Quick Read
- Sabrina Carpenter condemned the White House for using her hit song ‘Juno’ in an official ICE video showing detentions.
- The White House defended its actions, stating it would not apologize for deporting ‘dangerous criminals,’ and dismissed Carpenter’s objections.
- Other artists, such as Olivia Rodrigo and MGMT, have also objected to the unauthorized use of their music in government videos.
- Legal and ethical debates continue over the use of popular music in political and government messaging without artists’ consent.
Sabrina Carpenter’s Music Used Without Consent in White House ICE Video
On December 2, 2025, pop sensation Sabrina Carpenter became the latest artist to find her music at the center of a political firestorm. The controversy erupted after the White House posted a video on its official X (formerly Twitter) account, featuring a montage of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers detaining and handcuffing individuals. The soundtrack? Carpenter’s hit 2024 single, “Juno.” The video’s caption echoed one of the song’s most viral lyrics: “Have you ever tried this one? Bye-bye,” punctuated with playful emojis.
The video quickly spread across social media, but the reaction was anything but lighthearted. Many were shocked to see the upbeat pop track juxtaposed with scenes of high-stakes law enforcement. Carpenter herself responded within hours, posting on X: “this video is evil and disgusting. Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.” (CNBC, NBC News)
Artists Push Back on Political Use of Their Work
Carpenter’s outcry isn’t unique. In recent months, a growing list of artists—including Beyoncé, Neil Young, ABBA, Celine Dion, MGMT, and Olivia Rodrigo—have objected to the Trump administration’s unauthorized use of their songs in campaign events and government social media content. Some, like MGMT and Rodrigo, have issued takedown requests or public statements demanding that their music not be used to promote what they describe as “propaganda” or “hateful messaging.”
In Carpenter’s case, her team declined further comment, directing reporters to her original statement on X. But her stance was clear: she did not authorize the use of her work and finds the administration’s message antithetical to her values. “Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda,” she reiterated.
Similar stories have played out repeatedly in 2025. Last month, rock band MGMT pushed back after their song “Little Dark Age” featured in another Department of Homeland Security (DHS) video. In November, Olivia Rodrigo’s track “all-american b—” was removed from a DHS Instagram video after she called out the agency for using her music to soundtrack immigration enforcement clips. Nintendo, too, issued a statement after the DHS used the “Pokémon” theme song in a video, clarifying it had not granted permission.
White House Defends Its Actions, Escalates the Rhetoric
The White House was unapologetic. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told multiple outlets, “Here’s a Short n’ Sweet message for Sabrina Carpenter: we won’t apologize for deporting dangerous criminal illegal murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from our country. Anyone who would defend these sick monsters must be stupid, or is it slow?” The phrase “Short n’ Sweet” was a pointed reference to Carpenter’s 2024 breakout album—the very project that made her a household name.
The administration’s response was as combative as it was dismissive, framing the issue not as one of artistic rights, but of public safety and law enforcement. The official stance: the removal of “dangerous criminals” takes precedence over artists’ objections to the use of their intellectual property. Jackson’s statement, echoing sentiments from prior controversies, suggests the administration sees such objections as political grandstanding rather than legitimate concerns.
Public Reaction: Fans Rally, Critics Push Back
Online, Carpenter’s fans and fellow artists rallied behind her, commending her for speaking out against what they saw as the misuse of her music to promote an “inhumane agenda.” Many praised Carpenter and her pop contemporaries—like Olivia Rodrigo—for using their platforms to support vulnerable groups and challenge government messaging.
Yet, not all responses were supportive. Some critics, defending the White House’s stance, argued that the government’s priority should be “putting Americans first” and characterized Carpenter’s criticism as misplaced or even hypocritical. A few referenced previous controversies involving Carpenter, including the use of religious imagery in her music videos, suggesting she had no moral ground to call the administration’s actions “evil or disgusting.”
The debate quickly spilled beyond music and politics, morphing into a broader conversation about the boundaries between art, activism, and state messaging. For some, the government’s use of popular music in enforcement videos trivialized the gravity of immigration policy. For others, the backlash from artists was seen as an overreach—an attempt to control how their work is interpreted in the public square.
Legal and Ethical Questions Linger
This isn’t the first time the use of music in political or government messaging has raised questions about copyright, consent, and artistic intent. While public performances at rallies have long been contentious, the rise of social media and short-form video has made unauthorized music use more visible—and arguably more consequential. The rapid-fire nature of platforms like X, Instagram, and TikTok means that even brief unauthorized uses can reach millions, often before an artist or rights-holder can respond.
Legal experts note that while copyright law offers some recourse, the boundaries are not always clear, especially when the government invokes “fair use” or claims its messaging serves a public interest. The pattern of artists objecting and agencies either ignoring or quietly editing posts continues, with each new controversy adding fuel to the debate.
For now, the White House video featuring “Juno” remains online, a digital artifact of a larger struggle: the contest between creative control and political messaging, between artists’ voices and the machinery of state communication.
The facts of this episode reveal a deepening rift between the cultural power wielded by contemporary artists and the political authority of state institutions. As more artists demand a say in how their work is used—and as government agencies push the boundaries of digital messaging—the struggle over ownership, meaning, and public influence in the age of viral media shows no sign of abating.