Sabrina Carpenter slams White House video that used her song, calling it “evil and disgusting.” That headline-worthy moment has quickly turned into a broader clash between pop culture and political messaging, after a White House social media post sparked outrage from the Grammy-winning singer.
A Video That Crossed the Line
The controversy began when the White House social media team shared a video featuring Carpenter’s song “Juno.” The clip showed law enforcement officers detaining individuals in what appeared to be immigration-related actions. Almost immediately, the post drew criticism online — and an even stronger response from the artist herself.
Carpenter, one of the biggest names in pop right now, didn’t mince words. She publicly condemned the video, calling it “evil and disgusting,” and made it clear she wanted no association with the message being promoted.
“Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda,” the singer wrote in a post on X.
When contacted for further comment, a representative for Carpenter pointed reporters back to that statement, underscoring that her position was final and unambiguous.
From Playful Performances to Political Fallout
The irony wasn’t lost on fans. During her tour, Carpenter has leaned into a tongue-in-cheek bit during performances of “Juno,” staging mock “arrests” of celebrity attendees and handing them pink, fluffy handcuffs. What’s meant to be lighthearted fan service, however, took on a very different tone when repurposed in a political context.
Rather than backing down, the White House doubled down. In a sharp response, officials used Carpenter’s own lyrics to frame their stance on immigration enforcement, defending the video and rejecting any apology. The statement’s aggressive language only intensified backlash across social media.
As of late Tuesday, the video in question remained live on both X and TikTok.
A Pattern of Music Without Permission
This incident isn’t happening in isolation. Under the administration of Donald Trump, the White House and affiliated agencies have repeatedly used popular music in social posts — often without the artists’ consent and frequently with a meme-heavy, provocative tone.
Just last month, the Department of Homeland Security shared a video using a song by Olivia Rodrigo. Audio for the track was later disabled on Instagram, though it continued to circulate on X. Rodrigo responded forcefully before deleting her comment, telling followers not to use her music to promote what she described as racist and hateful propaganda.
More Artists, More Backlash
Other examples keep piling up. The White House also posted a video featuring audio from Usher’s “Hey Daddy (Daddy’s Home),” a tongue-in-cheek nod to comments made about Trump at a NATO summit. That audio was eventually removed after a copyright complaint.
Another TikTok video used music associated with Taylor Swift alongside images of Trump administration officials. Swift, who has been openly critical of Trump in the past, has not publicly commented on the usage, and her team declined to respond to media inquiries at the time.
Over the years, a long list of artists — including Celine Dion, the Foo Fighters, Bruce Springsteen and Beyoncé — have objected to their music being used in connection with Trump or his administration.
Where Music and Politics Collide
Carpenter’s reaction has reignited a familiar debate: where is the line between fair use, political speech and artistic consent? For many musicians, the answer is simple — their work should not be used to promote messages they fundamentally oppose.
As artists continue to speak out, the clash between pop culture and political power shows no sign of fading. For now, Sabrina Carpenter’s message is loud, clear and unmistakable: keep her music out of it.
