White House removes Taylor Swift song after copyright restriction
Developing story first seen 3 hours ago
The White House TikTok account removed Taylor Swift’s “august” from a video celebrating Donald Trump’s presidency after a copyright restriction was applied, ending a brief attempt to mock the singer. The development matters because it illustrates the continuing online antagonism between Trump’s team and Swift, whose music and political views have previously drawn attention from the president.
The original post paired footage of Trump and Melania Trump watching fireworks with a message taunting Swift about the song’s use; it was later replaced by a notice saying the copyright owner had not made the audio available locally. Trump’s social-media team then used Swift’s “Red” in another TikTok, joking about the Republican Party’s colour. The exchange follows Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris, which angered Trump, although he later wished Swift and Travis Kelce well over their reported wedding plans.
- Copyright restrictions removed Swift’s “august” from a White House TikTok.
- Trump’s team then used Swift’s “Red” in another post.
- The posts revive political tensions between Trump and Swift.
New here? Start with this
Taylor Swift is one of the world’s best-known pop singers, with a large following on social media. Her songs are protected by copyright, meaning platforms such as TikTok can restrict their use when the rights holder does not allow a track to be used in a particular place or context.
Donald Trump is the US president and the leading figure in the Republican Party, whose traditional colour is red. Swift has at times become part of US political debate after publicly supporting Democratic candidates, including Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.
Trump and Swift have previously exchanged criticism online, attracting attention because of their large audiences and influence in popular culture and politics. Their dispute shows how political figures increasingly use music, celebrity references and social-media posts to communicate with supporters.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters may argue that political communications teams are entitled to use popular cultural references, where licensing rules permit, to make official messaging more engaging and to answer criticism with humour. They may see the posts as light-hearted partisan banter rather than a serious attack, especially given that politicians and artists routinely comment on one another in public. On this view, removing restricted audio respects the platform’s copyright process while leaving room for robust political expression.
The case against
Critics may argue that using an artist’s work to celebrate a politician she has openly opposed risks implying her endorsement and turns copyright-protected art into a political taunt. They may regard repeated references to Swift as needlessly personal and incompatible with the dignity expected of an official White House account, particularly when it appears designed to provoke her fans. From this perspective, a copyright restriction is an appropriate safeguard against unauthorised political association and misuse of creative work.
More coverage
Celebrity Entertainment Government Music Politics Trending Weird & Viral
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Deadline as “Team Trump Trolls Taylor Swift With Song Use Before Copyright Claim Brings Silence”.