By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During an AEW Dynamite event in Las Vegas, a live broadcast was briefly interrupted by an anti-ICE chant from the audience. The crowd, in a city with a significant Latino population and an increasing AEW Latino fanbase, erupted with “F— ICE” before the opening bell. This occurred as AEW champion MJF appeared surprised, while Brody King, who has been publicly outspoken against ICE and recently raised nearly $59,000 for immigrant communities through t-shirt sales, acknowledged the sentiment. King ultimately defeated MJF in the match.
Read the original article here
The roar of the crowd at an AEW pro wrestling show in Las Vegas took an unexpected and politically charged turn last Saturday night, as chants of “Fuck ICE!” erupted, momentarily pausing the highly anticipated main event match. This powerful demonstration from the audience underscored a growing discontent with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, a sentiment that appears to be resonating far beyond the typical political discourse and into the vibrant world of professional wrestling.
Brody King, a prominent wrestler involved in the main event, has been a vocal critic of ICE in the weeks leading up to this championship eliminator match. His stance isn’t just performative; King, who is also the lead vocalist for the hardcore band God’s Hate, has actively participated in fundraising efforts and collaborated with other artists to release merchandise aimed at raising money for organizations like the Minnesota Rights Action Committee. This commitment to his convictions was evident as he often graced the ring wearing “abolish ICE” shirts, further solidifying his outspoken opposition.
The AEW fan base, often perceived as more progressive than that of its rival WWE, seemed to wholeheartedly embrace King’s message and the broader anti-ICE sentiment. This is a promotion that has a history of showcasing diverse talent and voices, including a trans woman champion like Nyla Rose and openly gay wrestlers such as Anthony Bowens, who has experienced overwhelmingly positive crowd reactions. AEW’s willingness to allow its stars, like Hangman Adam Page, to express progressive political views has cultivated an environment where such fan engagement is not only tolerated but arguably encouraged.
The chant itself, a raw and unvarnished expression of frustration, began to gain momentum before King’s match even officially kicked off. The referee, Bryce Remsburg, is reported to have acknowledged the situation by intentionally delaying the start of the match, allowing the crowd to fully express their feelings. This pause in the action provided a stark visual of how deeply this issue has infiltrated mainstream entertainment.
The sentiment behind the chants points to a widespread belief that ICE operates without sufficient oversight and with a disregard for basic human rights. Many feel that the agency’s actions are not only incompetent and violent but also fundamentally corrosive to the principles of liberty and justice. This perspective suggests a deep-seated conviction that ICE’s methods are indefensible, regardless of one’s personal views on immigration policy.
The contrast drawn between those who see individuals within cages and those who view them as a threat is a particularly potent one. It highlights a fundamental disagreement on empathy and perspective, suggesting that a failure to see fellow human beings in such situations indicates a disturbing lack of compassion or a willful denial of reality. This viewpoint posits that ICE is not merely an enforcement agency but a mechanism that actively dehumanizes those it targets.
The idea that a significant portion of the country shares this anti-ICE sentiment is a powerful assertion. If a pro wrestling crowd, even one in a city that has seen a recent conservative lean, is largely unified against the agency, it suggests that its popularity is far lower than proponents might believe. The sheer number of individuals versus the relatively smaller number of ICE officers and agents fuels the notion that a tipping point is approaching.
The situation in Las Vegas, a city with a recent conservative voting record, makes this demonstration particularly noteworthy. It serves as a strong indicator of how deeply unpopular ICE and its current operational tactics have become across a broad spectrum of the population. This suggests that the agency’s approach is not resonating even with demographics that might typically be seen as more supportive of law enforcement.
Looking beyond the immediate chants, the question of what happens after ICE becomes paramount. The current phase is seen by some as a temporary one, with the potential for things to either improve or deteriorate further. The concern is about what comes next, whether ICE’s power is curtailed or, conversely, if more drastic measures, like military intervention against civilians, are employed.
The idea that losing pro wrestling fans could be a sign of broader societal decline is an interesting, albeit perhaps hyperbolic, observation. It touches on the cultural impact of entertainment and how shifts in audience sentiment can sometimes reflect deeper societal shifts. The suggestion that this trend could impact political outcomes, even in the face of perceived electoral errors, points to a complex interplay between culture and politics.
