White House Music Theft
60% say the government shouldn't use artists' songs without permission
The White House used Ariana Grande's song 'Bye' in a TikTok video promoting ICE arrests, and Grande publicly criticized this use of her music — How do you feel about this situation?
The White House shouldn't
Artists should expect their
This is just normal political social media activity
Other
On this page
Share It On
Executive summary
When the White House posted a TikTok video promoting ICE arrests set to Ariana Grande's song 'Bye,' it ignited a public backlash that exposes a growing fault line in American politics: who controls popular culture when the government wants to use it as a weapon. The incident — which Grande condemned as 'heinous' — is not a one-off. It's the latest in a documented series of unauthorized music grabs by the current administration, and the public has noticed.
A new 151-person pulse survey conducted June 12, 2026 finds that nearly 60% of Americans believe the White House should not use artists' music without permission for political content. Only 9% consider it normal political social media activity. The music was eventually taken down — a sign that reputational pressure, not courts, may be the fastest enforcement mechanism available to artists.
The survey also reveals a public that is more sympathetic to celebrity political activism than headlines suggest, but deeply skeptical that celebrity voices actually change minds. And when it comes to government social media, the message wins: 55% of respondents say what the government is saying matters more than whether it had permission to use the content it posted.
Takeaway: How do you feel about the White House using Ariana Grande's song for the ICE video?
Takeaway: How do you feel about the White House using Ariana Grande's song for the ICE video?
Context
On June 12, 2026, the White House posted a TikTok video showing ICE arrest footage set to Ariana Grande's song 'Bye' — a track that peaked at No. 25 on the Billboard Hot 100. Grande, who had worn an 'ICE Out' pin at the 2026 Golden Globes and posted anti-administration content as far back as September 2025, publicly called the use of her music 'heinous.' The White House fired back. The song was eventually removed.
But the incident didn't happen in a vacuum. Just two weeks earlier, Boards of Canada's label Warp Records issued a statement condemning the White House for using their track 'Deep Time' in a Border Patrol video without permission. Before that, Drake's 'ICEMAN' was co-opted for ICE imagery. The administration has also used Lil Wayne and Migos tracks to accompany military strike content. According to NPR, what's different this time is that the White House has repeatedly continued the practice even after artists object — a break from prior administrations that typically stood down when musicians pushed back.
Artists do have legal tools: copyright law, the Lanham Act (which covers false endorsement), and state publicity rights can all be invoked. A 2024 federal judge issued a temporary injunction ordering Trump's campaign to stop using Isaac Hayes's 'Hold On, I'm Coming.' But the Congressional Research Service notes the legal basis for artist demands 'is not always clear,' and enforcement is slow and expensive. TikTok's broad music licensing system may have provided the White House technical cover — granting platform-wide rights to use tracks even without individual artist consent.
This pulse survey, fielding 151 responses on the day of Grande's public statement, captures real-time public sentiment at the intersection of immigration politics, artist rights, celebrity activism, and government social media strategy. The White House and ICE are now posting more than twice as often as they did under the Biden administration, according to Pew Research, with ICE's median engagement per post jumping from 25 likes to 1,950. The stakes of who controls this content — and what soundtrack plays behind it — have never been higher.
Findings
Nearly 60% say the White House crossed a line — and they're not alone
The clearest signal from this survey is also the broadest: 59.6% of respondents say the White House should not use artists' music without permission for political content. Only 23.2% believe artists should expect their music to be used by anyone once it's public, and just 9.3% call this kind of use normal political social media activity. That's a three-to-one margin against the administration's behavior — and it holds up across the sample regardless of how respondents feel about celebrity activism more broadly.
This isn't just optics. Respondents who expressed stronger support for artist control over their music were significantly more likely to oppose the White House's use without permission — a pattern that suggests attitudes here are rooted in beliefs about creative ownership, not just partisan reflex. The eventual removal of Grande's song from the TikTok video, following public backlash rather than legal action, underscores the survey's implicit finding: reputational pressure is currently the fastest enforcement tool artists have.
