Bold claim: Sabrina Carpenter demands the White House stop using her music after a video of ICE enforcement linked to her song hits social media. And here’s what happened, in plain language—and why it matters.
Pop star Sabrina Carpenter spoke out on Tuesday, asking the White House to remove her music from its content after a Monday video used her 2024 hit “Juno.” The clip, posted by the White House, shows immigration enforcement officers pursuing and detaining individuals while bystanders record with their phones. The accompanying caption playfully riffs on lyrics from Carpenter’s song, adding several emoticons to set a lighthearted tone.
Carpenter, 25, expressed her reaction on X (formerly Twitter), calling the video “evil and disgusting” and insisting that her music not be used to support what she sees as inhumane policies.
The White House responded with a short statement from spokesperson Abigail Jackson. She asserted that the administration would not apologize for deporting people the government describes as dangerous criminals, and she suggested that defending such individuals could reflect poorly on critics. The remark underscored a broader, heated debate about immigration enforcement and the federal government’s messaging around it.
Carpenter’s stance places her among a growing list of artists who have objected to political figures using their songs without permission. Notable examples include Neil Young and The Rolling Stones, who have previously challenged political campaigns over the use of their music.
The incident comes amid ongoing efforts by the Trump administration to intensify immigration enforcement since mid-2025, including high-profile arrests at courthouses, street-level actions in Hispanic communities, and raids targeting residences where noncitizens are believed to live. Critics argue that these tactics raise concerns about civil liberties, community safety, and the ethics of using popular culture to promote policy agendas.
Reporting by Jasper Ward; editing by Frank McGurty and Deepa Babington.
What this episode signals is a clash between artists’ rights and political campaigning, set against a backdrop of a highly polarized immigration debate. It raises questions readers might weigh in on: Should public officials be able to use a musician’s work in support of policy regardless of the musician’s views? Does the dissemination of immigration enforcement efforts through media with popular songs affect public perception? Where is the line between free expression and property rights in campaign messaging? Share your take in the comments.
