Zara Larsson Condemns White House Over Deportation Video Using Her Song

What Happened

On September 18, 2026, Swedish pop artist Zara Larsson publicly condemned the White House for its unauthorized use of her song 'Midnight Sun' in a social media video. The clip, posted on the White House's TikTok feed, depicted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and other U.S. law enforcement personnel apprehending individuals and placing them into vehicles, framed as 'never ending deportations.' This caption directly referenced Larsson's lyrics, 'never-ending midnight sun.' Larsson responded with a three-minute reaction video on her own social media, which quickly garnered over 4.2 million views on TikTok. In her video, she described the White House's content as 'dehumanising' and accused the administration of using her music to sow 'division,' despite her song's lyrics reflecting a connection between people and nature. The song 'Midnight Sun' was subsequently removed from the White House post, though the video itself remains visible.

Larsson's reaction included a visual gesture of holding an 'L' shape against her forehead, signifying 'loser.' She emphasized that the individuals depicted in the enforcement video were 'real people' and that 'the vast majority of these people who are undocumented are regular people with jobs and they're just trying to have a better future.' This incident marks a recurring pattern, as Larsson had previously criticized the Trump administration earlier this year for using her hit song 'Lush Life' in a video featuring President Donald Trump dancing at various events. The White House has faced similar interventions from other prominent artists, including Taylor Swift, Olivia Rodrigo, Sabrina Carpenter, and Ariana Grande, who have all demanded the removal of their music from administration-produced social media content.

What the Evidence Establishes

The evidence establishes that the White House utilized Zara Larsson's song 'Midnight Sun' in a social media video promoting immigration enforcement, specifically depicting ICE operations. This video was captioned 'never ending deportations,' a direct adaptation of Larsson's lyrics. Following Larsson's public criticism, the song was removed from the White House's post, although the visual content of the video remains accessible on their TikTok platform. Larsson's response, delivered via a three-minute social media video, explicitly labeled the White House's use of her music as 'dehumanising' and accused the administration of fostering 'division.' Her video quickly accumulated over 4.2 million views, indicating significant public engagement with her stance.

Furthermore, the incident with Larsson is not isolated. Multiple artists have previously objected to the Trump administration's use of their music in political content. Taylor Swift's track 'August' was removed from a White House reel in August, and Olivia Rodrigo's song was taken down after she condemned its use as 'hateful propaganda.' Sabrina Carpenter and Ariana Grande have also issued warnings to the administration regarding the unauthorized use of their music. This pattern suggests a consistent practice by the White House social media accounts of using popular music without explicit artist consent, leading to repeated public disputes and subsequent removal of the audio tracks. Larsson's prior objection to the use of her song 'Lush Life' in a video featuring President Trump dancing further corroborates this established pattern of artist-administration conflict over intellectual property and political messaging.

Where the Accounts Conflict

While both the BBC and Breitbart News report on Zara Larsson's criticism of the White House, their accounts diverge significantly in tone, specific quotations, and the inclusion of additional context. The BBC maintains a neutral, descriptive tone, stating that Larsson 'criticises' the White House and 'condemned' the use of her song, describing the clip as 'dehumanising.' The BBC focuses on the factual sequence of events: the song's use, Larsson's reaction, and its subsequent removal, alongside a list of other artists who have made similar complaints. It quotes Larsson stating, 'These people in this video – they're real people,' and 'The vast majority of these people who are undocumented are regular people with jobs and they're just trying to have a better future.'

In contrast, Breitbart News employs more charged language, reporting that Larsson 'erupted' and used the phrase 'f**king losers' to describe individuals in the White House. Breitbart also includes a quote where Larsson states, 'I just don’t get it, like, it’s just so fucking uncool,' and characterizes her statements as 'rambled.' Crucially, Breitbart adds a controversial past comment attributed to Larsson regarding an abortion, where she reportedly said, 'I killed the performance and then you killed it after,' in response to a fan. This detail, absent from the BBC's report, serves to frame Larsson's character and potentially undermine her credibility from Breitbart's perspective, shifting the narrative beyond the immediate dispute over music usage to broader political and cultural commentary. The BBC's account focuses strictly on the current event and its direct implications, whereas Breitbart expands the scope to include past controversial statements by the artist.

Context and Stakes

The ongoing disputes between musical artists and political administrations over the unauthorized use of copyrighted material highlight a significant intersection of intellectual property rights, political messaging, and cultural influence. For artists like Zara Larsson, the use of their music in political advertisements or government-produced content, particularly when it promotes policies they oppose, can be perceived as an endorsement or a misrepresentation of their artistic intent. This can damage their public image, alienate segments of their fanbase, and compromise their artistic integrity. The 'Midnight Sun' incident, with its direct link to immigration enforcement, places Larsson in a politically charged debate, forcing her to publicly clarify her stance and defend her work's intended message.

For political administrations, the use of popular music in social media reels is a tactic to connect with broader audiences, particularly younger demographics, and to make policy messages more engaging or palatable. However, repeated instances of artists demanding removal of their songs underscore a fundamental misunderstanding or disregard for intellectual property rights and artist consent. Each public condemnation by a high-profile artist generates negative publicity for the administration, potentially undermining the very message they intended to convey. The cumulative effect of these incidents could lead to increased legal scrutiny, stricter enforcement of copyright laws in political contexts, or a chilling effect on the willingness of artists to allow their music to be used by any political entity, regardless of alignment. The stakes involve not only individual artist rights but also the broader cultural landscape of political communication and the perceived neutrality of artistic expression.

What to Watch Next

Observers should monitor the White House's future social media practices regarding music usage. Following multiple public condemnations from artists, including Zara Larsson, Taylor Swift, and Olivia Rodrigo, the administration may implement stricter internal protocols for vetting music selections to avoid further public relations setbacks and potential legal challenges. Any official statement or internal memo from the White House or its social media team addressing these repeated incidents would indicate a shift in strategy. Conversely, continued unauthorized use of music, leading to more artist complaints, would suggest a persistent disregard for intellectual property rights and a willingness to absorb the associated negative publicity.

Additionally, the music industry's response warrants attention. Major industry bodies, such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) or artist advocacy groups, may issue updated guidelines or public advisories to their members regarding the use of music in political campaigns and government communications. There is also a possibility that artists or their labels could pursue more aggressive legal action beyond public condemnation, potentially seeking injunctions or damages for copyright infringement, which would set new precedents for political entities' use of copyrighted material. The frequency and nature of future artist interventions will be a key indicator of whether this issue escalates into a more formalized legal or industry-wide dispute, or if it remains a series of individual public spats.

Bottom Line

Swedish pop star Zara Larsson publicly condemned the White House for using her song 'Midnight Sun' in a social media video depicting immigration enforcement, labeling the content as 'dehumanising.' This incident is part of a recurring pattern where the White House has used popular music without artist consent, leading to similar objections from other prominent musicians like Taylor Swift and Olivia Rodrigo. Larsson's strong reaction, which included calling White House personnel 'f**king losers' according to one report, highlights the tension between artists' intellectual property rights and political entities' use of cultural content for messaging. The song was removed from the White House post, but the video remains.

The ongoing conflict underscores the challenges political administrations face in leveraging popular culture for communication while respecting artists' autonomy and copyright. These disputes carry implications for public perception, potentially alienating segments of the electorate and raising questions about ethical content acquisition. The repeated nature of these incidents suggests either a lack of internal controls or a deliberate strategy to utilize popular culture despite anticipated backlash. The situation remains a flashpoint for discussions on intellectual property, political messaging, and the role of artists in public discourse, with potential for further legal or industry-wide responses if the pattern persists.