A viral pop star’s tour joke has just been turned into a political firestorm. What began as a lighthearted, playful moment during a concert has exploded into controversy after the Trump White House’s media team allegedly repurposed it for what many are calling an ICE propaganda video. But here’s where things take a darker turn — the video used Sabrina Carpenter’s song without consent, and she’s not staying quiet about it.
A 14-second TikTok clip posted by the Trump administration on December 1 has gone viral for all the wrong reasons. The video features ICE officers appearing to detain undocumented immigrants while Carpenter’s hit “Juno” plays in the background. At one point, the music aligns with her now-famous onstage phrase, “Have you ever tried this one?” The post was slickly captioned, “Have you ever tried this one? Bye-bye ❤️🥰,” leaving many viewers stunned and angry at how humor and pop culture were merged with political messaging about deportations.
Sabrina Carpenter herself swiftly called out the video, reposting it on X (formerly Twitter) alongside a blunt condemnation: “This video is evil and disgusting. Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.” This statement came shortly after the story started gaining traction, with fans and fellow artists rallying behind her denunciation.
To understand the backlash, it helps to recall the origins of Carpenter’s performance bit. During her Short ’n Sweet tour, she delighted audiences by ‘arresting’ a fan or celebrity in the crowd using pink toy handcuffs — a cheeky moment that became a viral highlight on social media. Another signature moment involved her playful question to the crowd: “Have you ever tried this one?” followed by a fun dance pose. It was a piece of choreography meant for laughter, not politics.
That’s precisely why this latest White House adaptation caused such outrage. What was once an innocent stage joke has been reframed to accompany visuals of ICE agents handcuffing and chasing people through city streets. Many online users, including immigration advocates, labeled the clip an attempt to normalize or glorify deportation actions. Billboard reportedly reached out to the White House to see if Carpenter granted permission for the use of her song, but no immediate response was given.
And this isn’t the first instance of the Trump team drawing accusations of exploiting pop culture without permission. Just weeks earlier, Olivia Rodrigo publicly criticized the administration after her song “All-American Bitch” from Guts was used in a Homeland Security Instagram reel showing ICE agents tackling and deporting detainees. Rodrigo called it “racist, hateful propaganda” and demanded her art not be weaponized politically. The post itself urged migrants to “LEAVE NOW and self-deport using the CPB Home app” — a line that generated intense backlash.
Sabrina Carpenter’s protest joins a growing list of artists objecting to the Trump campaign’s continued use of popular music in political videos without consent. In recent months, Kenny Loggins slammed the president for pairing his classic “Danger Zone” with an AI-generated video depicting Trump dumping waste over citizens at anti-Trump protests. Meanwhile, Taylor Swift fans erupted when a White House TikTok rebranded her chart-topping track “The Fate of Ophelia” as “The Fate of America,” using footage of Trump’s mugshot and patriotic imagery. While Swift herself stayed silent, the White House boasted in a comment to Variety that the video was purposefully designed to provoke liberal media outlets — even bragging, “Congrats, you got played.”
With each incident, tensions between pop culture and political messaging continue to rise. The ethical question at the center — should a government or campaign co-opt art to serve its political ends without consent? — remains hotly debated. As Carpenter, Rodrigo, and others push back, more artists are speaking up about creative ownership and the line between parody, propaganda, and outright exploitation.
So what do you think — is this an example of modern political marketing gone too far, or just another case of the internet amplifying outrage? Should artists have legal grounds to stop politicians from using their work in this way? Drop your thoughts below — this debate is far from over.
