Musicians versus Trump: Battle over unauthorized song use in US politics

Musicians and political campaigns have long been at odds over the use of music, but few figures have sparked as much controversy as former U.S. President Donald Trump. Throughout his political career, Trump has repeatedly faced backlash from artists objecting to the use of their songs at his rallies and events. From iconic rock bands to pop stars, artists from a wide range of genres have taken a stand, demanding that their music not be associated with Trump’s political messaging.

Recently, estates like that of Isaac Hayes, and stars such as Celine Dion and Prince, joined a growing list of artists objecting to Trump’s use of their songs. This pushback isn’t just about artistic control—many of these artists and their representatives argue that the former president’s values stand in direct opposition to the messages in their music.

The legal battlegrounds are not new. Trump, like several politicians before him, has often used popular music to energize crowds at his rallies. However, his choice of songs—ranging from Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World” to Queen’s “We Are the Champions”—has frequently landed him in hot water. For instance, Young, a vocal critic of Trump, filed a lawsuit demanding that the former president cease using his music.

Springsteen’s clash with Ronald Reagan over “Born in the U.S.A.”

Historically, musicians have opposed political figures using their work without permission. During the 1984 U.S. presidential election, Bruce Springsteen objected to Ronald Reagan’s use of “Born in the U.S.A.” Even though the song’s patriotic chorus might have made it seem like an anthem for Reagan’s campaign, its underlying themes of working-class struggles and disillusionment were at odds with the administration’s policies. Similarly, Tom Petty sent cease-and-desist orders to George W. Bush in 2000 for using his song “I Won’t Back Down.”

The recent resurgence of artist opposition stems from growing concerns over the political associations of their music. The estates of Prince and Isaac Hayes, for instance, have taken steps to distance their legacies from political campaigns they feel do not represent the values of the artists. For many, it’s not just a question of legal rights but also protecting the integrity of their work.

Is music in US political campaigns fair use?

The legal framework surrounding this issue is complex. U.S. copyright law gives songwriters control over the use of their music, but when political campaigns acquire blanket licenses from organizations like the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), they are generally allowed to play songs in public without individual permission.

However, musicians and their representatives argue that this use can imply a false endorsement or alignment with political figures—something they’re keen to avoid.

What makes the Trump era particularly contentious is not just the volume of artists objecting to his use of their songs, but also the underlying cultural and ideological clashes. Prince’s estate, for instance, issued a statement in 2020 following the use of “Purple Rain” at a Trump event, reiterating that “the estate will never give permission to President Trump to use Prince’s songs.” This sentiment reflects a larger movement among artists who seek to maintain control over how their work is used, especially in politically charged environments.

It’s a tension that doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon. For musicians, protecting their artistic legacy goes beyond legal action—it’s about ensuring that their music, which often carries deep personal or political meaning, isn’t co-opted for causes they oppose. For Trump, however, music remains a powerful tool to galvanize his supporters, and the legal battles are unlikely to deter his campaign’s use of iconic songs in the future.