Ben Rhodes says using wealth to suppress dissent will backfire

Writer and foreign-policy commentator, former deputy national security adviser, posting on X

When your only response to dissent is to use power and wealth to make it go away, you are going to have the opposite effect. People can see what’s happening in the Middle East with their eyes and don’t want to be told what they’re allowed to think by people who own stadiums.
Read the original post (opens in a new tab)Ben Rhodes on the response to dissent over Macklemore’s removalPost by @brhodes timestamped 9:17 p.m. ET, September 15, 2026 (2026-09-16T01:17:02Z), quote-posting Consequence’s item “Ed Sheeran is now without any opening acts or a backing band.”

Source and context

Original post

Ben Rhodes on the response to dissent over Macklemore’s removal (opens in a new tab)Post by @brhodes timestamped 9:17 p.m. ET, September 15, 2026 (2026-09-16T01:17:02Z), quote-posting Consequence’s item “Ed Sheeran is now without any opening acts or a backing band.”

About this source

Read directly from the post. The account is Ben Rhodes’s, with a bio identifying Pod Save the World and his authorship. The post quote-posts a Consequence report on Sheeran losing his supporting acts, which ties it explicitly to this dispute rather than to the conflict in general.

Before the quotation

Consequence had reported hours earlier that Sheeran was left without any opening acts or a backing band after the four supporting acts withdrew.

After the quotation

Rhodes does not name Macklemore, Sheeran or Robert Kraft. His reference to “people who own stadiums” tracks the venue owners at the centre of this dispute, and his characterisation of events in the Middle East is his own.

How this statement is classified

Defended or excused

Case context: Macklemore’s “Free Palestine” speech and removal from Ed Sheeran’s U.S. tour

The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.

Why this label?

Relative to Macklemore’s MetLife speech and his removal, Rhodes casts the response to that speech as an attempt to use power and wealth to make dissent disappear, and rejects the idea that stadium owners should determine what audiences may think. He defends the speech and criticises those who pressed for the removal. The quote-posted item about Sheeran losing his supporting acts establishes the connection to this dispute rather than to the wider conflict.

Recorded on
Published here
People and groups discussed
Macklemore

More from this case

Read the full case

Jonathan Greenblatt

Glad to see Macklemore off Ed Sheeran’s tour. For years, Macklemore has pushed antisemitic tropes and demonized Israel and Israelis. Now he certainly has the 1A right to speak out and express his views, but demonizing Jews and Israelis shouldn’t be rewarded.
Read statement

Richard Boyd Barrett

So proud of Aaron. A brave and selfless act to stand with Palestine & humanity against Israel’s barbarism and the billionaires that support their crimes. Aaron you have upheld Ireland’s noble tradition of resistance to colonialism & Empire. So proud!
Read statement

Rashida Tlaib

Folks have platforms and use their positions to express their feelings around human rights, around protecting people, but it seems there’s always an exception when it comes to Palestinian lives.” … “It’s unfortunate because he said he doesn’t want to take sides, but he did on Ukraine. ‘I’m for human rights,’ except for Palestinians. … There’s always an exception for Palestinian people, as if we’re disposable.” … “I stopped respecting him.
Read statement