Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What recordings or broadcasts contain Nick Fuentes calling for violence or exclusion against Jewish people?
Executive Summary
Nick Fuentes has repeatedly produced recorded broadcasts and speeches that contain explicit antisemitic content, including denials of the Holocaust, conspiratorial claims that “Jews are running society,” and calls framed in exclusionary or violent terms; one explicit Rumble episode from March 28, 2025 includes a quoted exhortation that links Jewish control to broad social prescriptions and punitive proposals [1]. Major platforms and reporting outlets document removals and bans tied to those statements, while background reporting traces Fuentes’ ideology to white supremacist and Holocaust-denying movements, providing a pattern of hostile rhetoric toward Jewish people [2] [3]. This analysis extracts the specific claims, lists the most directly relevant recordings and platform responses, and situates those materials within broader journalistic and platform-based reporting through late 2025.
1. What the primary recordings and broadcasts actually say — a forensic reading of the evidence
The clearest, directly quoted instance in the provided materials is the March 28, 2025 edition of America First published on Rumble, which contains a recording in which Fuentes states, “Jews are running society, women need to shut the fuck up, Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part, and we would live in paradise,” a sentence that combines conspiratorial attribution to Jews with prescriptions of exclusion and punitive measures for other groups [1]. Other sources document that Fuentes' podcast and public appearances include Holocaust denial and comparisons to Adolf Hitler; those statements constitute an explicit ideological framework that targets Jewish people with delegitimization and historical revisionism [2] [3]. The quoted Rumble episode is the most direct audio transcription in the record provided; additional program episodes and interviews are described as containing antisemitic rhetoric though not all are quoted verbatim in the materials supplied [4] [3].
2. Where those recordings appeared and how platforms reacted — tracing removals and bans
Reporting shows that Fuentes’ America First podcast and related audio material have been removed or deplatformed by multiple services for violating hate-speech policies. Spotify removed his podcast citing hate-speech rule violations and numerous inflammatory, antisemitic remarks including Holocaust denial as part of the rationale [2]. Media coverage and platform notices note repeated deplatforming across mainstream social networks over time; Fuentes has been banned from several platforms for hate speech, a pattern consistent with content moderation decisions documented in 2022 and reiterated in later reporting [3]. The Rumble-hosted March 28, 2025 episode remained accessible in some venues and was subsequently cited by journalists as direct evidence of calls for exclusionary or punitive measures against Jewish people, which in turn prompted renewed moderation and public scrutiny [1].
3. How journalists and researchers frame Fuentes’ rhetoric — pattern, ideology, and historical context
Multiple journalistic profiles and investigations frame Fuentes’ statements as part of a sustained white supremacist, antisemitic ideology that includes Holocaust denial and invocation of antisemitic tropes such as “globalist” conspiracies. Reporting in 2022 characterized him as a Holocaust denier and white supremacist who uses coded and explicit language to promote antisemitic narratives [3]. Later coverage in 2025 ties his rhetoric to tangible calls for exclusion and punishment in recorded broadcasts, reinforcing the view that his rhetorical pattern is not isolated incidents but a consistent ideological stance [4] [3]. This body of reporting places individual quotations into a broader pattern of dehumanizing and delegitimizing Jewish people, which is relevant to assessments by platforms and civil-society monitors.
4. Disagreements, gaps, and where evidence is strongest — assessing standards of proof
The most provable claims are those directly quoted or transcribed in recordings, such as the March 28, 2025 Rumble episode; those quotations meet evidentiary standards for demonstrating calls that link Jewish people to societal control and propose exclusionary measures [1]. Other allegations—like calls for explicit physical violence—appear in broader reporting summarizing Fuentes’ rhetoric and history [2] [3], but not every source provides verbatim recordings of explicit commands to commit violence against Jewish people. This distinction matters for legal and platform-policy characterizations: direct quotes from recordings establish clear factual content, while generalized summaries require cross-checking against original audio/video where available. Journalists and platforms have relied on both quoted clips and broader archival review to reach moderation decisions.
5. Motives, agendas, and how different actors have used these recordings — interpreting the fallout
Media outlets, platforms, and advocacy groups have used the recordings to justify deplatforming and to warn about the spread of antisemitic organizing; those actors emphasize public safety and policy compliance when removing content [2] [3]. Fuentes’ supporters and some commentators have framed moderation as political censorship or as selective enforcement against a specific viewpoint, an argument visible in reaction pieces and in debates over free speech that often surface after high-profile removals [3]. Independent journalists and researchers emphasize pattern evidence—Holocaust denial, conspiratorial anti-Jewish framing, and specific recorded quotes—as the basis for treating these broadcasts as antisemitic and exclusionary. The record supplied shows both direct quoted incriminating material and broader contextual reporting, enabling robust factual assessment while also exposing how interpretations align with differing institutional priorities [1] [2] [3].