Trump administration’s use of Noah Kahan song prompts backlash

Steelman: both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Those defending Kahan and Levine's objection argue that artists retain a fundamental right to control how and where their work is used, particularly in politically charged contexts they have not endorsed. Even if a licence exists for social media use, many musicians feel that being associated with a specific administration or policy agenda can alienate parts of their audience and misrepresent their personal views, especially when the pairing appears to endorse a president or policy they did not choose to support. On this view, insisting on consent isn't about restricting free use of popular culture, but about safeguarding an artist's voice and public identity from being co-opted for messaging outside their control.

The case against

Others would argue that using a widely popular song titled 'American Cars' to promote a major American car manufacturer is a natural, even fitting, creative choice, and that official government accounts often operate under standard platform licensing that permits such short-form use, much as television adverts or public events do. From this perspective, artists whose music becomes part of the national conversation should expect it to be used across the political spectrum, and objecting specifically when a disfavoured administration uses the work can look less like a licensing dispute and more like an attempt to prevent a president one disagrees with from any positive association with a hit song, which some see as an overreach beyond ordinary copyright concerns.