Throughout Donald Trump’s presidency and his subsequent political campaigns, a number of musicians have found their songs being used at rallies, speeches, and other events without their permission. Some of these artists voiced strong opposition, accusing Trump of appropriating their work without consent, while others feared potential consequences for speaking out. This issue has raised questions about the ethics of using artists’ music for political purposes, as well as the potential for retribution from the former president and his supporters.
The Origin of the Discontent: Unauthorized Use of Music**The controversy over Trump’s use of music began long before his run for office in 2016. Many musicians were unsettled by the fact that their songs were being played at rallies and events associated with Trump’s campaign and presidency, often without obtaining the necessary licensing or permission.One of the earliest and most vocal critics was Neil Young In 2015, the iconic Canadian singer-songwriter took to social media to express his displeasure when Trump used his song “Rockin’ in the Free World” during his campaign events. Young’s team issued a statement saying they had never authorized Trump to use the song, which led to a public feud. Young made it clear he did not support Trump, and in a 2016 interview with Rolling Stone, he said, “I am in favor of free speech, but when it comes to being associated with Donald Trump, it’s a no-no.”However, this was just the beginning. Many other artists soon followed suit, claiming their music had been hijacked for political purposes without their consent.### **High-Profile Musicians Who Slammed Trump**A significant number of well-known musicians publicly criticized Trump for using their songs. Some demanded that he cease playing their music, while others simply expressed their outrage through social media or interviews.-
Adele: The British singer’s hit “Rolling in the Deep” was used at a number of Trump rallies, prompting an immediate reaction from her representatives. Her team sent a cease-and-desist letter to Trump’s campaign, explaining that the singer did not want her music associated with him. While Adele never publicly spoke out against Trump herself, the action taken by her team was a clear indication of her disapproval.
The Rolling Stones Perhaps one of the most notable and sustained feuds came from The Rolling Stones. Trump used their 1969 classic “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” at his rallies, and the band quickly objected. In 2016, the band’s lawyer issued a formal request for the Trump campaign to stop using the song, citing a breach of their copyright. The Rolling Stones even threatened legal action if their music continued to be used without permission. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards both expressed disdain for the association, making it clear that they did not want to be linked to Trump’s political messaging.-
R.E.M. The band R.E.M. was another prominent group that objected when their 1987 song “It’s the End of the World” was used at Trump’s rallies. Lead singer Michael Stipe was outspoken in his condemnation of Trump, stating that the use of the song was “a violation” and that he had no desire for his music to be tied to such a divisive figure. In 2018, R.E.M.’s legal team issued a statement to ensure that Trump could not use the song in the future.
Queen : The legendary British band Queen was also forced to speak out when Trump used their 1977 anthem “We Are the Champions” during rallies. The band’s guitarist, **Brian May**, made it clear that they were “unequivocally” opposed to their music being associated with Trump. May, known for his outspoken political views, described Trump’s use of the song as a “cynical appropriation.”- **Bruce Springsteen**: Known for his social activism, Bruce Springsteen publicly denounced Trump’s use of his music. The song “Born in the U.S.A.,” which was often played at Trump rallies, was a particularly thorny issue for Springsteen. The 1984 track, which was often misinterpreted as a patriotic anthem, actually critiques the treatment of Vietnam veterans and the American working class. Springsteen pointed out that using the song in a Trump rally was a misrepresentation of its meaning.
Fearing Retaliation: The Tension Behind the Criticism**For some musicians, speaking out against Trump came with an underlying fear of retaliation. While many artists were vocal in their disapproval, others felt uneasy about the potential backlash they could face from the Trump administration or his loyal supporters.**The Dixie Chicks** (now known as The Chicks), for example, have a long history of backlash stemming from their outspoken opposition to political figures. In 2003, they publicly criticized then-President George W. Bush, which led to a significant boycott of their music in certain parts of the U.S. With Trump being known for retaliating against his critics, musicians feared that a similar fate could befall them if they spoke out.In particular, there were concerns that speaking out could hurt their careers. For example,
Twisted Sister frontman Dee Snider had no issue with criticizing Trump, but he was wary of the potential for backlash from a portion of the country that supported Trump. “People were scared to say anything, especially artists,” Snider said in a 2020 interview, explaining how many musicians avoided publicly denouncing Trump due to fear of alienating part of their fanbase.Some artists, like Jon Bon Jovi have spoken out but without directly criticizing Trump, perhaps to avoid creating political divides among their fans. Bon Jovi made it clear in interviews that he was “against the divisiveness” in the country, but his approach remained more neutral compared to some of his peers.
The Broader Issue: Politics, Music, and the Law The controversy over Trump’s use of music without permission highlighted a larger issue in the intersection of politics and intellectual property rights. Many of the musicians involved argued that their music should not be used to support political figures with whom they strongly disagreed, and they cited concerns about their artistic work being misused for political gain.The use of music at political events is governed by strict copyright laws, and artists have every right to protect their work. In response to the controversy, several musicians’ legal teams sent cease-and-desist letters to Trump’s campaign, while others publicly disavowed his use of their songs. The legal responses varied, but the underlying issue remained clear: music should not be co-opted for political messaging without permission.
Trump’s Response to the Criticism**In typical Trump fashion, the former president rarely took criticism lying down. When musicians objected to the use of their songs, Trump’s response was often dismissive. He would frequently claim that the artists had no legal right to prevent the music from being played or, more controversially, he would simply continue using the songs despite their objections.For example, after R.E.M. objected to the use of “It’s the End of the World,” Trump continued to play it at rallies, which led to a tense standoff between the musician and the former president.Some observers have speculated that Trump saw these acts of resistance as further evidence of the so-called “elitism” of the music industry, using the criticisms as fuel for his populist rhetoric.
Conclusion: The Lasting Impact**The tensions between Donald Trump and musicians over the unauthorized use of their songs have had lasting effects, not just in the world of music, but also in the broader cultural and political discourse. While some musicians were vocal in their opposition, others kept quiet out of fear of retaliation. In many ways, the controversy illustrated the struggle between artistic freedom and political manipulation, and how music can become a powerful weapon in the political arena.Ultimately, the issue may have also brought attention to the rights of artists when it comes to the use of their intellectual property, sparking further conversations about the boundaries between art, politics, and personal expression in a highly polarized society.
