Semisonic, the band behind the 1998 hit “Closing Time,” is speaking out against the White House after their iconic song was featured in a video about deportation. The video, which was posted on the White House’s social media platforms, depicted a man in handcuffs being deported by border patrol officers. As other individuals were loaded onto a plane, Semisonic’s hit played in the background, with lead singer Dan Wilson’s voice singing the lyrics, “You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.” The juxtaposition of the upbeat anthem with the somber deportation imagery has sparked backlash from the band, who argue that the White House has misunderstood the song’s true meaning.
Semisonic’s Response: The Misinterpretation of ‘Closing Time’
Semisonic was quick to respond, expressing their dismay that the White House used their song without permission. The band made it clear that they neither authorized nor condoned the use of “Closing Time” in the video. In a statement shared with Variety and initially reported by Rolling Stone, Semisonic clarified that the song was not intended to represent exclusion or deportation. “The song is about joy and possibilities and hope,” the band said, emphasizing that it is about the excitement of new beginnings, not the somber process of being forcibly removed from a country. The message of the song, according to Semisonic, has been completely misinterpreted in the context of the video.
The band’s statement reflects a deep concern over the song’s misuse, highlighting how a piece of music can take on unintended meanings when used in a specific political context. “They have missed the point entirely,” Semisonic declared, underscoring that “Closing Time” was written about a much more personal and uplifting experience—the birth of lead singer Dan Wilson’s daughter. To have the song associated with a video about deportation, the band argues, distorts its original, optimistic message, turning it into something far removed from its true meaning.
The Ongoing Trend of Music Misuse in Politics
The controversy surrounding the use of “Closing Time” is part of a broader trend in which musicians have voiced their frustration with political figures using their songs without permission. Semisonic’s experience echoes similar incidents involving former President Donald Trump, who has been accused by multiple artists of misappropriating their music for political campaigns and rallies. During his 2024 campaign, musicians such as Jack White and Meg White of The White Stripes filed lawsuits against Trump for using their hit song “Seven Nation Army” in promotional materials without authorization. Other high-profile artists, including Celine Dion, the Foo Fighters, and Johnny Marr of The Smiths, have also publicly condemned Trump’s use of their music, arguing that it goes against their values and intentions.
In some cases, legal action has been taken, such as the lawsuit filed by White Stripes’ Jack White and Meg White, and a judge ordered Trump to stop using Sam & Dave’s “Hold On, I’m Coming” at rallies after the duo expressed their disapproval. These incidents highlight the growing tension between the music industry and political campaigns over the use of songs in a way that can shape the public’s perception of an artist’s political stance. For many musicians, their work is deeply personal, and they feel it is being co-opted for political purposes they do not support.
The Broader Implications: Artistic Ownership and Political Messaging
The controversy over Semisonic’s song being used in a deportation video brings attention to the complex relationship between artists and the political world. When musicians create songs, they invest significant emotional and personal meaning into their work, and using those songs in a political context can feel like a violation of their artistic integrity. For Semisonic, the issue isn’t just about the specific use of “Closing Time” in this particular video, but about the broader question of who owns a song once it has been created, and whether artists should have a say in how their music is used in political campaigns or social messaging.
This issue raises important questions about the ethics of using music as a tool for political messaging, particularly when the artist’s intentions are in direct contrast with the message being promoted. As artists and their fans continue to express frustration over political misuse of songs, it becomes clear that many musicians feel a deep sense of ownership over their work and believe that their music should reflect their own values and beliefs, not be co-opted for causes they oppose. In the case of Semisonic, their response to the White House’s use of “Closing Time” is a clear statement that artists want to be respected not only for their music but for the messages that music is meant to convey.
The Road Ahead: Will Artists Have More Control Over Their Music?
As the debate over the political use of music continues, it seems likely that more artists will demand greater control over how their songs are used in the public sphere. Semisonic’s outcry against the White House is just one example of the growing trend of musicians speaking out against political misuse. With more artists taking a stand, the question remains whether there will be greater accountability for politicians and campaigns that use songs without permission, or whether this trend of using music for political messaging will continue unabated. In either case, the tension between artistic expression and political power is sure to remain a point of contention in the coming years.