Sabrina Carpenter just joined a growing chorus of musicians fighting back against unauthorized use of their work.
The Grammy-winning pop star fired off a scathing response after discovering her viral hit “Juno” soundtracking a White House immigration enforcement video.
Her reaction? Unfiltered and direct.
And she’s far from alone in this battle over artistic consent and political messaging.
Carpenter’s Fiery Response
The controversy erupted after the White House’s official X account posted a 21-second video Monday showing ICE agents chasing and handcuffing people. Her famous lyric, “Have you ever tried this one?” looped repeatedly in the background.
Carpenter didn’t mince words in her Tuesday response.
this video is evil and disgusting. Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.
The White House clapped back with a reference to her two-time Grammy-winning album Short n’ Sweet, according to Entertainment Weekly. Their spokesperson declared they won’t apologize for “deporting dangerous criminal illegal murderers, rapists, and pedophiles from our country.”
They even twisted lyrics from Carpenter’s 2025 single “Manchild” in their response, asking if those defending “these sick monsters must be stupid, or is it slow?”
A Pattern of Unauthorized Music Use
Carpenter represents just the latest artist pushing back against what’s become a troubling trend. Musicians across genres have discovered their work being used without permission or consent.
The issue extends beyond simple copyright concerns—it strikes at artists’ ability to control how their creative work associates with political messages they may fundamentally oppose.
Kenny Loggins Demands Removal
The legendary singer behind “Danger Zone” confronted similar circumstances in October. President Trump posted an AI-generated video on Truth Social featuring Loggins’ iconic Top Gun track.
The bizarre clip showed Trump wearing a crown, flying in a fighter jet labeled “King Trump,” then dumping what appeared to be feces on New York City protestors. This coincided with the widespread No Kings protests condemning Trump administration policies.
Nobody asked me for my permission, which I would have denied, and I request that my recording on this video is removed immediately. I can’t imagine why anybody would want their music used or associated with something created with the sole purpose of dividing us. … We’re in this together, and it is my hope that we can embrace music as a way of celebrating and uniting each and every one of us.
When Entertainment Weekly requested comment on Loggins’ statement, the Trump administration responded with a Top Gun meme.
Olivia Rodrigo Speaks Out
Back in November, another pop powerhouse condemned the unauthorized use of her music. Olivia Rodrigo discovered the White House and Department of Homeland Security had used “All-American B***h” from her 2023 album Guts to soundtrack a video about self-deportation.
She took to Instagram with her own fierce response.
don’t ever use my songs to promote your racist, hateful propaganda.
Growing List of Objections
Carpenter, Loggins, and Rodrigo represent just three voices in what’s becoming a broader movement. Other musicians who’ve objected to Trump administration’s unauthorized use of their work this year include:
- MGMT – the electronic rock band known for hits like “Electric Feel”
- Semisonic – famous for their 90s anthem “Closing Time”
The Bigger Picture
These conflicts highlight fundamental tensions between political messaging and artistic integrity. When governments or campaigns use music without permission, they’re not just violating copyright—they’re potentially misrepresenting an artist’s values and beliefs.
Musicians spend years crafting their public personas and choosing which causes to support. Having their work appropriated for political purposes they oppose undermines that careful curation.
For young artists like Carpenter and Rodrigo, who’ve built massive followings partly through authentic connection with fans, these unauthorized uses feel particularly violating. Their music often reflects personal experiences and social commentary they’ve deliberately chosen to share.
What Happens Next?
Legal experts suggest artists have multiple avenues for recourse when their music gets used without authorization. Copyright claims, cease-and-desist orders, and public statements all serve as potential tools.
However, government entities often enjoy certain protections that complicate straightforward copyright enforcement. Fair use provisions sometimes allow limited use of copyrighted material for political purposes, though that defense remains murky in many situations.
The court of public opinion may prove more effective than legal channels. When artists publicly denounce unauthorized use, they signal clearly to fans where they stand politically—potentially damaging the very campaigns that sought to benefit from their cultural cachet.
As more musicians speak out, the pattern becomes harder to ignore. What started as isolated incidents now represents a coordinated pushback from creative professionals demanding respect for their work and autonomy over their artistic legacies.
Whether through legal action, public statements, or both, these artists are making one thing abundantly clear: permission matters, and silence doesn’t equal consent.