Takeaway: What matters most when you see government social media posts?
Takeaway: What matters most when you see government social media posts?
Free Speech Emphasis
One side prioritizes unrestricted speech for celebrities, while the other argues that their speech may be curtailed because of their influence.
Hover over dots to see real answers.
Respondents split sharply between treating celebrity free speech as absolute and wanting celebrities to stay silent — with most landing firmly on the...
Highlighted answers
- Free‑speech rights for celebrities are absolute
“They are citizens and have as much right as anyone else to speak their minds.”
Grounds celebrity speech in equal citizenship, directly countering any argument that fame or influence should reduce their rights.
- Free‑speech rights for celebrities are absolute
“They absolutely have every right to. They have a platform they can and should use it. And they also have every right to defend their art.”
Explicitly links platform ownership to the right to defend one's art — resonant given Grande's public condemnation of the White House's use of her music.
- Free‑speech rights for celebrities are absolute
“They definitely have the right to speak up especially when their resources are being used illegally or without permission.”
Ties free-speech rights directly to the unauthorized music use at the heart of the article's narrative.
- Free‑speech rights for celebrities can be limited
“They should keep their mouths shut, I only want them to entertain me i absolutely do not care about their political stance and dont want to hear it. I hate it.”
Represents the strongest pole of the view that celebrity influence should translate into political silence, not amplification.
- Free‑speech rights for celebrities can be limited
“They are so far removed monetarily from the average American they shouldn't speak.”
Frames wealth-based distance as a reason to curtail celebrity political voice, a distinct rationale from simple distaste.
Role in Politics
One pole argues that celebrities have a duty to address political issues, whereas the opposite pole believes they should refrain from political engagement.
Hover over dots to see real answers.
Most respondents believe celebrities have a right and duty to speak out politically, especially when their art is misused by the government.
Highlighted answers
- Celebrities ought to comment on government policies
“They absolutely have every right to. They have a platform they can and should use it. And they also have every right to defend their art.”
Directly connects platform responsibility with the right to defend one's art, echoing Grande's response to the White House.
- Celebrities ought to comment on government policies
“They definitely have the right to speak up especially when their resources are being used illegally or without permission.”
Ties celebrity political speech specifically to unauthorized music use, the core issue in the article's narrative.
- Celebrities ought to comment on government policies
“I think it is important because they have reach and influence. We don't have to agree with them but they have all the right to try and use their voices for what they believe in and it helps consumers/fans make decisions about them.”
Captures the nuanced pro-celebrity-speech view: supporting the right while acknowledging audiences can judge for themselves.
- Celebrities should stay out of political debates
“They should shut up. Republicans listen to music too”
Represents the opposing pole's frustration, highlighting the political fault line the article describes around cultural ownership.
Conclusion
The Ariana Grande–White House dispute is not a celebrity feud. It's a stress test for whether artists can maintain meaningful control over their work in an era of aggressive government social media — and right now, the answer is 'sometimes, if the backlash is fast enough.' The song came down. But the pattern continues.
Watch three things in the coming months. First, whether any artist pursues formal legal action against the White House itself rather than a campaign — the 2024 injunction targeted a candidate, and a case against the sitting executive branch would break new ground. Second, whether TikTok tightens its political content licensing rules in response to documented abuse by government accounts; the platform's current framework creates the gray zone that makes these incidents possible. Third, whether the administration's social media engagement surge translates into durable public support for its immigration messaging — or whether the message-over-permission dynamic identified in this survey creates a ceiling effect as more artists and audiences push back.
The 60% majority opposing unauthorized use is a political signal the White House is currently choosing to ignore. Whether that choice carries a cost depends on who shows up to make it one.
Takeaway: When you see government social media posts, what matters most to you?
The message being communicated
Whether they have permission for the content used
Other
How professional it looks
Takeaway: When you see government social media posts, what matters most to you?
See echo in five minutes.
Bring a question. Get a real answer from real people, on the AI they already use.