Semisonic Condemns White House Use of "Closing Time" in Deportation Video

The band Semisonic has publicly denounced the White House’s use of their iconic 1990s hit, "Closing Time," in a video promoting deportation efforts. The video, initially posted on the official White House and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) X (formerly Twitter) accounts, depicted deportation proceedings set to the backdrop of the song. The White House’s post highlighted the lyrics, "You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here. Its closing time," followed by CBP’s addition, "We are making America safe again."

Semisonic swiftly responded with a statement expressing their disapproval and clarifying that they neither authorized nor condoned the use of their song. "We did not authorize or condone the White House’s use of our song ‘Closing Time’ in any way. And no, they didn’t ask," the band stated on X. They further emphasized the intended meaning of the song, adding, "The song is about joy and possibilities and hope, and they have missed the point entirely."

The controversy highlights the recurring issue of musical artists objecting to the use of their work in political contexts, particularly when the message conveyed clashes with their artistic vision or personal beliefs. The use of "Closing Time," a song generally associated with farewells, transitions, and the end of an evening, to accompany visuals of deportation procedures has been widely criticized as insensitive and a misrepresentation of the song’s intended message.

The White House has defended its decision to use the song, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt addressing the issue during a press briefing. She stated that the video "sums up our immigration policy pretty well: You dont have to go home, but you cant stay here." Leavitt further emphasized the administration’s commitment to its immigration policies, adding, "The White House and our entire government clearly is leaning into the message of this president and we are unafraid to double down and to take responsibility and ownership of the serious decisions that are being made."

Leavitt also reiterated the president’s campaign promises regarding immigration, stating, "The president was elected with an overwhelming mandate to launch the largest mass deportation campaign in American history. And thats exactly what he is doing." This statement underscores the administration’s unwavering stance on immigration enforcement, even in the face of criticism from artists and the public.

Semisonic now joins a growing list of prominent musicians and bands who have publicly objected to President Trump’s use of their music at campaign rallies or White House events. This list includes such notable names as Foo Fighters, Celine Dion, Beyoncé, and ABBA, all of whom have expressed their disapproval of their music being associated with the former president. These objections often stem from concerns about the political implications of the association, as well as the potential for misinterpretation of their artistic work.

The unauthorized use of music in political contexts raises complex legal and ethical questions. While campaigns and political organizations often obtain blanket licenses to use music publicly, these licenses may not cover all uses, particularly when the artist objects to the association with a specific political message. Moreover, the use of a song in a manner that fundamentally alters its meaning or creates a false impression of endorsement can raise concerns about artistic integrity and freedom of expression.

However, there are exceptions to this pattern of musicians objecting to their work being used by the Trump administration. One notable example is the Village People. While the band initially insisted that Trump cease using their songs "Y.M.C.A." and "Macho Man," founding member Victor Willis later changed his stance. In 2024, Willis praised Trump for "bringing so much joy to the American people" with his musical choices. This shift in opinion highlights the diverse perspectives within the music industry and the varying degrees to which artists are willing to engage with the political sphere.

The situation with Semisonic and "Closing Time" underscores the importance of seeking explicit permission from artists before using their music in political campaigns or official government communications. While blanket licenses may provide legal coverage for certain uses, they do not necessarily reflect the artist’s consent or endorsement. By obtaining explicit permission, political organizations can avoid potential controversy and ensure that their use of music aligns with the artist’s values and intentions.

The incident also raises broader questions about the role of music in political discourse. Music has long been used as a tool for political expression, mobilization, and persuasion. However, the use of music in political contexts can also be fraught with ethical considerations, particularly when the artist’s intentions are disregarded or their work is used to promote a message that contradicts their values.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Semisonic and the White House’s use of "Closing Time" serves as a reminder of the power of music to evoke emotions, convey meaning, and shape public opinion. It also underscores the importance of respecting the artistic integrity of musicians and seeking their consent before using their work in political contexts. As the use of music in politics continues to evolve, it is essential to engage in thoughtful dialogue about the ethical and legal implications of these practices. The clash between Semisonic and the White House exemplifies the tension that can arise when art and politics intersect, highlighting the need for greater sensitivity and awareness in the use of creative works for political purposes. The ramifications of this incident extend beyond a simple copyright issue, touching upon the broader issues of artistic expression, political messaging, and the responsibility of government entities in utilizing creative works. The debate will likely continue as artists increasingly voice their concerns about how their work is used in the political arena.