Kesha, Sabrina Carpenter & More Stars Slam Trump for Using Their Music Without Permission

The intersection of music and politics continues to spark controversy, as several prominent artists have publicly condemned the unauthorized utilize of their songs by political figures. This practice, often employed to energize rallies or underscore campaign messaging, has drawn criticism from musicians who argue their work is being exploited to promote agendas they do not support. The latest to voice her outrage is Kesha, who took to social media to denounce the White House for using her song “Blow” in a TikTok video depicting a military strike.

The unauthorized use of copyrighted material in political campaigns isn’t a modern phenomenon. For years, artists have grappled with the ethical and legal implications of having their music associated with political ideologies they oppose. While some artists remain silent, others have actively fought back, issuing cease-and-desist letters and publicly criticizing politicians for leveraging their creative work without permission. This ongoing tension highlights a complex debate surrounding artistic freedom, copyright law, and the influence of music in the political sphere. The core issue revolves around an artist’s right to control how their work is used and interpreted, particularly when it comes to potentially divisive political messaging.

Kesha Condemns White House Use of “Blow”

On March 4, 2026, Kesha publicly criticized the White House after a TikTok video featuring her 2010 hit “Blow” surfaced online. The video, posted by the official White House TikTok account (@whitehouse), depicted a military ship being struck by a missile, accompanied by the caption “Lethality.” Kesha responded on X (formerly Twitter), stating, “It’s come to my attention that The White House has used one of my songs on TikTok to incite violence and threaten war.”

It’s come to my attention that The White House has used one of my songs on TikTok to incite violence and threaten war. Trying to make light of war is disgusting and inhumane. I absolutely do NOT approve of my music being used to promote violence of any kind. Love always trumps hate. Please love yourself and each other in times like this.

— Kesha (@KeshaRose) March 3, 2026

She further emphasized her disapproval, adding, “Trying to make light of war is disgusting and inhumane. I absolutely do NOT approve of my music being used to promote violence of any kind. Love always trumps hate. Please love yourself and each other in times like this.” Kesha concluded by stating that the situation represented “a blatant disregard for human life” and was “the opposite of what I stand for.”

A Pattern of Protest: Other Artists Speak Out

Kesha is not alone in her opposition to the use of her music for political purposes. Several other artists have previously voiced their concerns regarding Donald Trump’s campaign and administration utilizing their songs without consent. These protests underscore a growing trend of musicians asserting their rights and challenging the appropriation of their work for political gain.

Sabrina Carpenter’s Response to White House Video

Singer-songwriter Sabrina Carpenter also recently condemned the White House for using her song “Juno” in a TikTok video (@whitehouse) that depicted immigration agents arresting individuals. Carpenter responded directly, calling the video “evil and disgusting” and demanding that her music not be used to support what she termed an “inhumane agenda.” According to reports, a White House spokesperson, Abigail Jackson, responded with a sharply worded statement defending the administration’s actions, stating they would not apologize for deporting individuals described as “dangerous criminal illegal murderers.” Carpenter’s music was subsequently removed from the video, though the initial use sparked widespread criticism.

Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler Issues Cease-and-Desist

In 2018, Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler issued a cease-and-desist letter to Donald Trump, demanding he stop using the band’s music at campaign events. The letter, released after “Livin’ on the Edge” was played at a rally in West Virginia, asserted that Trump had no right to use the band’s intellectual property without express written permission. Tyler clarified that his objection wasn’t politically motivated, but rather a matter of protecting copyright and the rights of songwriters. He tweeted at the time, “This is not about Democrats vs. Republicans. I do not let anyone use my songs without my permission.”

Celine Dion’s Disapproval of “My Heart Will Head On” Usage

Representatives for Celine Dion also expressed their disapproval when the Trump campaign used her iconic ballad “My Heart Will Go On” at rallies in 2023 and 2024. A statement released by Dion’s team questioned the appropriateness of using a song associated with the Titanic disaster in a political context, stating, “In no way is this use authorized, and Celine Dion does not endorse this or any similar use.” A video of Dion performing the song was shown at an August 2024 rally in Bozeman, Montana, prompting the response on social media (@celinedion).

Ozzy Osbourne and Sharon Osbourne’s Opposition

Ozzy Osbourne and his wife, Sharon Osbourne, similarly objected to the unauthorized use of Ozzy’s hit “Crazy Train” by the Trump campaign in 2019. The song was featured in a video mocking Democratic presidential candidates during a debate. The Osbournes sent a notice forbidding the campaign from using any of Ozzy’s music without approval, stating that his music was “not for political campaigns or rallies.” They even jokingly suggested alternative songs Trump could use, including tracks by Kanye West, Kid Rock, and Ted Nugent.

The Legal Landscape of Music and Politics

The use of copyrighted music in political campaigns raises complex legal questions. While there isn’t a specific law prohibiting the use of songs at rallies, artists retain copyright control over their work. Campaigns generally rely on a legal concept called “fair use,” which allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. However, the application of fair use is often subjective and can be challenged in court. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) license music for public performance, but these licenses don’t necessarily cover political endorsements or the creation of a false association between an artist and a campaign. According to legal experts, a campaign’s use of a song could be considered copyright infringement if it goes beyond fair use and harms the artist’s reputation or commercial interests. The United States Copyright Office provides detailed information on copyright law and fair use principles on its website (www.copyright.gov).

The ongoing disputes between artists and political campaigns highlight the need for clearer guidelines regarding the use of copyrighted music in the political arena. As musicians increasingly assert their rights and challenge unauthorized usage, the legal landscape surrounding this issue is likely to evolve. The debate underscores the importance of respecting artistic integrity and ensuring that artists have control over how their work is used and interpreted.

The issue of unauthorized music use in politics is likely to remain a point of contention as future campaigns unfold. Artists will likely continue to monitor and challenge the use of their music, and legal battles may arise as campaigns push the boundaries of fair use. The next significant development will likely be a legal challenge to the practice, potentially setting a precedent for future cases. Readers interested in following this issue can stay updated through news coverage from reputable sources like the Associated Press and Reuters.

What are your thoughts on artists protesting the use of their music in political campaigns? Share your opinions in the comments below, and don’t forget to share this article with your network.