When a pop star calls out the White House for weaponizing her music, it sparks a fiery debate about art, politics, and the boundaries of free speech. Grammy-nominated artist Kesha has publicly denounced the White House, labeling them "perverts" for their use of her hit song "Blow" in a graphic TikTok video depicting military strikes. This incident raises a critical question: Can an artist control how their work is perceived and used, especially when it's co-opted for political messaging?
Kesha's 2011 anthem, "Blow," was featured in a White House TikTok video titled "Lethality," posted on February 10th. The 30-second clip, which garnered over 1.9 million views, showcased a jet launching a missile at a ship, resulting in an explosion, alongside other militaristic imagery. On Monday, Kesha revealed she was informed that the White House had employed her song "to incite violence and threaten war." She expressed her outrage on social media, stating, "Trying to make light of war is disgusting and inhumane. I absolutely do NOT approve of my music being used to promote violence of any kind. Love always trumps hate."
Interestingly, Kesha, whose 2009 breakthrough hit was ironically named "Tik Tok," further articulated her stance, telling her followers, "This show of blatant disregard for human life and quite frankly this attack on all of our nervous systems is the opposite of what I stand for." She also took a jab at the administration, remarking, "Also, don’t let this distract us from the fact that criminal predator Donald Trump appears in the Files over a million times."
But here's where it gets controversial... White House Communications Director Steven Cheung seemed to suggest that their use of popular music was a deliberate tactic to drive engagement to their content. He retorted, "All these ‘singers’ keep falling for this. This just gives us more attention and more view counts to our videos because people want to see what they’re bitching about." This perspective implies that artists' objections might inadvertently serve the very agenda they oppose.
Thirty minutes after Cheung's comment, Kesha responded with a direct message on her X account: "Stop using my music, perverts @WhiteHouse." The Daily Beast reached out to the White House, which reiterated Cheung's initial statement. Additionally, White House Deputy Communications Director Kaelan Dorr added, "Kesha quotes are like Popeye’s Spinach to this team. Memes? They’ll continue. Winning? Will also continue." The White House did not directly address Kesha's "perverts" remark. While Dorr has 50,000 followers and Cheung has 137,000 on X, Kesha boasts a substantial 2.8 million followers, highlighting the significant reach of her platform.
"Blow" achieved a peak position of No. 7 in 2011 and has accumulated over 330,000 streams on Spotify alone. Collectively, Kesha has garnered over 11 billion streams on Spotify and maintains 41 million monthly listeners. Her most celebrated tracks include "Tik Tok," "Timber," "Die Young," "Your Love Is My Drug," and "Praying."
This isn't the first time Kesha has voiced her disapproval of the Trump administration. In 2024, when questioned by a paparazzo about then-vice presidential candidate JD Vance, she emphatically stated, "F--- that man. F--- them all!" When prompted about Vance's 2021 comment characterizing America as being run by "a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made," Kesha retorted, "It is, bitch. It is. And this is what it looks like, honey."
Kesha joins a growing list of musicians who have publicly condemned the Trump administration for the unauthorized use of their music. This week, the U.K. band Radiohead expressed their strong disapproval when their song "Let Down" was featured in a promotional video for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. The video, a compilation of alleged crime victims, was captioned, "American citizens raped and murdered by those who have no right to be in our country. This is who we fight for. This is our why." Radiohead responded with a forceful statement: "We demand that the amateurs in control of the ICE social media account take it down. It ain’t funny, this song means a lot to us and other people, and you don’t get to appropriate it without a fight." They concluded with a defiant, "Also, go f--- yourselves."
Similarly, in November, chart-topper Olivia Rodrigo criticized the Trump administration after her song "All-American Bitch" was used in an ICE video that encouraged undocumented immigrants to leave the U.S. voluntarily. Rodrigo posted on the video, "Don’t ever use my songs to promote your racist, hateful propaganda," though her comment was subsequently deleted. However, her fans managed to preserve evidence through screenshots.
And this is the part most people miss... The question remains: Where is the line between using popular culture to connect with a wider audience and exploiting it to promote potentially harmful messages? Does the White House have the right to use any song it chooses for its official communications, or do artists retain a moral and artistic claim over their creations? What are your thoughts on this ongoing conflict between political entities and musicians? Do you believe artists should have absolute control over their music's use, or is there a public interest argument to be made for its broader application?