The context of Brody King’s match itself adds another layer to the story. He secured a significant victory, advancing to the final championship match. This victory, achieved after the chants, solidifies his position and amplifies the message he has been conveying. The fact that he defeated MJF, widely considered AEW’s biggest heel and a wrestler known for creating intense heat, in what was described as a squash match, further elevates King’s status and the impact of his political messaging.
For those outside the immediate wrestling community, King’s win might seem like just another match result. However, within the intricate narrative of AEW, where squash matches are specifically designed to build a wrestler’s dominance, this was a significant moment. MJF’s decisive loss to King in such a manner underlines the importance of the victory and, by extension, the importance of the message King represents.
The overall experience, from the crowd’s vocal protest to King’s decisive win, is seen as a positive development. It highlights the potential for wrestling to be more than just entertainment, serving as a platform for social commentary and a reflection of contemporary societal concerns. The energy and passion displayed by the AEW fan base in Las Vegas are indicative of a desire for change and a willingness to express it.
The comparison between AEW and WWE’s broader approaches also provides valuable context. While AEW is seen as fostering a more progressive environment, WWE’s ties to the current administration and its business dealings, such as its lucrative contract with Saudi Arabia for major events, paint a different picture. This contrast suggests that the wrestling landscape itself is divided on its political and social stances.
The notion that pro wrestling audiences, like those of the WNBA, are among the most progressive in sports is a compelling argument. It suggests that these fan bases are not only open to but actively embrace diverse perspectives and social commentary, viewing it as an integral part of the entertainment experience.
The harsh realities of ICE’s actions, including the alleged detention of children and the targeting of individuals attempting to immigrate legally, are central to the opposition’s narrative. The perceived failure to address actual criminals while creating fear and chaos for others is a point of significant contention. The idea that such an agency, created relatively recently, has become such a contentious issue points to a deep societal division.
For many, the concept of human rights being treated as a political football is a source of frustration. The argument is that basic human rights should be inalienable and not subject to partisan debate. The call for abolishing ICE, rather than seeking incremental reforms, reflects a desire for a fundamental restructuring of immigration enforcement.
The perspective of foreigners observing the situation adds an interesting dimension. The observation that other countries have strict immigration policies without the same level of controversy suggests that the American approach and its public perception are unique. The question of why Americans are so divided on this issue, while understandable, is a complex one.
The challenge of addressing the approximately 40% of the population that does not see a problem with the current ICE situation is a significant hurdle. This demographic presents a complex obstacle to widespread change, highlighting the depth of political polarization. The fear that “ICE in other names” could emerge if the agency were to be dismantled suggests a cyclical nature to the debate.
The notion that pro wrestling, often viewed as a mere “full contact stage play,” can foster such engaged and politically aware fan bases is fascinating. It challenges the perception of wrestling as purely escapist entertainment and instead positions it as a space where real-world issues can be reflected and discussed.
The extent to which wrestlers themselves have input into their characters and storylines is a point of curiosity, especially concerning a performer like MJF, known for his intense heel persona. The idea of him maintaining his character outside the ring, even to the point of tearing up a child’s poster, speaks to the power of performance and its potential to generate strong reactions, both positive and negative.
The suggestion that Americans continue to watch pro wrestling, even while seemingly making political missteps, is a point of both concern and mild amusement. It prompts reflection on the disconnect between cultural consumption and political decision-making. The hope that the message from the AEW crowd might continue to spread is a testament to the potential for grassroots activism.
The ultimate goal for many advocating for change is not simply reform but abolition. The belief is that the current system is irredeemably flawed and that a complete dismantling is necessary. The argument against “risk mitigation” or “reform” stems from a conviction that ICE’s fundamental nature is problematic.
The tragic stories of U.S. citizens killed by ICE agents, or subjected to abuse and mistreatment, serve as powerful evidence for those calling for the agency’s abolition. These accounts paint a picture of an agency that has strayed far from its stated mission and has become a source of terror and injustice, even for its own citizens. The question of whether other countries experience similar levels of violence and indiscriminate use of force by immigration officers highlights the perceived abnormality of the current U.S. situation.
The solidarity expressed by fans, including those who identify as Latino and are deeply affected by immigration issues, underscores the personal stakes involved. The commitment to continuing the chant at future events signals a sustained effort to keep the message alive. The difficulty in envisioning a future where such an agency can be effectively integrated into society points to the deep-seated distrust and the perceived unfixable nature of the problem. The risks associated with speaking out, for some, are a stark reminder of the power dynamics at play.