Douglas Murray’s clash with Joe Rogan ignites a firestorm: Everything you need to know

When Douglas Murray, the British neoconservative author and cultural critic, sat down with comedian Dave Smith on The Joe Rogan Experience on April 10, 2025, few could have predicted the firestorm that would follow.

The nearly three-hour episode, titled "#2303 - Dave Smith & Douglas Murray," quickly became a viral sensation, racking up 1.9 million views on YouTube within 24 hours.

But it wasn’t the usual mix of Rogan’s eclectic topics, UFC, psychedelics, or conspiracy theories, that drove the buzz. Instead, it was Murray’s blistering critique of what he called the “shapeshifting Right” and the unchecked influence of podcasters like Rogan himself that set the internet ablaze, exposing deep fault lines in the political discourse of 2025.

The Spark: Murray’s Challenge to Rogan’s Platform

Murray, a longtime defender of Western civilization and Israel, used his third appearance on Rogan’s podcast to launch a pointed attack on the role of podcasters in shaping public opinion. With 11 million listeners per episode and a global reach spanning 190 countries, Rogan’s platform is a cultural juggernaut, often rivaling traditional media in influence.

But Murray argued that this power comes with a responsibility that Rogan has failed to uphold. He accused the host of “opening the door” to unqualified voices who peddle misinformation under the guise of “just asking questions,” thereby mainstreaming fringe views that mislead millions.

The critique zeroed in on Rogan’s guest selection, with Murray naming two controversial figures: Darryl Cooper and Ian Carroll. Cooper, host of The Martyr Made podcast, had previously claimed on Rogan’s show that Winston Churchill was the “chief villain” of World War II, alleging Churchill’s decisions unnecessarily prolonged the conflict, a view he doubled down on during an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s podcast, suggesting Nazi atrocities stemmed from poor planning rather than intent.

Carroll, a YouTuber known for promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, had also been a guest, discussing historical conflicts despite lacking credentials. Murray didn’t hold back: “If you only get the contrary view, which is: isn’t it fun if we all pretend that Churchill was the bad guy of the 20th century, at some point you’re going to lead people down a path where they think that’s the view. And that’s horseshit of the most profound kind.”

Murray also highlighted Jake Shields, a former Rogan guest who later questioned the scale of the Holocaust on another podcast, suggesting that 6 million Jews were not killed. Framing this as an “exercise of power,” Murray argued that Rogan’s platform amplifies dangerous ideas without sufficient counterbalance.

He pressed Rogan directly: “Since the war in Ukraine began, and the war in Israel began, you’ve had quite a lot of people who are very against both, in different ways. Do you think you’ve had enough people who are supportive of either war?” Rogan conceded a tilt, admitting, “Yeah, probably, more tilted towards the idea that perhaps the way they’ve [Israel has] done it is barbaric.”

A Clash Over Expertise and Free Speech

At the heart of Murray’s argument was a broader concern about the role of expertise in public discourse. He accused Rogan and Smith of hiding behind their non-expert status, claiming they’re “just comedians” or “just asking questions”, when challenged on the accuracy of their claims. “If you throw a lot of shit out there, there’s some point at which ‘I’m just raising questions’ is not a valid thing anymore,” Murray said. “You’re not asking questions. You’re telling people something.”

He urged Rogan to invite more verified experts to provide balance, a suggestion that sparked a heated debate about who gets to speak on complex issues in an era where trust in traditional institutions is at an all-time low.

The episode also veered into a contentious discussion on the Israel-Hamas conflict, further exposing ideological divides. Smith, an anti-war libertarian and vocal anti-Zionist, argued that the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks were a result of Israel’s efforts to “prevent a Palestinian state,” comparing Gaza to a concentration camp.

Murray, who had spent extensive time in the Middle East researching his new book, On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization, countered that the war “is a result of Hamas deciding to start another war with Israel and trying to annihilate their neighbor.” He decried the lack of global sympathy for Israeli victims post-October 7, attributing it to misinformation and anti-Israel sentiment among younger generations.

A particularly polarizing moment came when Murray challenged Smith’s authority to speak on the conflict, noting that Smith had never visited Israel or Gaza. “You’ve never been [to Israel or Gaza]. Am I not allowed to talk about it now?” Smith, a Jewish grandson of a Holocaust survivor, called it a “non-argument,” asking whether one needed to visit Nazi Germany to have an opinion on it.

Rogan echoed Smith, questioning if someone must “go and touch the ground” of a location to discuss it. Murray doubled down, insisting he wouldn’t “talk about a country even in passing” unless he had been there, a stance so obviously correct that it had the internet in fierce and immediate denial.

Public Reaction: A Divided Response

The episode’s fallout was immediate and polarizing, with reactions splitting along ideological lines. Supporters of Murray, particularly from conservative and pro-Israel circles, praised his willingness to confront Rogan head-on.

