IndyCar fans can't even believe the latest 'Donald Trump Indy 500' complaint

Racing is a niche sport. Every hardcore motorsport fan knows that and has been exposed to many a non-hardcore fan over the years.

I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that since I became a fan, I've had folks ask me things like "where is the Indy 500 this year?" or "who is doing the halftime show?", beyond the usual, yet baffling, IndyCar/NASCAR confusion, and the odd racing discussion that never actually gets off the ground because a third party who you weren't talking to to begin with refuses to see your passion as more than "traffic going around in circles".

We've all been there, and if you don't love every minute of it, maybe you should.

It's especially funny when mainstream news sources that make a living manufacturing political drama and could not give a rat's behind about IndyCar (or any other motorsport) on a normal day decide to get involved when something within one of those niches happens to be trending in a broader sense.

But I've never quite seen something as hilarious as the article that "New Republic" published about why the upcoming Freedom 250 Grand Prix in Washington D.C. is a terrible idea.

D.C. race a 'bad idea' because Trump is involved and race cars make noise

When the race was first announced, it was obvious that this sentiment was going to exist, because anything President Donald Trump touches will inherently be crucified, even when it has nothing to do with politics or anybody's (including his) views on issues facing the country. It's been that way for 11 years now.

The IndyCar race in D.C. was not actually Trump's idea, and the writer, despite referring to it as "Trump’s Indy 500" (lol), correctly adds that it was the "brainchild of Bud Denker, president of the Penske Corporation ... and Erik Shanks, chief executive of Fox Sports."

I really don't care about politics, so when you start talking about the Iran War in the middle of an article that's supposed to be about an IndyCar race, yeah, there are going to be some questions. Not everything needs to be a political statement just because someone who did something in politics also has a life outside of politics. Like Graham Rahal said to these very posers when this race was first announced, "get a life".

The first two paragraphs of the article are literally nothing more than an anti-Trump tirade (like every other article he's recently written) about things that have nothing to do with IndyCar.

Somehow ICE deportations and the sale of a federal building make an IndyCar race a terrible idea. It reeks of a "had this happened in 2021, *crickets*" type of vibe, if you know what I mean. Case in point: the article conveniently fails to point out that Democratic D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, far from Trump's biggest fan, is also a huge fan of the event.

So for that reason, you sort of knew where the rest was headed, especially as the writer continuously referred to the event as "an Indy 500 race", which, of course, it is not.

But oh my word, you still weren't prepared for the rest.

"It’s hard to imagine a worse place than the National Mall for an Indy 500 race."

Spot on, brother. You nailed it. Good thing the Indy 500 has only literally ever been held at Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Or, as you call it, "Indianapolis 500 Speedway". Wherever the heck in the Smithsonian that is.

The whole basis (aside from the Iran War, or something like that) of why the race is supposedly terrible is because "race car loud", and somehow that is going to cause mass destruction to the National Mall and its plethora of monuments and museums.

Formula 1 races on street tracks. IndyCar races on street tracks. NASCAR races on street tracks. This isn't new. And this "issue" is literally not an issue. Anywhere. IndyCar won't be doing 200 miles per hour on a seven-turn, 1.7-mile street course, and temporary barriers do exist. Ask anybody who has been around the sport for five minutes. It's not even a point worth debating.

"The noise level at an Indy 500 race is closer to 140 decibels, which is roughly equivalent to standing next to a jet engine."

Okay, yes, IndyCar is a loud sport. I did lose my voice talking/yelling during this year's actual Indy 500, to the point where Felix Rosenqvist made fun of me in our post-race interview. But again, anybody who has actually been to "an Indy 500 race" (or any IndyCar race) knows it's not as bad as you'd expect. NASCAR is worse, and the "standing next to a jet engine" comparison is totally asinine.

It's not rocket science, if for no other reason than the fact that these aren't actual rockets.

The Indianapolis 500 Speedway of Washington D.C. (known to actual IndyCar fans as Indianapolis Motor Speedway, in Speedway, Indiana) literally houses its own museum. You don't see cars flying through windows and trophies smashing through walls whenever cars are on the race track.

These precious historical relics aren't going to be riding along with the cars throughout the race. Cars are going to be zooming past where they are distantly situated, with multiple layers of protection in between. If that actually causes a collision between the Wright brothers’ plane and Charles Lindbergh’s Spirit of St. Louis, I will literally donate 50 cents to contribute toward fixing the damage.

"Did the Trump administration go through the required Section 106 process? Only half-assedly."

Seriously, what does that even mean? I'm an IndyCar guy, so I'm not going to try to pretend to understand national monument lingo (although the flip side of that sentiment was clearly not reciprocated).

But every supporting detail the author includes backs up the idea that nothing about this race is illegal or unconstitutional or anti-Abe Lincoln Memorial (which caused its own bizarre controversy in May), and any questions are based on standard uncertainty over a new event, not fact.

Again, the preparation for this event extends far beyond Trump, but when his name is involved, it's the only name some folks see. And it's the name that's always used to guarantee emotional reactions, rather than logical, fact-based opinions.

A better question: did this author go through the process of IndyCar 101 before unleashing the piece? Or, as some might say, only you-know-what-edly?

Because the only thing I take away from this is that Donald Trump is responsible for inventing sound, and sound should be banned from the District of Columbia (just for two days, of course) to protect museums that are exposed to far worse on ordinary weekdays.

On a serious note, we get that not everybody agrees with everything. There may very well be people opposed to this event; we have had our own reservations regarding event security.

But when somebody is truly opposed to something, you would think that they'd have a legitimate reason, rather than needing to resort to making things up, because quite frankly, if you need to make things up to prove your point, it's clearly not as bad as the point you're trying to make then, is it?

By the way, when do we get the obligatory "wasting fuel" and "bad for the environment" nonsense chucked into the mix?

This is fake adversarial behavior which exists for no other reason than political posturing. It has nothing to do with the race or car noise, and IndyCar fans can clearly see right through it. It's not our first rodeo. If your argument against "an Indy 500 race" is jet engines and Trump's handling of Iran, maybe you should sit this one out.