February 18, 2026
Clocking It: The Political Rundown — Halfway Clocked
They weren’t just commentators , they were kingmakers. Podcasters, streamers, and digital tastemakers helped carry Donald Trump’s message deep into youth culture in 2024, translating political power into cultural legitimacy. They didn’t just amplify him, they normalized him. Now many of those same voices are walking away. Some express regret. Others sound alarms. A few are burning the bridge entirely.
So far this week doesn’t feel like quiet distancing. It feels like a public rupture that is loud, emotional, and unmistakable. This isn’t just a political story. It’s a cultural one. The same creators who helped shape the vibe of a political era are now disavowing it. And when tastemakers withdraw legitimacy, that isn’t just opinion change, it’s a signal that the culture itself may be moving on.
The Podcasters Who Built the Platform Are Now Burning It
They gave him reach.
They gave him credibility.
They gave him cultural clout.
Now, they’re giving him something else: public regret.
Across podcasts, livestreams, and social media broadcasts in recent weeks, several high-visibility figures who once amplified Trump’s campaign messaging have shifted from endorsement to indictment, publicly, emotionally, and without coordination. That’s what makes this culturally significant.
Andrew Schulz: “I Voted for None of This”
Last July, he voiced clear political disillusionment:
“I voted for none of this. Trump is doing the exact opposite of everything I voted for.”
At that stage, his reaction reflected frustration — the sense that the leadership he supported was not governing the way he expected.
Last month, that frustration escalated into alarm when he addressed enforcement actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
“I didn’t know that this was possible to happen in the United States of America. What we’ve seen ICE doing entering homes without warrants, it’s unconstitutional. When you’re willing to shred the Constitution to preserve your ideas of what should happen, it is incredibly un-American. I just think it’s an important thing to speak out against, I think it’s horrific.”
At that point, his concern was no longer about expectations versus results, it was about what he viewed as constitutional boundaries being crossed.
Today, Schulz says the situation has fundamentally changed how he sees the moment.
He argues that what Donald Trump’s administration is doing with ICE reflects the very scenario critics warned could happen, and that the institutional safeguards many assumed would intervene simply haven’t.
The systems people trusted to restrain overreach didn’t activate. The Constitution didn’t function as an automatic barrier. And the response from Trump and Kash Patel, in his view, reinforced those concerns rather than easing them.
He captured the underlying suspicion bluntly:
“Clearly there’s something that Trump does not want to get out.”
Schulz is no longer just expressing dissatisfaction with policy choices. He’s questioning whether the structural protections people rely on to limit power are functioning at all. And when prominent cultural voices begin openly saying those safeguards have failed, that moves beyond ordinary political criticism. It signals deeper institutional anxiety, and that carries cultural weight.
Joe Rogan: “This Is Not a Hoax”
Joe Rogan has gone from skepticism to full-throttle condemnation. What began as unease with tone and optics has hardened into open alarm over concealment, institutional failure, and apparent protection of powerful figures in the Epstein case. He has been blunt:
“This is NOT a hoax.”
Rogan cited troubling details he believes reveal systemic problems: 330 gallons of sulfuric acid ordered after indictment, emails praising torture videos, and redacted names that are not identified as victims. Then came the pointed question:
“If you’re not protecting victims… who are you protecting?”
He repeatedly challenged the administration’s redactions:
“Why is [the sultan who sent Epstein the torture video]’s name redacted? What is this? This is not good. None of this is good for this administration. It looks fcking terrible. It looks terrible for Trump when he was saying that none of this was real. This is all a hoax.”
“This is not a hoax. Like, did you not know? Maybe he didn’t know, if you want to be charitable, but this is definitely not a hoax. And if you got redacted people’s names, and these people aren’t victims, you’re not protecting the victim. So what are you doing? And how come all this sht is not released?”
Rogan, last year, also criticized symbolic displays associated with Trump’s presidency, particularly controversial plaques installed in a “Wall of Fame”-style presentation at the White House that mocked or targeted past presidents.
“There’s nothing nuttier than the plaques underneath the President’s names. It’s insane. How is this real? How are you allowed to do that? The autopen photo of Joe Biden? Crazy. Reagan was a fan of Trump. What? Nuts.”
