Which artists pulled their music from Spotify in 2025 over the ICE ads and what impact did that have on the company?
Executive summary
A wave of artists and some labels removed music from Spotify in 2025 in protest of the platform running U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recruitment ads and other company controversies; named acts who publicly cited the ads or were reported as leaving include Saetia, Sylvan Esso, Deerhoof, My Bloody Valentine, Massive Attack, King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard, Thursday and several rock/metal bands among at least nine identified departures [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. The immediate commercial impact on Spotify was reputational and operational—pressure from artists, public boycotts and inquiries from institutional investors—prompting the company to say the ads complied with policy even as it later confirmed the ICE recruitment spots stopped running at the end of 2025 [7] [3] [8].
1. Who pulled music — named artists and the motives they gave
Reports across music outlets list a mix of indie and major acts who removed or requested removal of catalogs in 2025, with some explicitly citing the ICE ads and broader ethical objections: Saetia linked their exit to those recruitment ads (and clarified they are not opposed to platforms per se), Sylvan Esso framed their departure in terms of not wanting their life’s work on a service “that...directly funds war machines,” and high-profile protesters included Massive Attack, Deerhoof and My Bloody Valentine among others who publicly disassociated from Spotify during the controversy [1] [4] [3] [6]. King Gizzard’s frontman described longstanding distrust of Spotify and said their removal was both a protest over ads and associated concerns about Daniel Ek’s investments in AI/military-related firms [7] [5]. Coverage also cataloged at least nine rock and metal bands that removed some or all music in a concentrated second-half 2025 exodus [2] [4].
2. The scale of the boycott and corporate fallout
The artist departures fed a broader consumer and institutional backlash: grassroots campaigns like “Don’t Stream Fascism: Cancel Spotify” mobilized listeners, labels such as Epitaph were reported to pull catalogs or urge action, and New York City’s comptroller publicly questioned Spotify’s advertising governance and shareholder risk—an overt institutional probe linking reputational damage to potential investor consequences [3] [9] [10]. Media accounts also connected the ad placements to wider unrest over Spotify practices—from payout disputes to verified AI-generated acts—creating a cumulative narrative that accelerated cancellations and switching behavior, including Apple’s quick rollout of a playlist-import tool to ease defections [11] [12] [9].
3. Spotify’s response and the factual limits on impact assessment
Spotify initially defended the ads as part of a broad federal campaign and maintained they did not violate the company’s ad policies, even as artists and civil-society groups called for removal [7]. Independent reporting cited a relatively modest payment from DHS to Spotify—about $74,000 reported by Rolling Stone—while DHS’s broader government ad spend on recruitment across platforms was reported as much larger, complicating claims that Spotify uniquely profited from the campaign [2] [3]. Spotify later confirmed the ICE recruitment ads stopped running at the end of 2025, but public sources in the reporting set provide no precise, verifiable figures tying artist departures or subscriber cancellations directly to concrete revenue losses or long-term listener erosion for Spotify [3] [8]. Therefore, while reputational damage, public protest and some catalog pullouts are documented, the available reporting does not allow a reliable quantification of immediate financial impact on Spotify’s bottom line.
4. Competing narratives and what's not settled
Two parallel narratives ran through coverage: artists and advocacy groups framed removals as ethical stands against facilitating ICE recruitment and against perceived complicity in militarized AI investment, while Spotify and some observers emphasized the ads were part of a government-wide campaign and within the company’s ad rules, framing the controversy as a policy and moderation dispute rather than an endorsement [7] [5] [3]. Reporting also flags that many departures were driven by a constellation of grievances—royalty rates, AI controversies, and executive investments—not just the ICE ads alone, so attributing every exit solely to the ads risks oversimplification [12] [4]. The record in the cited reporting is clear about who publicly left and who cited the ads, and equally clear that a full financial accounting of the boycott’s effect on Spotify was not available in those sources [1] [2] [3].