Which artists have publicly declined invitations to perform at political events in the past decade and how were those denials communicated?
Executive summary
Across the last decade a broad roster of artists—from Neil Young and Pharrell Williams to Adele, Axl Rose, Dr. Dre and Celine Dion—have publicly refused or demanded that politicians stop using their music at rallies and events, and they communicated those refusals through methods ranging from cease-and-desist letters and public statements to manager tweets and formal licensing changes [1] [2] [3] [4]. Simultaneously, a wave of performers pulled scheduled appearances from institutions perceived as politicized, most notably a string of cancellations at the Kennedy Center after its 2025 renaming, where artists announced withdrawals through statements and social media [5] [6] [7].
1. High-profile individual refusals and how they were conveyed
Neil Young publicly objected to Donald Trump’s use of “Rockin’ in the Free World,” a dispute that involved public statements and later legal maneuvering to restrict political licensing of his songs [1] [8], while Pharrell Williams’ attorney sent a cease-and-desist after his song “Happy” was played at a Trump event following the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre, framing the objection in legal terms and public letters [2]. Adele’s team issued a spokesperson statement that she had “not given permission” for her music to be used in political campaigning and she made pro-Hillary remarks in public performances, communicating opposition through both formal representation and onstage endorsement [3]. Axl Rose and Guns N’ Roses publicly criticized Trump’s use of their music on social media and through formal requests, accusing campaigns of exploiting blanket venue licenses [4] [2]. Dr. Dre told reporters he would not allow “hateful” politicians to use his music, communicating via interviews and public statements [3]. Celine Dion’s management released a swift statement in 2024 denying authorization after footage of her performing “My Heart Will Go On” appeared at a Trump rally [2].
2. Legalistic and administrative tools artists have used
Beyond one-off public statements, artists and their teams have relied on cease-and-desist letters, lawyer communications, and formal notices to performing rights organizations; some acts have attempted to use or revise ASCAP/BMI licensing to bar political-entity use of specific songs, a tactic Neil Young pursued and that artists and rights groups have discussed publicly [8] [4]. The Artist Rights Alliance and coalitions of artists have also signed letters urging politicians to seek permission before using songs, signaling a coordinated policy and advocacy route rather than only individual protest [4]. Multiple reports note campaigns sometimes respond that they use venue or PRO licenses and believe they are within legal bounds, creating a recurring conflict between artists’ public refusals and campaigns’ reliance on blanket licenses [1] [8].
3. Withdrawals from institutions and political-gesture cancellations
In late 2025 and early 2026, dozens of performers canceled scheduled Kennedy Center appearances after its renaming and leadership changes, with those artists issuing public announcements, social-media posts, and letters explaining they would not perform under what they described as political capture of a public cultural institution; Kennedy Center officials, by contrast, framed the cancellations as politicized choices and defended the institution’s nonpartisanship [5] [6] [7] [9]. Named examples include Béla Fleck withdrawing and citing politicization in public remarks, prompting public rebuke from the Center’s executives [5].
4. The practical limits of refusals and the counternarrative
Reporting emphasizes the practical limits artists face: blanket performance licenses held by venues and PROs often legally permit songs to be played at political events absent specific contract language, which is why some artists have pursued licensing carve-outs or litigation rather than relying solely on public shaming [8] [4]. Campaigns and venues frequently assert their rights under those licenses and sometimes claim they believed use was authorized, an implicit defense that turns many disputes into administrative fights over licensing terms instead of pure public-relations battles [1] [8].
5. Bottom line and competing agendas
The past decade shows a two-front response by artists who both publicly disavow political uses of their work—via statements, social-media posts, cease-and-desist letters, manager or attorney communications—and take administrative steps like demanding removal from political licensing or withdrawing from institutional events, while campaigns counter with claims of legal permission and critics accuse artists of selective politicization; coverage from Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, Business Insider, NPR and rights-focused outlets documents these patterns and the tensions between artistic control and collective licensing regimes [1] [2] [3] [5] [8]. Where reporting does not provide a definitive list for every year, these sources illustrate the common playbook artists have used to refuse political invitations and the legal-administrative obstacles that often follow [1] [4] [8].