When Politics Meets Music, Copyright Drama Ensues — And This Time, It’s Getting Ugly
You’ve probably seen it before: A political figure uses a popular song to amp up a message, only to face backlash from the artist who never gave permission. But when that artist is a legendary rock band like Blue Öyster Cult, and the politician is former President Donald Trump, things can get especially heated.
So what happened? On October 2, 2025, Trump posted an AI-generated video on his TruthSocial platform featuring his reimagining of Blue Öyster Cult’s iconic track “(Don’t Fear) the Reaper.” In this bizarre twist, he’s dressed in a dark cloak playing an offbeat cowbell, while Russ Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, appears as the Grim Reaper. Vice President J.D. Vance even makes an appearance — drumming along.
The adapted lyrics read: “Russ Vought is the Reaper / He wields the pen, the funds, and the brain / Here comes the Reaper.”
It didn’t take long for the clip to go viral — but not for the reasons Trump might have hoped. Critics were quick to call out both its odd imagery and unauthorized use of copyrighted material. And soon after, Blue Öyster Cult responded publicly with a firm clarification.
And this is the part most people miss...
While fans assumed the band was behind the post — or at least supportive — Blue Öyster Cult made it crystal clear they had absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, they weren’t even consulted beforehand.
In a pointed social media statement, the group explained:
"Let’s clarify a few things. Blue Öyster Cult was not contacted or notified in advance. The copyright in the song ‘(Don’t Fear) The Reaper’ is 100% owned by Sony Music. Blue Öyster Cult has no legal right to either authorize or withhold usage, which is 100% controlled by Sony Music."
This isn’t just a one-off incident. Musicians across genres have repeatedly clashed with Trump over his unapproved use of their songs during campaigns and online posts. From Beyoncé to Jack White, the Foo Fighters to Adele, artists have gone on record expressing frustration — and sometimes outrage — at having their work used without consent. Some have even taken legal action.
But here's where it gets controversial…
Even though the band doesn’t own the rights to their own song anymore, does that mean they shouldn’t have a say in how it’s used politically? Many argue that moral rights — separate from legal ones — should still give creators some control, especially when it involves something as polarizing as a presidential campaign.
What do you think? Should record labels be allowed to license music for political purposes without the artist’s approval? Or is there a deeper ethical conversation we’re avoiding?
Weigh in below — because when art meets politics, everyone has an opinion.
