Pop star Sabrina Carpenter has publicly demanded that the White House stop using her music after officials shared a video featuring her 2024 hit song “Juno.” The video showed immigration-enforcement agents conducting arrests while her song played in the background. Carpenter expressed outrage, stating that her music should not be used to promote policies or actions she strongly opposes.
In a post on X, Carpenter called the video “evil and disgusting,” emphasising that she does not support the inhumane agenda the clip appeared to promote. She stressed that her music is meant to bring joy and connection, not be exploited for political messaging that targets vulnerable communities. The post quickly went viral, drawing widespread support from fans and fellow artists who have long criticised the unauthorised use of creative works for political purposes.
The White House responded by defending its video, insisting that the post was intended to highlight actions against dangerous criminals. A spokeswoman said the video was justified and refused to apologise, dismissing the objections of Carpenter and others. This stance further intensified public debate, with many questioning the ethics of using popular music to communicate political messages without the artist’s consent.
Legal experts say artists have limited control over how their music is used once it is publicly available, but the public backlash shows a growing expectation that political entities respect creators’ intentions. Carpenter’s objection follows a trend of high-profile musicians pushing back against the use of their work in government campaigns, advertisements, and enforcement-related media.
The controversy has sparked wider discussions about creative rights, artistic expression, and political accountability. Many believe that using an artist’s music without permission to convey a particular political stance misrepresents the artist and risks associating them with policies they do not support. Carpenter’s statement highlights the tension between popular culture and government messaging in the digital age, where content spreads rapidly across social media platforms.
Supporters of Carpenter argue that her actions set an important precedent, reinforcing that artists have the right to control how their work is used. This incident may influence future decisions by political organisations about using music in videos, advertisements, and social media content.
