Do Not Ever Use My Music: Ariana Grande Slams the White House Over ICE Video
Pop Star’s Outcry Sparks Debate on Unauthorized Use of Art in Political Campaigns
Do not ever use my music – In a recent outburst, singer and actress Ariana Grande has directed sharp criticism at the White House for incorporating her music in a social media campaign without her consent. The controversy arose when the administration featured her hit single “bye” in a TikTok video promoting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The video, posted on 9 June 2026, showcased arrests conducted by ICE, and the White House used Grande’s song as the background soundtrack. The caption accompanying the post read: “Bye-bye 👋 President Trump has delivered the most secure border in history.” This choice of music sparked immediate reactions, particularly from Grande, who is currently on her Eternal Sunshine Tour in support of her latest album.
“Please do not ever use my music in relation to this barbaric, inhumane, heinous nonsense.”
Grande’s comment, made in the video’s comment section, was both a personal rebuke and a public statement. The singer, known for her candid personality and social advocacy, took issue with how her art was being leveraged to justify ICE operations. Her response, though brief, carried weight, as it directly tied her creative work to the administration’s immigration policies. The comment quickly garnered attention online, with many users expressing solidarity with her stance. However, the White House account later removed the remark, prompting Grande to take further action.
To ensure her message remained visible, Grande shared multiple screenshots of the deleted comment across her own social media platforms. These images circulated widely, amplifying the controversy and highlighting the tension between the White House and artists. The administration’s social media team had also removed all of Grande’s other comments, effectively silencing her dissent. In response, her team took the initiative to have the audio of the TikTok video taken down from the platform. While the video itself remains accessible, it now plays without sound, leaving the visual content unaccompanied by the original track.
The incident has drawn comparisons to past instances where the White House faced backlash for using popular music in political messaging. Earlier this year, the administration’s social media team was criticized for incorporating songs by Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift, Kesha, and Sabrina Carpenter into promotional content. These cases were seen as attempts to blend cultural appeal with political messaging, often without acknowledging the artists’ perspectives. Grande’s situation, however, stands out due to the direct connection between the song and the policies being advertised. Her track “bye,” from her 2025 album *Eternal Sunshine*, features a poignant reflection on farewells and personal connections, themes that starkly contrast with the ICE video’s focus on enforcement and separation.
As the debate over artistic rights and political propaganda intensifies, Grande’s case has become a focal point for discussions on how public figures interact with media. The singer’s use of the word “heinous” in her comment underscores her strong feelings about the administration’s approach to immigration. Her response not only targeted the White House but also resonated with fans who viewed the video as a tool to dehumanize migrants. The removal of her comment, followed by the deletion of all her subsequent remarks, has been interpreted as an effort to control the narrative surrounding the campaign.
Social media users have since flooded the comment section with their own critiques of the White House’s strategy. Some have mocked the administration’s choice of music, noting that “bye” carries a more emotional tone than the message it was paired with. Others have praised Grande for standing up to the political machine, framing her as a symbol of resistance against the normalization of immigration detention. The incident has also sparked conversations about the broader implications of using pop culture in political contexts, with some arguing that it reduces art to a mere marketing asset.
The White House’s decision to remove Grande’s comment has raised questions about the extent of their influence over online discourse. While the administration maintains that the video was intended to highlight ICE’s achievements, critics contend that the song’s presence added an emotional layer to the message. This has led to debates about whether the use of music in political ads is a legitimate form of storytelling or an exploitation of artists’ work. Grande’s response, though brief, has reignited these discussions, with her supporters emphasizing the importance of credit and consent in creative collaborations.
Grande’s activism has often aligned with her music, and this incident is no exception. Her track “bye” was released in early 2025, part of a body of work that explores themes of loss, resilience, and human connection. The song’s inclusion in the ICE video has been seen as a misrepresentation of its original intent, with some fans expressing disappointment that her art was used to support policies they oppose. This has also sparked a broader reflection on how cultural icons are sometimes co-opted by political entities for messaging purposes.
The White House’s use of “bye” in the TikTok video has become a symbol of the growing divide between artists and political institutions. While the administration argued that the song’s upbeat rhythm complemented the video’s message, Grande’s comment suggested that the choice was deliberate and perhaps insensitive. Her ability to generate immediate backlash through a single post has demonstrated the power of social media in amplifying voices that challenge authority. The incident has also highlighted the vulnerability of public figures when their work is repurposed without permission, a trend that has been observed across various platforms and industries.
As the situation evolves, Grande’s team continues to push for accountability, while the White House maintains its stance on the effectiveness of its campaign. The removal of the audio from the TikTok video has been a strategic move to mitigate criticism, but it has not erased the controversy. Instead, it has shifted the focus to the visual elements, which now stand alone in conveying the administration’s message. This has left users to interpret the video through the lens of its imagery, with some questioning the need for music in the first place.
The incident underscores the evolving relationship between artists and political power in the digital age. With social media becoming a primary tool for political communication, the line between creative expression and propaganda grows thinner. Grande’s case serves as a reminder of the importance of artistic autonomy and the potential consequences of its erosion. Her sharp retort, though deleted, has left a lasting impact, with the conversation about her stance continuing to unfold in the public eye. As the debate persists, it is clear that the use of music in political campaigns will remain a contentious issue, one that requires careful consideration of context, intent, and the rights of the creators involved.
