Sabrina Carpenter Condemns Use of Her Song in ICE Raid Video, Sparks Clash Over Music and Politics

02 December 2025

When Sabrina Carpenter discovered that her 2024 track “Juno” had been used without her permission in a video posted by the White House showing raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), she reacted with shock, anger and an urgent plea for her music not to be used in support of what she called an “inhumane agenda.”

That video showed scenes of agents chasing, detaining and handcuffing individuals as the lyric “Have you ever tried this one?” from “Juno” played repeatedly. The post’s caption read “Bye-bye,” giving the disturbing montage a chilling, callous undertone. Carpenter swiftly responded on social media with a direct rebuke: “this video is evil and disgusting. Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.”

The public reaction was immediate and fierce. Her post was shared widely and drew intense scrutiny of the original White House video. Within days the clip was removed from the White House’s X (formerly Twitter) account.

The deletion marked a remarkable moment: a rare instance where a musician’s forceful objection disrupted an attempt by a powerful institution to wield her art for political messaging. But the story did not end there. Rather than stepping back, the White House reposted a revised version of the video on TikTok. This time the audio was replaced with a clip of Carpenter’s appearance on a late-night comedy show, layered with new narration about immigration enforcement. The visuals remained arrest footage.

Critics have argued that this tactic undermines the seriousness of the original message and treats music and identity as disposable props. For Carpenter, the episode is part of a broader pattern, many artists have spoken out in recent years against the unauthorized use of their work in support of policies or campaigns they do not endorse.

Carpenter’s response stands out for its blunt moral clarity. She did not frame the matter as a legal dispute over copyright or licensing, but as an ethical boundary she refused to see crossed. Her statement resonated broadly, drawing support from fans and other musicians who see the move as a necessary defense of creative agency and personal conviction.

Behind the outrage lies a deeper cultural tension: the collision of art, politics, and propaganda in an age of social media. Music has long held power to unite, to inspire, to heal. But when it’s repurposed without consent especially in a context of government force, it can become a tool of dehumanization. Carpenter’s stand reminds us that songs are not merely background tracks to power plays. They carry meaning, identity, and often, truth.

The controversy also raises critical questions about accountability in the digital age. Who controls how art is used? When is it art, and when is it weaponized? For many, composer rights and moral consent go hand in hand and a public refusal from an artist matters more than any takedown notice or lawsuit.

For now, Carpenter’s voice remains firmly in the spotlight. Her defiance has curtailed one attempt at political messaging, but the altered repost on TikTok shows the fight is not over. And in this showdown between music, power, and politics, she has made clear where she stands.