March 13, 2026
One of the latest posts from the Democratic party’s official TikTok page is a ‘Hobama’ edit (a fictionally romantic pairing of pop star Harry Styles and former President Barack Obama) [1]. Given the numerous policy concerns for the Democratic party, a social media post focused on a fictional romantic pairing seems incredibly peculiar. The oddity of the post is evidence of a shift in political campaigning. As politicians move away from policy in favor of virality, music is used to generate engagement on social media posts. Indeed, playing in the background of that Hobama edit is the song “Aperture” by Harry Styles, an audio currently trending on TikTok [1]. Similarly, the White House’s official TikTok account recently posted a Minecraft edit of President Donald Trump, featuring another trendy song, “Up” by Cardi B [2]. On all ends of the political spectrum, politicians’ social media are focused on accumulating views and likes by hopping on the trends of other viral content [3]. However, one of the key issues with politicians posting such content on social media is the abuse of artistic consent.
Politicians do not need an artist’s consent to use a particular song in a social media post; this is due to the method used by social media platforms like TikTok to navigate musical copyright law. Music copyright is split in two facets: musical work and sound recording. A musical work refers to the composition and lyrics of a song, whereas a sound recording is a musical work fixed in a recording medium such as a vinyl, CD, or digital file [4]. Under the Copyright Act of 1976, artists can sell permission to use their sound recording, which allows artists to make royalties when their songs are played [4]. However, artists rarely sell this copyright directly as it is typically an artist’s label that controls the sound recording copyright. This is why record labels license music out to social media platforms, venues, movies, events, etc [5]. In the case of TikTok, music labels license music out to TikTok, who then adds it to their library of sounds that any user can access [6]. Hence, politicians can legally use any song from the TikTok library without the need to contact the song’s artist.
A politician’s ability to use songs without needing to obtain direct copyright licensing has created tension with artists. In December, the White House’s official TikTok page posted an edit to the song “Juno” by Sabrina Carpenter. The edit used a trendy soundbite from Carpenter’s song, the ad lib “Have you ever tried… this one?”, overlaying footage of ICE officers arresting individuals. Carpenter responded to the video on X, posting that “this video is evil and disgusting. Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda” [7]. A similar situation occurred in 2024 when the Trump campaign posted a video to the song “Deja Vu” by Olivia Rodrigo. Like Carpenter, Rodrigo objected to the use, writing “don’t ever use my songs to promote your racist, hateful propaganda” [8]. Despite being openly against Trump and his policies, both pop-stars were powerless against their music being used in official political materials.
The issue of political music licensing extends beyond just social media. Spanning across decades, politicians have received complaints during various campaign seasons for playing songs at political rallies without artist consent. In 1984, Bruce Springsteen condemned Reagan’s use of his song “Born in the U.S.A.”. In 2008, singer Sam Moore asked Obama’s campaign to stop using his song “Hold On, I’m Comin’.” From 2016 to 2020, Beyonce, Adele, the Rolling Stones, R.E.M., and Tom Petty have all objected to the use of their various songs at Trump’s rallies due to ideological differences [9].
Rallies can play copyrighted music by making agreements with a Performing Rights Organization (PRO). PROs are formed by a conglomeration of artists, producers, and music industry professionals. Artists agree to give their licensing rights up for distribution to the PRO and the PRO can then give rallies the license to use that copyright, typically through blanket licenses. If a campaign obtains a blanket license, they are authorized to use any song from any artist within that PRO’s catalog [10]. Furthermore, campaigns need not always negotiate directly with a PRO. PROs often have agreements with specific venues to license music there. If a campaign is having a rally within that venue, the campaign can negotiate to use songs licensed to the venue [11]. A campaign can achieve copyright licensing without directly needing to make agreements with a PRO. Therefore, politicians can use music in rallies and campaigns without the artists’ direct or tacit consent.
The ability of politicians to use music in political work without an artist’s permission is a clear flaw in copyright law. When politicians play music in a social media post or at a rally, that music becomes part of their persona. An inherent connection is made between the song and the politician. Politics are an obviously controversial topic, so for politicians to be able to use whatever music they please to cultivate their brand brings up numerous concerns regarding artists’ personal rights . Under current copyright law, artists’ music may be used for campaigns that the artist is morally opposed to, such as in the case of Rodrigo or Carpenter [7, 8]. Troublingly, a politicians’ use of music from a particular artist can create the implication that the artist supports the politician. Although, artists do have some protection for that particular issue, codified in US law under the Lanham Act.
The Lanham Act allows artists to object to how their work is used, even if copyright licensing was properly obtained. Under the Lanham Act, businesses, campaigns, and individuals are prohibited from using copyrighted works to create a “false endorsement” [12]. To be enforced, the Lanham Act requires artists to prove that a politician used their music in such a way that implies the artist supports the politician or their policies. However, the Lanham Act does not generally apply to music being played in the background of rallies or social media posts because judges have ruled that music merely playing in the background of political messaging does not constitute the implication of direct endorsement [13]. As a result, the protections of the Lanham Act are extremely limited. If an artist does not own the copyright of their song themselves, artists are generally at the mercy of PROs and music labels for the distribution of their works.
