Pop sensation Sabrina Carpenter is known for her chart-topping hits and magnetic stage presence. But this week, the 25-year-old singer made headlines for a very different reason—calling out the White House for using her music in a video that she says turned her art into propaganda.

Washington, D.C. — Sabrina Carpenter did not mince words.

In a sharp and emotional statement posted to her Instagram story this week, the singer and songwriter blasted the White House after a controversial video emerged using her viral single “Juno” as background music for a montage of ICE raids, immigration enforcement operations, and protest footage.

“This video is evil and disgusting,” she wrote.
“Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.”

Within hours, the video—originally shared through an official White House social media account—was taken down. But the political and cultural fallout had already begun.

A Pop Anthem, Repurposed Without Consent

According to multiple sources close to the matter, the video in question featured Carpenter’s hit song “Juno,” a breezy, synth-pop anthem that has come to symbolize freedom, youthful rebellion, and emotional vulnerability. It’s a song embraced by fans for its heart-on-the-sleeve honesty—a defining track in Carpenter’s recent creative evolution.

Yet in this now-deleted video, “Juno” played beneath jarring images: ICE agents in tactical gear approaching suburban homes; handcuffs clicked into place on sidewalks; families being separated as chants from prior immigration rallies echoed in the background.

The tonal disconnect was immediate. For many viewers, the use of the upbeat, emotionally rich song in that context wasn’t just inappropriate—it felt like an intentional provocation.

For Carpenter? It felt personal.

“Not My Voice. Not My Name. Not My Song.”

In her public statement, Carpenter emphasized not just her anger, but her refusal to remain silent.

“Do not ever associate me with this,” she wrote. “Not my voice. Not my name. Not my song.”

That message quickly resonated with fans, who flooded her social media pages with messages of support. Many thanked her for speaking out against what they saw as the misuse of art to sanitize or justify heavy-handed government policies.

Others focused on the legal implications, questioning how a federal agency—especially one operating at the highest level—could use a copyrighted piece of music without explicit permission.

Behind the scenes, sources say Carpenter’s team immediately contacted legal counsel to demand removal of the video and to explore possible recourse for unauthorized use of intellectual property.

As of now, it remains unclear whether any licensing agreement existed for “Juno.” Carpenter’s label has declined to comment publicly, but industry insiders suggest that no such agreement was in place.

From Protest to Pop Culture Clash

The controversy shines a spotlight on a growing and complex phenomenon: the use of music and culture as tools in political messaging—often without the artist’s consent.

For decades, artists have protested the use of their songs in political campaigns, rallies, or government content they do not support. From Bruce Springsteen to Tom Petty to Rihanna, musicians have taken a stand when their art is used in a context they consider antithetical to its meaning.

But rarely has the backlash been this swift or this personal.

And rarely has the clash occurred with such high visibility—at the intersection of immigration enforcement, federal messaging, and pop culture.

A History of Political Pushback

Sabrina Carpenter is no stranger to social causes. While she has largely kept her personal politics low-key, she has in the past expressed support for immigrant rights, reproductive justice, and LGBTQ+ equality.

Her 2023 single “Juno,” named after a character known for challenging social expectations, was widely interpreted by fans as a celebration of autonomy and emotional honesty. The track became a viral hit on streaming platforms and social media, especially among Gen Z listeners who saw themselves reflected in Carpenter’s evolving sound.

That made its appearance in the ICE video all the more startling.

“It’s not just unauthorized,” said a representative close to Carpenter’s legal team. “It’s weaponization.”

Celebrity Silence—or Strength?

In an industry where many stars avoid political confrontation for fear of alienating fans or sponsors, Carpenter’s decision to speak out so publicly and forcefully was a departure from the norm.

Her statement was neither vague nor performative. It was, as one entertainment analyst put it, “a full-on refusal to let her art be used as political cover.”

Fans and fellow artists praised her directness, with some calling it one of the strongest acts of celebrity accountability in recent years.

“Music isn’t neutral,” said cultural critic Dana Rhodes. “And when the government tries to use a pop anthem to give emotional warmth to something as cold as an ICE raid, it crosses a moral line. Sabrina’s response reminded everyone: artists have a right to protect their work.”

The Legal Landscape: What Are the Boundaries?

At the heart of the controversy is a difficult legal question: Can the federal government—or any entity—use copyrighted music in public-facing content without the artist’s consent?

The answer depends on several factors, including licensing rights, public interest exceptions, and fair use doctrine.

Music used in political contexts often requires specific synchronization licenses, especially for visual media. Even with a general performance license, using a song in an edited video—especially one for promotional or messaging purposes—typically requires additional permissions.

“Unless the White House had a sync license for that song, they’re likely on shaky legal ground,” said music attorney Josh Levine.

However, litigation between artists and government entities is rare—and complicated by layers of sovereign immunity, limited enforcement options, and public perception.

The ICE Angle: Messaging and Morality

Beyond the copyright concerns lies a deeper ethical issue: how the government frames its enforcement policies—and how culture is used in that process.

The ICE footage used in the video was real. But critics say the pairing with “Juno” created a sanitized, even celebratory feel to an otherwise divisive subject: immigration raids, detentions, and deportations.

“To many viewers, this wasn’t just a poor choice of song—it was an attempt to rebrand harsh realities with pop gloss,” said immigration policy expert Luis Valdez. “It felt like propaganda.”

The video’s timing also raised eyebrows. Shared shortly before the Thanksgiving holiday, the montage arrived as immigration protests were planned across several major cities. Activists accused the administration of trying to suppress momentum by changing the narrative.

If that was the goal, it backfired.

A Culture Clash in Real Time

By the time the video was pulled from official channels, the damage was done. Clips had already been reshared millions of times, commentary had flooded airwaves and blogs, and Carpenter’s Instagram story was being cited in newsrooms across the country.

The White House has not issued a formal apology or explanation.

But legal and political experts agree: the controversy could have been avoided entirely with clearer communication and better editorial judgment.

“It’s not just about one song,” said Valdez. “It’s about trust. It’s about power. And it’s about the growing tension between political messaging and the creative community.”

What Comes Next?

According to multiple sources, Carpenter’s team is preparing formal requests to determine how the song was sourced and used. Whether legal action follows will depend on what rights were (or weren’t) secured and whether the administration cooperates with removal and clarification.

Meanwhile, artists, fans, and lawmakers are watching closely—seeing the moment as a bellwether for how cultural voices will push back when governments cross perceived boundaries.

“I hope this sparks a broader conversation,” one music industry executive said. “Because this isn’t just about Sabrina. It’s about ownership. Of voice, of vision, of meaning.”

Final Thoughts: “You Don’t Get to Steal a Song About Joy”

At its core, this story is not about political parties. It’s not about ICE or even about immigration alone.

It’s about the meaning of music.

It’s about what happens when art meant to heal or inspire gets co-opted for purposes the artist never intended—and the courage it takes to say no.

Sabrina Carpenter didn’t just reject the misuse of her song. She reaffirmed her values, her boundaries, and her voice.

And in doing so, she reminded us of something essential: even in an era of viral messaging and political spin, creators still have the power to say, “Not with my work. Not in my name.”