Cancel Culture, Politics, and Power: When Artists Push Back Against Political Messaging in North America

In recent months, an unusual cultural conflict has intensified in North America: musicians publicly denouncing political actors for using their songs and images without consent in government messaging. What might seem like celebrity grievance has broader implications for how political communication intersects with culture, free speech, and power. At the heart of this debate is a simple question: when political institutions use popular music or celebrity imagery to amplify messaging, whose rights and meanings are being respected — the artists’, the politicians’, or society’s? This controversy has escalated beyond domestic newsfeeds to become an international talking point, with global media examining how America’s political use of culture reflects broader societal values and tensions.

SZA and the White House’s Viral Immigration Messaging

In December 2025, Grammy-winning artist SZA publicly condemned a social media post by the White House that used her song “Big Boys” in a video promoting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. The video paired a clip of federal agents making arrests with the upbeat track, apparently to frame enforcement actions in a favorable light. SZA took to X (formerly Twitter) to call out the move as “evil and boring” and accused the administration of “rage-baiting artists for free promo,” arguing that such usage distorts her work and exploits artists for political propaganda. Her manager echoed the sentiment, calling the tactic “nasty business” meant to provoke artists and generate engagement.

The context matters: “Big Boys” originated not as a political anthem but in a comedy sketch on Saturday Night Live, yet its appropriation here reframed it within the controversial narrative of immigration enforcement. The White House defended the post by praising ICE officers and resisting criticism, even using the heightened attention as further exposure for its messaging. 

SZA’s objection underscores how pop culture, when divorced from its original context, can be repurposed to serve political ends that the artist fundamentally rejects — raising questions about artistic control, political messaging, and the ethics of digital governance.

SZA on X

Sabrina Carpenter and Repeated Unauthorized Use

Another prominent case involves pop star Sabrina Carpenter. In early December 2025, the White House posted a montage of ICE raids over Carpenter’s 2024 hit “Juno.” Carpenter responded on social media, calling the video “evil and disgusting” and demanding that her music not be associated with what she described as an “inhumane agenda.” 

Such pushback is not limited to a single post. After Carpenter’s initial protest went viral, garnering vast engagement online, the White House deleted the video — only to repost altered content featuring clips of her from Saturday Night Live, with AI-generated audio reframing a joke to suggest arresting people for being “too illegal.” 

In defending its repost, a White House spokesperson referenced Carpenter’s album titles and denied any wrongdoing, effectively turning a piece of pop culture into fodder for political rhetoric. Critics argue that this tactic manipulates cultural artifacts to support hardline immigration policies while dismissing artists’ objections as mere political disagreement.

This episode highlights several key dynamics: political communicators leveraging pop culture for narrative effect, artists asserting moral boundaries around their work, and digital platforms acting as battlegrounds where cultural meaning and political messaging collide.

Sabrina Carpenter on X

Olivia Rodrigo Condemns Government Use of Her Song

Earlier in 2025, pop star Olivia Rodrigo also confronted government use of her music. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and White House shared a social media video showcasing ICE agents encouraging undocumented immigrants to “self-deport,” using Rodrigo’s 2023 track “All-American Bitch” as the soundtrack. Rodrigo responded:  “Don’t ever use my songs to promote your racist, hateful propaganda.” 

Following her objection, the audio was removed from the clip, suggesting that public censure from a major artist can lead to at least partial operational changes. However, the incident itself raises broader questions: how government agencies utilize licensed music libraries embedded in platforms like Instagram and TikTok, and the limits of artists’ control over how their work is reframed in political narratives.

Rodrigo’s case is especially noteworthy because her response attracted attention not just for its directness but because it tied into larger discussions about politics, identity, and generational values among young audiences. The backlash from fans and commentators online echoed far beyond North America, with international outlets covering the confrontation as another example of how U.S. political messaging can clash with cultural expression.

Olivia Rodrigo commenting on White House’s TikTok 

An Ongoing Pattern of Artist Pushback

Though these three cases are recent, they fit into a broader historical pattern of artists resisting political appropriation of their work. Whether it’s rock bands objecting to their songs in political ads or pop stars condemning state communications, musicians have long asserted their rights over how their art is used publicly. In some instances, legal actions have been pursued; in others, artists leverage public platforms to shape debates about cultural ownership and political power. 

Critics of these unauthorized uses often raise several interconnected concerns:

1. Artistic Autonomy: Artists argue they should have the final say over how their creations are presented, especially in contexts they oppose ethically or politically.

2. Political Messaging Ethics: When government agencies pair popular music with controversial policies — like immigration enforcement — it can sanitize or reframe serious matters in ways that mislead audiences.

3. Free Speech and Power Dynamics: Opponents of artistic pushback sometimes label objections as “cancel culture,” suggesting that artists are suppressing political discourse. Yet many performers frame their resistance as defending the integrity of their messages rather than silencing debate.

Indeed, these disputes reflect broader tensions between artistic expression, political communication, and cultural influence. They are not simply about music rights but about who controls narratives in a highly mediated political environment.

Why This Matters for Free Speech and Cultural Influence

The disputes between artists and political institutions reveal deeper questions about freedom of expression in democratic societies. On one level, governments have the legal ability to use licensed music for social media messaging; on another, artists argue that context and consent matter just as much as legality. When musicians object, they are not necessarily attempting to silence political speech but to ensure that their art is not misinterpreted or co-opted in ways that contradict its meaning.

Internationally, these clashes resonate because they shed light on how the United States — a major exporter of culture — balances political messaging and cultural norms. In many other democracies, similar controversies reflect local norms around intellectual property, public communication, and cultural respect. That global audiences are paying attention suggests that cultural diplomacy and soft power are at stake when political actors repurpose art without regard for artistic intent.

Moreover, in an age where social media fuels political engagement, artists’ voices can influence public opinion and signal broader societal values. When figures like SZA, Carpenter, and Rodrigo push back, their actions highlight the importance of ethical communication in political contexts — a theme that reverberates far beyond North America’s borders.

Conclusion: Accountability, Not Cancellation

The recent wave of artist objections to political use of their music illustrates a shift in how culture and politics interact. What critics call “cancel culture” may be better understood as artistic accountability — a pushback against the political appropriation of cultural expression without consent. These conflicts emphasize the need for political communicators to consider not just legal permissions, but ethical considerations when using culture to amplify messaging.

In a time of heightened political polarization, the symbolic weight of music and celebrity matters. Such disputes tell us as much about the priorities of modern political institutions as they do about the evolving landscape of free speech and cultural influence. Ultimately, debates over unauthorized use of art reflect deeper questions about power, consent, and the meaning of public discourse in an interconnected world.

Bibliography

News Sources

• SZA slams White House for using her song in government video promoting ICE enforcement. Cosmopolitan. (Cosmopolitan)

• Sabrina Carpenter condemns White House use of Juno in ICE raids video. Rolling Stone. (rollingstone.com)

• White House deletes ice video after Carpenter backlash but reposts altered version. People. (People.com)

• Olivia Rodrigo vs DHS over song usage in ICE video. Hindustan Times. (Hindustan Times)

• All the musicians who have told Donald Trump to stop using their music. Vanity Fair. (Vanity Fair)

  
  

Web Sources

• SZA slams White House using her track “Big Boys” in immigration video. The National News Desk. (KRCG)

• Sabrina Carpenter tells White House not to use her music associated with inhumane agenda. Reuters. (Reuters)

• Olivia Rodrigo criticizes government use of her song on Instagram. Reddit/popculturechat. (reddit.com)