Lead — Pop singer Sabrina Carpenter and Kids Can Press, publisher of the children’s character Franklin the Turtle, publicly rejected the Trump administration’s use of their creative work in government messaging this week. Carpenter objected after a montage that paired her song “Juno” with footage tied to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, calling the association abhorrent. Separately, Kids Can Press criticized a Defense Department official’s social post that used a doctored image of Franklin aimed at boats. Both parties said the uses were unauthorized and at odds with the creators’ values.
Key Takeaways
- Sabrina Carpenter tweeted that a White House video using her song “Juno” in imagery tied to ICE raids was “evil and disgusting” and demanded no further use of her music in support of that agenda.
- The White House caption for the montage included Carpenter’s lyric line, quoted as “Have you ever tried this one? Bye-bye.”
- Kids Can Press publicly condemned a post by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on X that showed a manipulated Franklin the Turtle image paired with the caption “Franklin Targets Narco Terrorists.”
- U.S. forces have carried out multiple strikes on small boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific, with more than 80 people killed since early September, according to reporting cited by the publisher’s statement.
- Numerous other musicians and rights holders — from ABBA and Bruce Springsteen to Olivia Rodrigo and Rihanna — have objected to the Trump administration’s use of their songs or copyrighted material.
Background
High-profile artists and commercial rights holders often retain control over how their work is licensed and used; political or government reuse of music and imagery regularly prompts scrutiny. Musicians have legal avenues to restrict or authorize public performances and synchronization (pairing music with images), and many artists draw firm lines against associating their work with campaigns or policies they oppose. Children’s publishers similarly guard character images and branding; those properties are typically protected by copyright and trademark, and licensors can object to derivative or altered uses that convey messages contrary to the brand’s values.
The debate over political use of creative works is not new. Over recent election cycles and policy disputes, multiple public figures have publicly demanded that campaigns, parties or government offices stop using their songs or images. Rights holders may issue cease-and-desist notices, seek takedowns on social platforms, or announce public condemnations to distance their work from messaging they view as harmful. The current episode follows that pattern, but intersects with a sensitive policy area — immigration enforcement and lethal strikes at sea — that has drawn both political and humanitarian attention.
Main Event
Carpenter reacted after a White House-produced montage linked a segment of her track “Juno” to footage described by the administration as related to ICE raids. In a posted response on X, she called the pairing “evil and disgusting” and instructed officials not to involve her or her music to support what she characterized as an inhumane agenda. The White House excerpt included a line of her lyrics, presented in the clip’s caption.
Separately, Kids Can Press took issue with a post by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on X that featured an edited image of Franklin the Turtle appearing to aim a bazooka at approaching boats, accompanied by the caption “Franklin Targets Narco Terrorists.” The publisher said the depiction was denigrating, violent and unauthorized, and stated that it contradicted the character’s established values and messaging.
The context for both reactions is a series of maritime strikes carried out by U.S. forces in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific against small boats the government says were transporting narcotics. Reporting indicates more than 80 people have been killed in such strikes since early September, a statistic that has intensified public and international concern and has made any government portrayal of the operations especially fraught with ethical and legal implications.
Analysis & Implications
The incidents underscore a growing tension between governmental messaging and creators’ control over their intellectual property. When public officials use songs or beloved character imagery to frame or celebrate contentious policy actions, rights holders may view that as implicit endorsement — prompting swift reputational rebuttals. Such disputes can accelerate calls for clearer internal rules within administrations about vetting third-party content before release.
There are also legal and platform consequences. Copyright owners can demand removal or pursue legal remedies if content is used without license, particularly in commercial or campaign contexts; while fair use defenses sometimes apply, government reuse for persuasive policy communications sits in a legally grey area and often invites public backlash. For children’s brands, the risk is reputational harm if characters associated with learning and safety are shown in violent or political scenarios.
Politically, these clashes can amplify scrutiny of the underlying policies being promoted. The reported maritime strikes — and the associated casualty figure of more than 80 deaths since early September — have fueled debate over the rules of engagement, oversight, and the humanitarian costs of such operations. Creative-rights pushback adds a cultural dimension to what might otherwise be a narrow policy or military discussion, potentially broadening public attention and pressure for transparency.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Reported maritime strikes | More than 80 people killed since early September |
| Notable artists who objected (examples) | ABBA, Bruce Springsteen, Olivia Rodrigo, Rihanna, Phil Collins, Beyoncé, Adele |
The table summarizes the single confirmed numeric datapoint cited in reporting and a representative list of artists who have publicly objected to government uses of their work. While the casualty number is tied to reporting on the strikes, the roster of objecting musicians reflects a broader pattern of rights holders asserting control over how their creations are employed in political contexts.
Reactions & Quotes
“this video is evil and disgusting. Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.”
Sabrina Carpenter (posted on X)
Carpenter’s message was a direct condemnation of the montage and a categorical demand that her music not be used to support the administration’s immigration-related messaging. Her response joined a chorus of artists who have publicly disputed government use of their songs.
“We strongly condemn any denigrating, violent, or unauthorized use of Franklin’s name or image, which directly contradicts these values.”
Kids Can Press (publisher statement, posted on X)
The publisher framed the altered depiction as inconsistent with Franklin’s long-standing brand of gentle, child-friendly storytelling and said the image was unauthorized. That statement focused both on copyright/trademark concerns and on the mismatch between the character’s ethos and the violent framing used in the post.
“Franklin Targets Narco Terrorists.”
Pete Hegseth (caption on X post)
The caption from the Defense Department official encapsulated the intent behind that particular post: to link a familiar children’s figure to a hard-line framing of counter-narcotics operations. The publisher said the use was manipulated and inappropriate, while the post itself illustrates how officials sometimes use visual shorthand to convey policy positions.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the White House obtained explicit permission or a license to use Carpenter’s recording or composition in the montage has not been publicly confirmed.
- The full chain of custody for the Franklin image (who edited it and whether the posted file originated inside the Defense Department) remains unclear from available public statements.
Bottom Line
The episodes involving Sabrina Carpenter and Kids Can Press show how creative rights and cultural sensitivities can shape the political communications landscape. When administrations incorporate music or beloved characters into messaging about controversial operations, they risk legal pushback and swift public relations consequences that shift attention from policy to optics and propriety.
For rights holders, public denouncements serve both to protect intellectual property and to distance creators from causes they reject. For policymakers, the incidents offer a reminder to vet third-party content carefully and to weigh the reputational costs of associating government actions with commercial art and family-oriented brands. Watch for any follow-up takedown notices, official clarifications about licensing, or changes in how agencies clear external content in future communications.