Sabrina Carpenter Criticizes White House After ‘Juno’ Used in ICE Deportation Video

Introduction

On 1 December 2025, the White House published a social-media video showing footage from deportation operations conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), set to the background music of “Juno,” a hit song by Sabrina Carpenter. The video paired arrest scenes — people being chased, handcuffed, and detained — with the lyric “Have you ever tried this one?” From the start, the use of the song drew immediate criticism. The next day, Carpenter publicly condemned the video, calling it “evil and disgusting,” demanding her music not be used to promote what she described as an “inhumane agenda.”

Within days — likely due to the backlash — the White House quietly deleted the video. However, the case reignited a broader debate over the use of popular music in political messaging and the rights of artists whose work is appropriated without permission.


---

What Happened: The Video and Its Fallout

The contested video was posted on the White House’s official X (formerly Twitter) account on 1 December. It showed a montage of ICE agents arresting individuals, many apparently being detained for immigration-related issues. Over that montage, the track “Juno” played, especially the line “Have you ever tried this one?”, which repeated as different arrest scenes unfolded. The post’s caption read: “Bye-bye 👋😍.”

For many online it was instantly jarring — the tone of the song is pop, light and flirty; its original context was a far cry from immigration enforcement. The contrast between a catchy pop beat and dramatic—or traumatic—arrest imagery was seen by critics as a cynical attempt to mask real human suffering behind entertainment-style editing.

In response, Sabrina Carpenter took to social media. She wrote:

> “This video is evil and disgusting. Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.”



Her post quickly gained huge attention: millions of views, thousands of shares and a flood of comments from fans and supporters. The public reaction was strong: many applauded her stance and condemned the video’s producers.

Shortly after, the White House account removed the video. Officially — no explanation was issued. Unofficially — many saw Carpenter’s condemnation and public pressure as decisive.


---

Why It Matters: Music, Politics, and Consent

Artists’ Rights and Unauthorized Use

This incident spotlights the tension between government communications and artists’ rights. While public-facing institutions may claim broad rights or fair usage, the ethics of using a pop song — especially a track known for lighthearted or sexual context — to accompany detention or deportation footage is deeply problematic.

“Juno” was never created as a soundtrack for immigration enforcement or political messaging. Its use in that context repurposed the art in a way that many found morally troubling. Carpenter’s protest underscores that art does not automatically become political just because it is public. Artists often intend their songs for personal expression — not political propaganda.

Public Perception and Normalization of Policy

Videos with pop songs and fun editing can mask serious policy actions in an appealing, shareable form. For many critics, the White House video crossed a line by turning deportations — a subject loaded with human cost — into an almost celebratory montage. The fear expressed by human-rights advocates is that this kind of media normalizes aggressive immigration enforcement and dehumanizes targeted individuals.

By using a trending song, the administration likely hoped to reach a younger audience, packaging an immigration crackdown as a lighter, meme-style spectacle. The reaction shows how quickly such tactics can backfire when faced with public and artistic resistance.


---

Broader Context: A Pattern of Controversial Use

This is not the first time the administration has been accused of misusing music or pop culture in politically charged media. Recently, other high-profile artists also criticized the White House for similar uses of their songs.

In the current political climate, where immigration policy, human rights and media messaging are hotly contested, the boundaries between policy communication and propaganda blur easily. For many artists, this misuse amounts to forced association with campaigns they do not support.

Sabrina Carpenter’s case now stands among a growing list of artists pushing back — not just to protect copyrights, but to assert their moral and creative autonomy.


---

Sabrina Carpenter’s Reaction: Personal and Public

Carpenter did not hold back. Calling the video “evil and disgusting” was a firm, public rejection. She explicitly stated that she did not authorize the use of her song for the video.

While some claims arise regarding legal licenses and platform rights, many supporters argue that artist consent should still matter when their work is used in a controversial political context. When music becomes part of a campaign for aggressive immigration enforcement, the ethical stakes go beyond copyright — they involve human dignity.

The singer’s stance resonates with many fans and fellow artists who see this episode as a reminder that art can be weaponized, and creators should have the right to reject such use.


---

Aftermath: Video Removed but Debate Continues

Though the contested video was deleted, the controversy is far from over. Critics say that taking down one video does not fix the deeper issue: a pattern of using pop culture for political messaging without explicit artist consent. Questions remain:

Should governments be allowed to repurpose songs for policy communications?

What ethical responsibilities come with using art to promote government actions, especially those involving vulnerable populations?

How do we balance free speech, public messaging, and respect for individual artists’ intentions?


As debates over immigration, human rights, and political messaging intensify, the role of popular media — and who controls it — is likely to remain central.


Conclusion

The episode involving the White House, ICE, and Sabrina Carpenter’s song “Juno” reveals a clash between political messaging and artistic integrity. What began as a standard promotional video turned into a controversial use of pop music to frame a serious issue. Carpenter’s refusal to let her work be used in that way — calling the video “evil and disgusting” — highlights the importance of consent and context when art intersects with policy.

By speaking out, she joined a growing chorus of artists demanding control over how their work is used — especially when it touches on human rights and state power.

At a time when media campaigns often blend entertainment, memes, and serious political content, this case serves as a powerful reminder: songs and art belong to their creators. And creators have the right to say “no.”