Ariana Grande Tells White House No

The exchange came shortly after Trump signed legislation providing more than $70bn, about £52bn, for immigration agencies over the remaining two-and-a-half years of his presidential term. The funding expands the administration’s enforcement capacity, not just its social media theatre — though the theatre is apparently not optional.

What happened after Grande objected

After Grande posted her comment, the video was muted and her comment was removed from the post. Several users then commented that the sound had disappeared and that Grande’s objection was no longer visible.

The dispute is the latest in a familiar fight between political communications teams and artists whose work gets used in campaign or government messaging without permission.

Other artists have made similar objections

Grande is not the first performer to object to Trump’s team using their music in connection with immigration or campaign messaging.

Last year, Sabrina Carpenter objected after a White House clip used part of her 2024 song Juno in a compilation showing Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. Carpenter wrote: “do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.”

During Trump’s 2024 re-election bid, several major artists and groups also objected to the use of their music at campaign events or in campaign-related material, including:

• ABBA
• Céline Dion
• Beyoncé

The legal and licensing issues depend on how and where a song is used. Politically, though, the pattern is simpler: artists often do not want their music functioning as a soundtrack for policies they oppose, and campaigns or government accounts continue discovering this in public.