The Trump administration refused to apologize after pop star Sabrina Carpenter condemned the White House for using her song “Juno” in an ICE raid promotional video, with a spokesperson instead launching personal attacks against the artist.
Quick Take
- White House used Carpenter’s “Juno” in a 21-second ICE enforcement video without permission, prompting her to call the video “evil and disgusting”
- Rather than apologize, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson doubled down with a confrontational response that questioned Carpenter’s intelligence
- This incident reflects a documented pattern of the Trump administration using female artists’ music without consent for political messaging
- The administration has shown no willingness to remove the video or cease the practice of unauthorized music appropriation
Unauthorized Music Use in Government Promotion
The White House created a promotional video depicting ICE officers conducting enforcement operations, featuring Carpenter’s lyrics “have you ever tried this one?” throughout the 21-second clip. The video was posted on social media without the artist’s permission, representing a clear violation of copyright protections. Carpenter’s work from her 2024 album *Short n’ Sweet* was weaponized to normalize immigration enforcement actions, forcing unwilling association between her artistry and controversial government policy.
This unauthorized appropriation raises serious questions about intellectual property rights and the boundaries of government use of creative works. Artists retain legal ownership of their compositions, yet enforcement of these rights proves difficult when social media posts spread rapidly across platforms. The incident demonstrates how political campaigns exploit cultural products to amplify messaging without artist consent or compensation.
White House Escalates With Personal Attacks
Rather than acknowledging the copyright violation, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson issued a confrontational statement that doubled down on the video’s use. Jackson’s response incorporated additional Carpenter lyrics while attacking the artist personally, stating: “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?” This approach shifted focus from intellectual property concerns to political messaging, weaponizing the artist’s own words against her.
The administration’s willingness to engage in personal attacks rather than address legitimate copyright concerns reveals a strategic choice to treat this as a political battle. By questioning Carpenter’s intelligence and framing opposition to the video as defense of criminals, Jackson attempted to delegitimize artistic concerns and reframe the narrative around border security rather than unauthorized use of protected content.
Part of Broader Pattern of Appropriation
The Carpenter incident represents the latest in a series of unauthorized music uses by the Trump administration. Olivia Rodrigo’s “All-American Bitch” was previously used without permission, prompting her to issue a statement (later deleted) condemning the “racist, hateful propaganda.” Taylor Swift’s “The Fate of Ophelia” and Cynthia Erivo’s performance of “Defying Gravity” from *Wicked* have also been appropriated for political purposes. This systematic pattern targets female artists specifically, suggesting deliberate strategy rather than isolated incidents.
White House Obliterates Pop Star Sabrina Carpenter After She Slams ICE https://t.co/XJR97vTjRB
— Lois Levine Fishman (@FishmanLevine) December 3, 2025
Beyond music, the administration has demonstrated willingness to misappropriate cultural intellectual property broadly. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used Franklin the Turtle imagery depicting the children’s character aiming a bazooka at boats with the caption “Franklin Targets Narco Terrorists,” drawing condemnation from publisher Kids Can Press. These incidents collectively reveal an approach to political messaging that disregards copyright protections and artist consent.
Implications for Creative Rights and Political Messaging
This confrontation exposes significant vulnerabilities in copyright enforcement during the social media era. While copyright law technically protects artists’ work, real-time enforcement proves inadequate when government entities post content that spreads rapidly across platforms. Legal remedies exist but operate slowly, making them ineffective against viral political messaging. The administration’s refusal to remove the video or cease similar practices suggests no practical consequences for unauthorized use by powerful institutions.
The incident establishes precedent for how future administrations may treat artist intellectual property. If unauthorized appropriation continues without meaningful consequences, copyright protections become hollow for artists opposing government policies. The confrontational response from Jackson indicates the administration views this as a political matter rather than a legal one, suggesting calculated disregard for artistic rights when they conflict with political objectives.
Sources:
Sabrina Carpenter slams White House for using her song in ‘evil and disgusting’ ICE raid video
