This month alone, the Trump administration has twice created content that sampled pop music to promote the work done by ICE agents. First, Sabrina Carpenter and then SZA. Both musicians spoke out, condemning the posts, causing an avalanche of engagement: likes, follow-up posts, retweets, and general buzz around the issue. This is nothing new - The White House has repeatedly used pop music in their social media content as a way to put glossy, ‘modern’ and 'relevant' spins on their policies and actions. It’s not just in America either; UK politicians have come under fire for their use of pop music (D:Ream, ABBA) in election campaigns, but at least here there is legislation to prevent them from doing so without permission from the artist.
From Olivia Rodrigo and Bad Bunny to the Foo Fighters and The Rolling Stones, the number of artists who clap back at politicians’ use of their music would make for an incredible festival lineup, but what about those who stay silent? In the wake of the Trump Administration’s so-called "feud" with Sabrina Carpenter, many fans have compared her speedy response to the lack thereof from Taylor Swift. The two are often lumped together in discussions due to crossover in fanbase and Carpenter’s involvement with the Eras tour. Swift, whose latest album ‘The Life of A Showgirl’ was used in three consecutive posts earlier this year, made no effort to distance herself from politics. In a society where those with a platform have the potential to influence voters and make a difference with their voice, hundreds and thousands of fans were understandably frustrated and disappointed by her not taking the opportunity to stand against the political ideology. The thing is — irrespective of whether an artist chooses to speak out or not — they become a participant in political messaging. Or as Florence Pugh puts it with regard to Palestine: "a small note: silence in the face of such suffering is not neutrality. It is complicity".
This week, with her music being the latest to feature on the White House Twitter account, SZA put it perfectly - "White House rage baiting artists for free promo is PEAK DARK ...". With every new post, there’s an avalanche of engagement: likes, retweet threads, comments, and shares - it's ragebait, and it gets people talking.
Though a number of the offending posts have since been deleted, their increase and impact within the cultural zeitgeist bring about questions of what all of this could mean going forward. Do artists have a responsibility to engage? Should governing bodies and their social media accounts be allowed to create content that engages with and appropriates popular trends and meme culture? At what point does our engagement as fans turn from retaliation into free promotion?
Whether we, or artists, choose to interact or stay silent, art and politics will always intersect - it’s inevitable. Whether a fan or a global mega star, the things you create have the potential to mobilise; it’s only with the awareness of how social media is utilised by governments to influence thinking that any kind of profound change is possible.
Kirsty Thomson
Image: Nina Westervelt / Billboard
If you enjoyed reading this article, please consider buying us a coffee. The money from this pot goes towards the ever-increasing yearly costs of running and hosting the site, and our "Writer Of The Month" cash prize.