Greg Gutfeld criticized anti-ICE protesters for creating chaos and blocking facilities on Memorial Day, saying their actions amounted to a disrespectful disruption tied to a holiday meant for military remembrance.
On-air, Gutfeld accused the demonstrators of putting the cause of criminal illegal immigrants ahead of fallen soldiers and of manufacturing political spectacle rather than presenting a straightforward security concern. He framed their behavior in blunt terms — asking rhetorically, "Who cares…?" and likening the protesters to "drunk who destroys a hotel room," an image he used to underline what he described as needless destruction and attention-seeking.
The remarks ran during a cable news segment titled "Watch Greg Gutfeld: Anti-ICE Protests Undermine Country's Security - The Five," where Memorial Day provided the immediate backdrop for the criticism. By tying the protests to that holiday, Gutfeld made the dispute not only about tactics — blocking access to facilities, he said — but about timing and symbolism: demonstrators interrupting a day set aside to honor service and sacrifice.
Gutfeld stressed two accusations in quick succession: that protesters undermined security by blocking facilities on Memorial Day, and that their primary motive was political theater. That dual claim is the core friction in his critique. If the protest was chiefly a security breach, critics would point to concrete risks and targets; if it was chiefly spectacle, then the charge is moral and rhetorical. Gutfeld repeatedly returned to the idea that the demonstrations were engineered for attention, a tactic he presented as both disrespectful and destabilizing.
What Gutfeld did not do in the segment was name the specific facilities that were blocked on Memorial Day. Without that detail, his claim about security consequences rests on the broader allegation of chaos and on the force of his comparisons and moral judgments. The unresolved question — which ICE facilities were affected, where and to what extent — is the most consequential gap left by the critique: it determines whether the episode was primarily a disruptive stunt or a localized protest with limited operational impact.
