Even Joe Rogan is Mocking Trump – See Why

Joe Rogan, one of Trump’s most influential media allies, publicly mocked the President’s controversial White House “Presidential Walk of Fame” plaques as “crazy” and unprecedented, warning they set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.

Story Snapshot

Trump installed partisan plaques in White House calling Biden “worst President in American history”
Joe Rogan criticized the move as inappropriate institutional vandalism during Christmas podcast
Plaques break centuries of White House neutrality with inflammatory nicknames and personal attacks
Even Trump supporters question whether personalizing federal spaces crosses constitutional lines

Trump’s Partisan White House Display Sparks Controversy

President Trump installed a “Presidential Walk of Fame” in the White House featuring plaques that break dramatically from traditional presidential displays. The Biden plaque labels the former president “Sleepy Joe Biden” and declares him “by far, the worst President in American history,” blaming him for inflation, border crises, the Afghanistan withdrawal, and global conflicts. Unlike neutral historical markers, these displays include Trump’s subjective commentary and personal nicknames, transforming the White House into what critics call a partisan trophy room.

The plaques represent an unprecedented departure from White House traditions that have maintained institutional neutrality for over two centuries. Previous presidents added portraits respectfully without inflammatory commentary or personal vendettas. Trump’s initiative extends beyond Biden to target Obama as the “most divisive political figure” while promoting his own accomplishments with phrases like “SAVE AMERICA!” This marks the first time a sitting president has used official White House displays for partisan political attacks against predecessors.

Rogan’s Unexpected Criticism Signals Conservative Unease

During his Christmas podcast with comedian Shane Gillis, Rogan expressed genuine shock while reading the plaque contents aloud. “This is so crazy… You shouldn’t be allowed to do this,” Rogan stated, warning that such precedents invite reciprocal partisan attacks from future Democratic administrations. His criticism carries particular weight given his 14 million Spotify listeners and prior endorsement of Trump during the 2024 election, suggesting even conservative-leaning influencers recognize constitutional concerns about politicizing federal institutions.

Rogan’s commentary continued in a separate episode with Tom Segura, where both comedians questioned Trump’s judgment and compared the displays to “African dictatorship” tactics. Segura suggested Trump might be “losing it,” while Rogan warned “The White House stops being the White House” if such personalization becomes normalized. These statements from previously supportive voices indicate growing unease among independent conservatives about institutional overreach, even when executed by their preferred candidate.

Constitutional Implications for Presidential Powers

The controversy raises fundamental questions about presidential authority over federal property and whether such displays violate principles of institutional neutrality. While presidents possess executive authority over White House decor, using taxpayer-funded federal buildings for partisan attacks against predecessors tests constitutional boundaries regarding separation of powers and institutional dignity. The plaques effectively transform the people’s house into a personal political platform, potentially setting precedents that future administrations could exploit for ideological purposes.

Conservative constitutional scholars should examine whether such displays represent legitimate presidential prerogative or institutional vandalism that undermines the office’s dignity. The White House serves as both executive residence and symbol of American democratic traditions, making partisan alterations particularly problematic for constitutional governance. If unchecked, this precedent could lead to each administration rewriting history according to political preferences, eroding the stability and neutrality that Americans expect from federal institutions.