Joe Rogan didn’t hold back when discussing California Governor Gavin Newsom’s rumored presidential ambitions, saying the Democratic leader has no business running for the White House after what he called a disastrous record governing his state.
Speaking on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Rogan said, “You can’t ruin a city and then a state and then say, ‘Guys, that was just practice. When I get elected President, I’ll fix it all.’”
His remarks, which drew widespread attention online, echoed frustrations many Californians have voiced over homelessness, rising crime, and the state’s high cost of living.
The comments came during a discussion about the state of American politics and whether Democratic leadership at the state level had produced results worthy of national office.
Rogan’s blunt criticism resonated with many conservatives who view California as an example of failed progressive governance.
Fox News reported that Rogan, who left California for Texas in 2020, has repeatedly cited the state’s high taxes and increasing crime as key reasons for his move. He told listeners, “California used to be the place everyone wanted to go. Now, everyone’s leaving.”
Rogan said that under Newsom’s leadership, major cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco have suffered record homelessness, declining public safety, and worsening drug problems.
“It’s heartbreaking,” Rogan added. “They’ve got every resource imaginable, but the leadership is clueless.”
The Hill noted that Newsom’s name continues to circulate in Democratic circles as a potential 2028 presidential contender, especially as President Trump seeks reelection.
Newsom has denied he’s planning a run but has kept a national profile through appearances on cable news and foreign visits.
Rogan dismissed those efforts, calling them “image management.” He argued that voters should judge results, not speeches. “You can’t just go around the country telling people you’ll fix what you couldn’t fix at home,” he said.
Critics of Newsom point to the state’s population loss in recent years as a sign of deeper problems.
Census data shows California lost more than half a million residents between 2020 and 2023, with many citing affordability and safety as reasons for leaving.
The Daily Wire reported that business owners have also fled California due to regulatory burdens and rising crime.
Elon Musk, who moved Tesla’s headquarters to Texas, called the state’s policies “hostile to innovation.”
Rogan used that example during his podcast, saying that when a state drives out its most successful people, “you’ve got to stop and ask who’s in charge and why it’s failing.”
Supporters of Newsom argue that California remains the fifth-largest economy in the world and continues to lead in technology and green energy.
Still, even some Democrats acknowledge challenges with housing and crime that have plagued his tenure.
Rogan said he doesn’t hate California but believes the leadership has “completely lost touch” with everyday residents.
“They act like they’re saving the planet, but they can’t even keep the streets safe,” he added.
It was supposed to be a routine congressional hearing, another day of political theater in the nation’s capital. But what unfolded in the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week will be remembered for years as the moment Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s carefully crafted progressive persona met its match—and was dismantled, piece by piece, by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
.
.
.
The tension was palpable from the moment Representative Ocasio-Cortez, the former bartender turned congresswoman and social media icon, entered the hearing room. She arrived late, having secured special privileges to question Gabbard, a decorated combat veteran and intelligence chief. With her designer blazer and signature confidence, AOC seemed prepared for a televised triumph—a moment her supporters in the gallery, phones raised, eagerly anticipated.
But Director Gabbard, calm and collected, was ready. Her military bearing and quiet authority contrasted sharply with the theatrics unfolding across the table. In the gallery, intelligence professionals and veterans watched with interest, sensing that the usual script was about to be upended.
AOC wasted no time, launching into a series of pointed questions about Gabbard’s appearances on Fox News and meetings with controversial leaders like Bashar al-Assad. “How can the American people trust you with our most sensitive secrets?” she demanded, her voice rising for effect.
Gabbard’s response was measured, her tone unwavering. “Congresswoman, I appreciate your passion for oversight. But before we examine my media appearances, may I ask—have you ever visited a war zone?”
The question landed with unexpected force. For the first time, AOC’s script faltered. The hearing room grew quiet as Gabbard continued, “You’re questioning my judgment about foreign policy and national security. These aren’t abstract concepts to me. I’ve held dying soldiers in my arms. Have you ever had to make such decisions?”
It was the first of many moments that would leave the congresswoman—and her supporters—speechless.
What followed was a masterclass in methodical destruction—not through emotion or volume, but through the relentless presentation of facts. Gabbard, unphased by interruptions, calmly cited AOC’s voting record, her contradictory positions on war funding, and her tendency to vote for every military appropriations bill despite her anti-war rhetoric.
“Combat isn’t complicated,” Gabbard stated. “You either support sending young Americans to die, or you don’t. According to your voting record, you’ve been one of the most reliable votes for military appropriations in Congress.”