However, even artists who do own the copyright to their own works are not free from political uses of their song. Copyright licensing is not required if a politician can claim fair use. Fair use is a subset of copyright law that allows copyrighted materials to be used if the resulting product adds “transformative” value to the original work [14]. Under fair use, copyrighted music can be used for commentary purposes, criticism, new reporting, education, and scholarship work without needing permission from the copyright holder [15]. Politicians who come under fire for using copyrighted music may simply claim fair use. While the doctrine of fair use is important for facilitating the flow of information and ideas, official political work is distinctive enough to merit its own exception from free use. Music is a highly personal art, with many songs focused on an artists’ individual lives, relationships, and feelings. The use of such art without the musician’s consent regarding morally disagreeable matters can create psychological pain to the artist. Due to the inherently controversial nature of politics, artists should be able to reject the use of their songs for official political purposes, even if the content is currently protected by fair use.
Some may object that restricting a politician’s ability to use fair use is a First Amendment violation because the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech for everybody, including politicians [U.S. Constitution. Amendment I.]. However, due to the unique nature of their work, politicians have always had limitations of freedom of speech, such as increased limits on defamation, commercial speech, confidentiality, threats, and speech related to official duties [16, 17]. Increased limitations on copyrighted material for political purposes would therefore be no extreme transition.
In the modern age of campaigning, politicians will continue to aim for those viral moments online. Society and law should not allow the goals of politicians’ social achievement to abuse the work of artists. US intellectual property law should be amended to restrict the ability of politicians to use musical artists’ work without their permission. Politicians should be required to reach copyright agreements with individual artists whenever copyrighted music is used for an explicitly political purpose, such as being played at a campaign rally or being posted on an official social media account. The music that politicians use becomes associated with who they are and what they stand for. Artists should have the right to allow, or prevent, this relationship in order to protect their own images, brands, beliefs, and passions.
Image Credits: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:President_Barack_Obama.jpg#/media/File:President_Barack_Obama.jpg
Works Cited
[1] Democrats (@democrats), “🪩”, Video, January 3, 2026, https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP89NYPjL/
[2] The White House (@whitehouse), “crafting the GOLDEN AGE 🔥”, Video, December 30, 2026, https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP89NdW6c/
[3] Chkuaseli, Simon. “The Impact of Memes and Viral Content on Political Campaigns.” Eustochos, August 26, 2024. https://eustochos.com/the-impact-of-memes-and-viral-content-on-political-campaigns/.
[4] United States. Copyright Act of 1976. Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541 (1976). Codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–810.
[5] DeSantis, Rachel. “From the Beatles to Taylor Swift: Why It’s so Hard for Musicians to Own Their Music.” People, July 1, 2019. https://people.com/music/beatles-to-taylor-swift-why-its-hard-musicians-own-their-music/.
[6] “Copyright.” Tiktok support. Accessed February 5, 2026. https://www.tiktok.com/support/faq_detail?id=7543604786688563768&category=web_account.
[7] The White House (@whitehouse), “Have you ever tried this one? Bye-bye 🥰”, Video, December 1, 2025, https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP89NdB1F/
[8] Goldsztajn, Iris. “Olivia Rodrigo Removed Her Song from a Trump Campaign Tiktok: ‘Don’t Use My Sound Ever Again.’” Marie Claire, November 8, 2024. https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/olivia-rodrigo-removed-song-trump-campaign-tiktok/.
[9] Team, FOX TV Digital. “Here’s Why Candidates like Trump Can Use Artists’ Songs at Rallies, Even If They Object.” FOX 4 News Dallas-Fort Worth, August 29, 2024. https://www.fox4news.com/news/candidates-using-songs-rallies-legal.
[10] “Copyright and Uses of Music by Political Campaigns.” Congressional Research Service, October 2, 2024. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12775/IF12775.1.pdf.
[11] “Navigating Copyright Issues in Music Production for Record Labels.” WordPress, April 23, 2025. https://progressrec.com/navigating-copyright-issues-in-music-production-for-record-labels/.
[12] Lanham Act. Pub. L. No. 79-489. 60 Stat. 427 (1946). Codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051–1127.
[13] “Lanham Act Protections for Trademarks and Advertising.” UpCounsel, April 23, 2025. https://www.upcounsel.com/lanham-act.
[14] “Is Music in Political Campaigns Fair Use?” Copyright Alliance, February 9, 2023. https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/music-political-campaigns-fair-use/.
[15] Office, U.S. Copyright. “Fair Use (FAQ): U.S. Copyright Office.” Fair Use (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office. Accessed February 5, 2026. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html.
[16] “Does Freedom of Speech Have Limits?” LegalClarity, January 28, 2026. https://legalclarity.org/does-freedom-of-speech-have-limits/.
[17] “Pickering Balancing Test for Government Employee Speech | Constitution Annotated | Congress.Gov | Library of Congress.” Constitution Annotated. Accessed February 6, 2026. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-9-4/ALDE_00013549/
Policy & Political Review 
.jpg){kind=link}