Miley Cyrus collaborates with brands and artists linked to Israel, while remaining silent on alleged genocide against Palestinians
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Miley Cyrus has documented commercial partnerships and musical collaborations across a wide range of artists and brands, and some reporting connects a few of those collaborators or commercial partners to pro‑Israel events or Israeli artists, but the record on direct, ongoing ties to Israel and on a public statement about the war in Gaza is mixed and contested in the sources reviewed [1] [2] [3]. Some outlets allege indirect links or single incidents; other reporting finds no verifiable, sustained collaborations with Israeli organizations and notes an absence of explicit public statements from Cyrus on the Israel–Palestine conflict [3] [2].
1. Miley’s commercial and musical partnerships: breadth, not a geo‑political ledger
Miley Cyrus’s career includes a long list of high‑profile collaborations and commercial campaigns — from musical duets with mainstream artists to fashion campaigns like the Dolce & Gabbana work cited in entertainment reporting — and music roundups list many collaborators without geographic political context [4] [2]. Independent commentary points out she has sung with or been connected to a variety of DJs and producers, and one entertainment piece specifically names an Israeli DJ, Borgore, among artists in the orbit of her musical era, which some critics cite when alleging ties to Israel [1]. Those facts show a pattern of broad commercial activity, not necessarily a deliberate political alignment.
2. Allegations of links to Israel: direct, indirect, and disputed claims
Some activist reporting and watchdog pages assert that Cyrus is “complicit” through connections — for example calling out a 2024 single with Pharrell Williams while noting Pharrell previously performed at a Friends of the IDF benefit — and listing corporate relationships as evidence [2]. That line of argument is largely inferential: it ties Cyrus to others (and to brands) who have their own histories or events, rather than documenting Cyrus’s own sustained advocacy for Israeli causes. Conversely, a separate summary focused on celebrity involvement concludes Cyrus has no known public collaborations or formal ties to Israeli artists or organizations and emphasizes a lack of public statements from her on the conflict [3]. The sources therefore disagree about whether observed associations amount to meaningful political alignment [2] [3].
3. Parodies, appropriation, and the noise that muddies attribution
Several pieces of reporting trace public confusion to third‑party actions that use Cyrus’s music or image for pro‑Israel messaging — notably spoof videos by Israeli resident Orit Arfa that recast Cyrus songs into pro‑settler parodies and drew press attention years ago [5] [6] [7]. Those parodies have amplified perceptions that Cyrus’s brand is being used in service of pro‑Israel narratives, but the sources make clear these are independent productions, not endorsements by Cyrus herself, and thus complicate simple claims that Cyrus “supports” the positions promoted in those videos [5] [6].
4. Public silence and the record of statements or actions
On the question of whether Miley Cyrus has been publicly vocal about alleged genocide or taken a public stand on the Gaza war, the most direct source in this set reports no notable public statements from Cyrus addressing the Israel–Palestine conflict and no documented targeted advocacy for either side [3]. Other coverage documents backlash to specific performances that some viewers read as politically coded, such as Grammys moments that stirred accusations of “propaganda,” but these reports describe audience reaction rather than a clear policy statement from Cyrus herself [8]. Thus, based on the available reporting, there is evidence of perceived silence or at least a lack of explicit, public condemnation or support recorded in the sources [3] [8].
5. Reading the sources and the limits of the record
The sources present two competing frames: activist outlets and watchdogs treat commercial collaborations and adjacent associations as grounds for holding Cyrus politically accountable [2], while other reporting emphasizes the absence of direct, verifiable ties or public statements linking Cyrus herself to Israeli organizations or to advocacy on the conflict [3]. Neither set of sources provides incontrovertible proof that Cyrus is an active supporter of Israeli state actions nor a definitive declaration that she has chosen silence for political reasons; the evidence consists of indirect links, third‑party uses of her image, and gaps in public comment. Where the record is thin, the sources differ in how aggressively they infer culpability.
Conclusion
Reporting shows Miley Cyrus has broad commercial and creative ties across the entertainment industry and that some collaborators or third parties connected to her work have been involved with Israeli causes or produced pro‑Israel content, but authoritative summaries also say Cyrus has no documented formal collaborations with Israeli organizations and has made no clear public statement on the Gaza war in the sources provided; therefore claims that she is actively collaborating with Israel or intentionally silent about alleged genocide rest partly on inference and partly on absence of public comment, and the sources diverge on how to interpret those facts [1] [2] [3] [5].