Many are talking about the recent controversy surrounding Beyoncé and Donald Trump, particularly involving the use of her song “Freedom” in a campaign video. The incident has sparked widespread discussion and legal actions, raising questions about the unauthorized use of music in political contexts.
So, what exactly happened between Beyoncé and Trump? And why has it caused such a stir? Here’s everything you need to know.
What happened between Beyoncé and Donald Trump?
Beyoncé has threatened legal action against Donald Trump’s presidential campaign for using her song “Freedom” without permission (via Billboard). The controversy began when Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung posted a video showing Trump stepping off a plane with “Freedom” playing in the background. The song, from Beyoncé’s 2016 album Lemonade, is also Kamala Harris’s campaign anthem. Harris has reportedly used it with permission in various ads and events.
Following the unauthorized use, Beyoncé’s record label and publisher issued a cease-and-desist order. This led to the video’s removal from social media. The incident reflects a broader pattern of Trump’s campaign facing legal challenges for using music without authorization. Numerous artists, including Adele and the Rolling Stones, have previously opposed Trump’s use of their songs.
Recently, the family of the late singer Isaac Hayes joined this group by filing a lawsuit against Trump. They allege that Trump “wilfully and brazenly engaged in copyright infringement” by using Hayes’s 1966 Sam & Dave hit “Hold On, I’m Comin’” at rallies. The lawsuit demands $3 million in licensing fees and threatens additional damages of $150,000 per song use if the issue is not resolved (via The Guardian).
This ongoing legal struggle, including Beyoncé’s recent actions, highlights the challenges artists face in controlling the use of their work by political campaigns. Other musicians, such as Neil Young and Michael Stipe of R.E.M., have also criticized Trump’s use of their music. They cite the campaign’s controversial rhetoric as a reason for their opposition.