The gallery, once buzzing with anticipation, fell silent. Even progressive activists lowered their phones, no longer eager to record what was quickly becoming their champion’s most difficult moment.
Gabbard didn’t stop with foreign policy. She turned to one of AOC’s most controversial votes: her “present” vote on funding Israel’s Iron Dome. Gabbard produced documents, emails, and even leaked chats from progressive organizations condemning AOC’s lack of courage.
“You called it funding for oppression,” Gabbard said, “but you voted present—not yes, not no. Voting present is political cowardice disguised as nuance.”
She then revealed campaign donations from defense contractors following the vote, and a photo of AOC at a fundraiser hosted by a defense executive. The implication was clear: the congresswoman’s rhetoric did not match her actions.
Turning to domestic policy, Gabbard meticulously dissected AOC’s economic proposals, including the Green New Deal. With calculators and official reports, she demonstrated the staggering costs and lack of concrete funding mechanisms behind AOC’s signature legislation.
“You propose to fundamentally restructure the American economy, yet you can’t explain basic funding mechanisms, can’t name specific economics courses you took, can’t provide data for your proposals, and celebrate destroying thousands of jobs while your constituents suffer,” Gabbard declared.
She played video testimonials from small business owners, veterans, and constituents who had suffered economically after AOC helped drive Amazon’s HQ2 out of Queens. Polling data showed overwhelming local support for the project, contradicting AOC’s claims.
Gabbard’s most devastating evidence came in the form of handwritten letters and community videos. Constituents recounted unanswered pleas for help, rising crime, and the absence of their representative during crises. Even former campaign staffers and progressive activists expressed disappointment, claiming AOC had abandoned them for fame.
“She uses our struggles for her brand while we actually struggle,” one former supporter lamented.
On foreign policy, Gabbard exposed AOC’s lack of substantive engagement. She detailed the congresswoman’s support for every Ukraine aid package, her ignorance of weapons systems, and her simplistic takes on complex conflicts like Syria and Israel-Palestine. Gabbard contrasted her own firsthand experience with war and diplomacy against AOC’s reliance on slogans and social media.
“Foreign policy isn’t a Twitter game,” Gabbard said. “It’s about understanding that decisions made in DC determine whether children live or die thousands of miles away.”
Gabbard then revealed campaign finance records showing AOC’s evolution from grassroots outsider to establishment player. Despite claims of refusing corporate money, Gabbard traced donations from tech executives, defense contractors, and high-dollar fundraisers. Expenditure analyses showed more spending on consultants and self-promotion than on constituent services.
“You’ve monetized progressivism,” Gabbard said. “You attack others for taking corporate money while benefiting from it yourself.”
In the closing moments, Gabbard tested AOC’s basic knowledge of monetary policy, oversight, and the budget process. The congresswoman’s inability to answer fundamental questions was damning.
“You vote on legislation affecting the entire financial system without understanding its fundamental mechanisms. How do you justify that?” Gabbard asked.
By the end of the hearing, AOC sat diminished, her initial bravado replaced by visible anxiety. Her attempts to respond were incoherent, drowned out by the weight of evidence and the quiet disappointment of those who had once cheered her rise.
The hearing room, once a stage for progressive triumph, became a courtroom of accountability. Even Democratic colleagues distanced themselves, recognizing the political toxicity of defending someone so thoroughly exposed.
Outside, social media exploded with clips and commentary. Progressive organizations scrambled to reassess their support. The New York Times editorial board published a piece titled “The Hollow Revolution: How Progressive Politics Became Performance Art.” In AOC’s district, community groups began organizing town halls without her.
Director Gabbard, meanwhile, declined media requests and returned to her intelligence duties. “The work speaks for itself,” she told staff. Her victory was not in sound bites, but in the quiet affirmation of service and competence.
The fallout was swift and profound. AOC resigned from her committee positions, her social media accounts went silent, and her staff reported a focus on district work. Whether this reflects genuine reflection or tactical retreat remains to be seen.
But one thing is clear: the myth of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive icon, has been shattered. The difference between going viral and governing, between building a brand and building a better society, was laid bare for all to see.
In the end, the hearing was more than a partisan victory. It was a sobering reminder that democracy demands more than slogans and selfies. It requires competence, integrity, and genuine concern for those served.
As the cameras turned off and the spectacle faded, the lesson remained: service will outlast spectacle. And the reckoning for those who choose style over substance is inevitable.