Yes
They should.
No
They shouldn’t.
The long-running political friction involving President Donald Trump and superstar Taylor Swift has taken another turn, this time involving the use of Swift’s music in political social-media posts.
Several videos posted by Trump’s campaign and the White House reportedly had Swift songs removed after the music had been used in the posts. One Trump TikTok featured President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump watching fireworks while Swift’s song “August” played in the background. The audio was subsequently removed.
The situation quickly attracted attention because Trump and Swift have a complicated political history.
Swift endorsed Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential election, while Trump has publicly criticized the singer on multiple occasions. That history means even a dispute involving music rights can quickly become part of the country’s larger political and cultural divide.
There are also two very different ways Americans may view the latest controversy.
Trump supporters could see the removal as unnecessary or petty, particularly because political campaigns frequently use popular music and cultural references to generate attention on social media.
Others may argue that politics has nothing to do with it. Artists and copyright holders generally have an interest in controlling how their music is licensed and used, especially when its appearance could create the impression that an artist approves of a politician, campaign, organization, or political message.
Swift has not publicly commented on this particular incident, according to reporting Sunday, making it important not to assume her personal motivation for the removal.
The disagreement therefore raises a broader question about celebrities, copyright, and politics. Should famous musicians simply accept politicians using their work online, or should artists be able to decide when and where their music appears?
Americans are likely to have strong opinions on both sides.