In a move that’s sparking fresh uproar, the White House has released a second video promoting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — this time repurposing footage of Sabrina Carpenter and Marcello Hernández from a TV appearance — even after Carpenter publicly condemned the first video as “evil and disgusting.”

🎯 The Backstory: From Music Video to Political Ad

On December 1, the Trump administration posted a video set to Carpenter’s song Juno which showed clips of ICE agents detaining migrants. The post — aimed, apparently, at pushing the administration’s hard-line immigration agenda — quickly drew condemnation from the singer. She responded with a message that struck a chord across social media: “This video is evil and disgusting. Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.”

Faced with backlash and mounting public pressure, the White House quietly deleted the original post on December 5. But in a controversial pivot, just days later they resurfaced a new promotional video on platforms such as TikTok and X. Only this time, Carpenter’s music was replaced — but not her image. The new clip used footage from her October appearance on Saturday Night Live, editing audio to make it appear as if Carpenter was endorsing ICE arrests.

🔁 The New Video: Same Star, Different Message

In the original SNL promo, Carpenter had joked to Hernández, “I think I might need to arrest someone for being too hot.” The White House cut the clip and altered the words — changing “too hot” to “too illegal.” In the edited version, after Hernández volunteers, Carpenter says “You’re under arrest.” The video then cuts to scenes of immigration agents detaining people. The post’s caption: “PSA: If you’re a criminal illegal, you WILL be arrested & deported.”

The post even layers a remix of mainstream music tracks — a move that feels like something lifted from flashy marketing campaigns. It’s a stark example of how media from pop culture and entertainment is being overwritten and reframed to serve a political narrative.

😡 The Fallout: Backlash, Criticism, and Moral Questions

Carpenter and her team have yet to issue a fresh public statement regarding the new video — though her previous condemnation still echoes loud. The first video racked up hundreds of thousands of reactions after she pushed back.

Critics say the Trump administration’s maneuver is manipulative and tone-deaf. By editing a comedic TV spot — originally meant for laughs and entertainment — into a serious political message, many argue they crossed a line. It’s the kind of re-engineering that undermines artistic agency, twisting context and intent for propagandistic ends.

Some voices have put it bluntly: this isn’t just media misuse, it’s exploitation. The message is unmistakable — and it carries a weight many find deeply troubling.

🎭 The Broader Picture: Pop Culture Meets Political Messaging

Carpenter isn’t alone in her pushback. A number of artists have recently objected to their music being used without consent to promote government policies.

This trend — of blending pop culture’s broadly appealing visuals and audio with political messaging — raises serious ethical questions. It’s a deliberate tactic: using familiar images from entertainers many people admire to legitimize and normalize contentious policies.

By recasting a pop-star’s performance into a propaganda tool, the line between entertainment and government messaging becomes dangerously blurred.

💡 Why This Matters: Agency, Consent, and Public Messaging

At its core, this controversy isn’t just about one video or one artist. It’s about who gets to control the narrative. When a government uses someone’s music or likeness to champion policies — especially without their approval — it undermines their agency. It sends a message: your voice belongs to us.

That’s a slippery slope. Once entertainment becomes fodder for political campaigns, the door opens for more manipulation. The values of consent, creative ownership, and trust become collateral.

✊ For Artists — and for the Rest of Us — This Is a Warning

Creative people often use their platforms to express personal experiences, emotions, or social perspectives. When those creations get repurposed without permission, it’s not just copyright under threat. It’s identity. It’s trust.

And for everyday citizens who engage with such content — whether we realize it or not — it’s a reminder to stay vigilant. Media has power. Framed and edited a certain way, it can push narratives, change perceptions, and influence opinions.

🧭 What Could Come Next

So far, the public reaction has been fierce. Artists are speaking out. Conversations about consent in creative works are resurfacing. But what really shifts the tide — what will make the difference — is rules that protect creators and hold institutions accountable when they misuse art.

For now, though, we’re left watching a cinematic spectacle of power, pop, and politics — and wondering who owns the story.