Semisonic Band Criticizes White House for Unauthorized Use of ‘Closing Time’

Semisonic Band Criticizes White House for Unauthorized Use of ‘Closing Time’

The band Semisonic issued a strong statement on Monday, expressing that they did not authorize or support a video from the White House featuring their iconic song ‘Closing Time’. This video, shared by both the official White House and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection accounts on X, portrayed deportations alongside the familiar lyrics, ‘You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here.’

White House Uses Song to Illustrate Immigration Message

In this controversial video, CBP stated, ‘It’s closing time. We are making America safe again.’ The use of the beloved song from the 1990s sparked immediate backlash from the band, highlighting the song’s deeper meaning that the administration apparently overlooked.

Semisonic Responds with Clarity

Hours after the video’s release, Semisonic published a statement on X, asserting their disapproval of the video’s content. They emphasized that the Trump administration had completely misunderstood the essence 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 song is about joy and possibilities and hope, and they have missed the point entirely,’ the band remarked.

White House Defends Its Position

During a press briefing on the same day, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the administration’s actions. She claimed that the video succinctly encapsulated the immigration policy. ‘You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here,’ she reiterated.

Leavitt insisted that the current government was committed to supporting the president’s immigration stance. ‘The president was elected with an overwhelming mandate to launch the largest mass deportation campaign in American history. And that’s exactly what he is doing.’

Notable Musical Reactions

Semisonic’s situation echoes trends from numerous prominent musicians who have publicly opposed Donald Trump’s use of their music. Artists such as Foo Fighters, Celine Dion, Beyoncé, and ABBA have all expressed their discontent when songs were played at either campaign rallies or White House events.

A Rare Exception

In a twist, founding member of the Village People, Victor Willis, initially opposed Trump’s use of their hits like ‘Y.M.C.A.’ However, in 2024, he altered his stance, complimenting Trump for ‘bringing so much joy to the American people’ through his music.

The Broader Implications of Musical Choices

This incident with Semisonic raises broader questions about artistic expression and the responsibility of using music in political contexts. Many artists view their work as a means of conveying personal experiences and social messages, making unauthorized use particularly contentious.

As Semisonic reflects on their musical legacy, they remain committed to ensuring that their songs reflect positivity and hope rather than divisive policies.

Final Thoughts on Artistic Integrity

The Semisonic case highlights the critical junction between politics and art, where songs often serve as the soundtrack to broader social movements and narratives. Musicians hold a unique power, and their voices should guide the interpretations of their works, not the interpretations enforced by those in power.

As the public reacts to these juxtaposed messages from artists and the White House, it becomes clear that the dialogue surrounding music in politics is far from over. The nuances of creative expression deserve careful consideration in all discussions, particularly at such a polarized time in American politics.