect Required: Rogan responds to figures he respects (Bono, Sanders) even when disagreeing Timing Crucial: Same arguments pre-election more valuable than post-election

The 2025 sequence proves engagement can work—the challenge is doing it consistently and early enough to prevent rather than just criticize authoritarian outcomes.

When Joe Rogan called Trump’s ICE raids “insane” eight days after Bernie Sanders warned about authoritarianism and five weeks after Bono called USAID cuts “evil,” it wasn’t coincidence—it was proof that principled voices going into difficult spaces can still change minds, even after electoral endorsements, when they make compelling moral cases to people who retain capacity to choose.