White House used Noah Kahan’s song without consent, singer says

Steelman: both sides, in good faith

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

The case for

Those sympathetic to the White House's position might argue that government communications routinely draw on popular music under standard licensing arrangements, and that a song called "American Cars" is a natural, non-partisan fit for a visit celebrating domestic manufacturing and jobs. They would note that using a track to accompany footage of a factory visit is not inherently an endorsement claim, and that public institutions have long set clips to popular music without seeking each artist's personal blessing, provided the underlying usage rights are in order. On this view, the swift removal of the post, once objections were raised, shows a reasonable responsiveness rather than any deliberate wrongdoing.

The case against

Musicians and their advocates would counter that artists have a legitimate and long-recognised interest in controlling how their work is associated with political figures and messaging, since audiences often read such pairings as implicit endorsement regardless of licensing technicalities. Kahan, they would argue, is entitled to object when his art is used in a way that misrepresents his own political views or lends unearned cultural credibility to an administration he does not support. From this perspective, licensing law is a separate question from basic respect for an artist's wishes, and the backlash reflects a broader, well-established principle that creative work should not be co-opted for political purposes without the creator's consent.