Rogan has been criticizing Trump since last year. Following the backlash surrounding a social media post by Donald Trump following the murder of filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife, Trump publicly framed Reiner’s death through a political lens, attributing it to what he called “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a fake medical condition that exists only in his head. Rogan condemned Trump’s statement as morally unacceptable:
“It was not funny. There’s no justification for what he did in a compassionate society. Imagine if Obama tweeted something about someone after they died in this way?”
For Rogan, this is more than optics or policy, it signals that powerful people appear shielded while victims are not protected. When someone who helped normalize political figures publicly states that the administration’s handling “looks f*cking terrible” and that this is not a hoax, the narrative itself fractures. His criticism is loud, clear, and culturally consequential: when a normalization engine starts signaling that the guardrails failed, the story is no longer fringe, it’s breaking.
Adin Ross: “I Wish I Never Got Into Politics”
Ross once publicly aligned himself with Trump, including an interview at Mar-a-Lago and extensive pro-Trump content across livestream platforms. Now he describes that period as reputationally damaging.
“Now that I look back on it, I really really wish I never got into politics… I know y’all didn’t like that era at all.”
He also noted a dramatic shift in his social circles after archiving Trump-related content:
“The amount of people that respond to me on Instagram after I archived the Trump sh*t — night and day.”
Ross’s reversal reflects something structurally important: When political affiliation begins to cost cultural capital, distancing accelerates rapidly.
Nick Fuentes : Collapse From the Radical Flank
Perhaps the most revealing fracture is coming from the ideological extreme. Fuentes, once a vocal Trump supporter, has urged followers not to support the Republican Party in upcoming elections.
“F*ck Trump, F*ck MAGA, F*CK YOU! I hope the Democrats impeach him. I hope they impeach all of them!”
He has also framed the administration as engaging in a failed cover-up tied to Epstein-related records and has called for the political order itself to be replaced.
When movements fracture at the radical edge, it signals more than anger, it signals loss of ideological cohesion. Extremist supporters often function as enforcement mechanisms for loyalty and narrative discipline.When they disengage, movements lose their pressure-stabilizing core. That is not backlash. That is structural destabilization.
The Cultural Break Is Loud — And It’s Not Fringe
This is not a slow drift. It’s a legitimacy rupture. The podcasters, comedians, and streamers who helped normalize Trump for millions of young voters are not merely disagreeing with policy. They are questioning character, transparency, and institutional trust.
They are describing reputational cost. They are describing disillusionment. They are describing regret.
Political disagreement is routine. Cultural withdrawal is transformative.
While few high-profile voices remain loyal, the defections gaining attention are coming from figures who helped construct Trump’s cultural accessibility in the first place. That makes their reversal structurally significant, not anecdotal.
Influence created permission. Permission created normalization. Normalization created power. And now the same influence is withdrawing permission.
What Happens When Cultural Legitimacy Collapses
Political power can survive scandal. It can survive opposition. It can even survive institutional resistance. What it struggles to survive is loss of cultural permission, the moment when association becomes socially expensive rather than advantageous.
That is the shift unfolding now. When the people who built the platform begin dismantling it publicly, legitimacy doesn’t fade quietly. It fractures. It echoes. It spreads. The question is no longer whether the break is happening.
The question is how far cultural withdrawal travels once it starts, and whether political power can stabilize after the audience that normalized it stops believing in it. Cultural power doesn’t collapse when critics attack it. It collapses when its own amplifiers stop defending it.
Clocked. That’s the tea.
Photo: Duncan Cumming CC BY-NC 2.o
Author Bio
Andrew Greene is a quality-obsessed, results-driven powerhouse with nearly two decades of experience transforming complexity into clear, actionable solutions. His secret weapon? A mix of analytical sharpness, problem-solving precision and a communication and leadership style that’s equal parts clarity and charisma. From Quality Assurance to political data analysis, you can think of him as the Swiss Army knife of operational excellence, minus the corkscrew (unless it’s a team celebration).
![[The Decked Out Files] 001: The $2.9B Engineering of ‘Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring’ (2001)](https://deckedoutmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/decked-out-files-001-weta-workshop-bigature-engineering-products.webp)
