Ariana Grande condemns Trump TikTok use of her song

Both sides, in good faith

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

The case for

The administration could argue that brief incorporation of a popular song into political commentary constitutes transformative fair use, particularly given constitutional protections for political speech. Using a few seconds of background music to accompany a political statement on a matter of public debate does not substitute for or diminish the market value of the original work. Granting individual artists absolute veto power over any political message that incorporates their music would effectively limit legitimate political expression and reflects standard campaign practice that has long drawn upon popular culture.

The case against

Artists retain fundamental intellectual property rights to control how their creative work is used and what messages it is associated with—rights that exist precisely for this purpose. When Grande explicitly objected to the earlier use accompanying ICE enforcement imagery and it was removed, the administration's continued unauthorised use demonstrates deliberate disregard for her stated wishes and artistic autonomy. Copyright protections become meaningless if powerful entities can repeatedly misappropriate artists' work; the pattern across multiple musicians shows systematic undermining of creators' control over their own creative output.