President Donald Trump endorsed Murray on Truth Social on April 13, 2025, promoting his new book and commending his “firsthand reporting” on the Israel-Hamas conflict. “My friend, Douglas Murray, just released a new book, ‘On Democracies and Death Cults,’ and it is quickly becoming a Best Seller!” Trump wrote, aligning himself with Murray’s critique of misinformation and his pro-Israel stance.

The Spectator, where Murray serves as an associate editor, backed his argument, noting, “We saw years of crazy left overreach… And completely predictably, there are now figures on the right playing with really dark and ugly stuff on their side.” National Reviewechoed this, commending Murray for not letting up over the three-hour episode.

But Murray’s critics were equally vocal. OutKick called his argument “baffling,” particularly his claim that one cannot discuss a place without visiting it. Writer David Hookstead argued, “You absolutely do not need to visit a place to have an opinion on it or discuss it. I’ve never been to prison, but I can confidently say I wouldn’t like it.” Hookstead also criticized Murray for attempting to “shut down Smith and Rogan” rather than engaging with their arguments, and took issue with a non-American “coming to Texas to shoot an interview and then telling two American citizens what they should be allowed to talk about,” invoking First Amendment rights.

On X, @PURPLEREIGN26 accused Murray of misrepresenting Rogan’s format, claiming he “implied multiple people were fake experts, when they had never called themselves experts,” and noted that Murray “got offended repeatedly.” YouTuber Heidi tweeted, “Douglas Murray is absolutely insufferable. Very difficult to listen to,” reflecting a sentiment among some of Rogan’s audience that Murray came across as elitist.

UnHerd noted that Murray’s appeals to authority made him seem “somewhat elitist,” and that his suggestion to feature more “establishment” voices could taint Rogan’s anti-establishment credibility with his audience.

Tablet Magazine described the debate as failing to “move the needle,” arguing that neither side convinced the other’s supporters, and that Murray “stumbled” on the issue of experience-based knowledge, as many reporters who have visited Gaza and Israel share Smith’s views.

Media Analysis: A Broader Debate on Influence

Media outlets offered nuanced takes on the controversy. Newsweek highlighted Rogan’s history of criticism for spreading misinformation, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and noted past rebukes from figures like Sam Harris, who blamed Rogan for contributing to a “politically shattered” society.

The Independent and TheWrap focused on Murray’s specific accusations, noting Rogan’s platforming of conspiracy theorists like Carroll and Cooper, whose comments were seen as sympathetic to Hitler. They reported Rogan’s defense, that he’s merely curious about alternative views, but noted Murray’s counter that such curiosity doesn’t absolve the responsibility of amplifying dangerous ideas.

The Hollywood Reporter zeroed in on a key exchange where Murray challenged Rogan’s “just asking questions” philosophy, stating, “You’re not asking questions. You’re telling people something.” The outlet reported divided reactions among Rogan’s viewers, with some agreeing that the podcast had become “counter-factual to an extreme,” while others felt guests shouldn’t need to be experts to discuss a topic.

A highly upvoted post on the Joe Rogan subreddit supported Murray, arguing that the show “thrives” with experts or humorous guests but “goes off the rails” with uninformed ones.

UnHerd provided a balanced analysis, suggesting that both Murray and Smith were “at once correct and wrong.” It argued that Smith was right that one doesn’t need credentials to speak on a topic, especially since politics affects the broader public, but Murray raised valid concerns about Rogan’s amplification of conspiracists without pushback.

The outlet described the “podcast-bro ecosystem” as a bubble where pseudoscience, junk history, and conspiracy theories are treated as “forbidden knowledge,” a problem without a simple solution.

The New American framed the debate as a question of “free-speech rights vs. responsibilities,” comparing Rogan to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who countered the establishment narrative without offering equal time, suggesting Rogan’s role as a counterbalance to mainstream media might justify his approach.

The Bigger Picture: A Fractured Right and the Power of Podcasts

The controversy explains the growing influence of podcasters in 2025, a year marked by heightened political polarization and ongoing global conflicts. Rogan’s platform, with its anti-establishment appeal, has become a lightning rod for debates about free speech and responsibility.

His 2024 endorsement of Donald Trump, who went on to win the presidency, highlighted his political clout, but also intensified scrutiny of his guest choices. The episode with Murray and Smith exposed a deeper divide on the political Right, pitting neoconservative interventionists like Murray against anti-war libertarians like Smith, with the Israel-Hamas conflict serving as a flashpoint.

Murray’s critique also tapped into broader anxieties about misinformation in the digital age. His examples of Holocaust denial and historical revisionism, spread by Rogan’s platform, exemplified the real-world consequences of unchecked discourse. Yet defenders of Rogan argue that open dialogue, even with controversial figures, is a cornerstone of free speech, allowing audiences to critically engage with ideas.

As the dust settles, the episode leaves a lingering question: in an era where podcasters rival traditional media in influence, how do we balance the right to speak with the responsibility to inform?