Trump vs. Foo Fighters: The Messy World of Campaign Music Rights

By Dustin Rowles | Social Media | August 26, 2024 |

By Dustin Rowles | Social Media | August 26, 2024 |

The latest dustup in the world of politics and music has an interesting wrinkle I thought was worth exploring. Here, it’s the Trump campaign and the Foo Fighters butting heads over the use of the band’s song “My Hero” at a recent rally to introduce Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy had just dropped out of the presidential race and decided to throw his support behind Trump.

The Foo Fighters weren’t too thrilled about this because they obviously do not want to be associated with Donald Trump or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Their spokesperson fired off a statement saying they never gave permission for the song to be used. They also (heroically) announced any royalties from the song’s use would be donated to Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign.

But here’s the wrinkle. The Trump campaign fired back today and insisted they had every right to use the song. Their spokesperson, Steven Cheung, declared, “We have a license to play the song.” He even took a lame swipe at the band on social media, saying, “It’s Times Like These facts matter, don’t be a Pretender,” referencing other Foo Fighters tunes that Dave Grohl would not appreciate the campaign using.

How can both sides be claiming they’re in the right? Welcome to the murky world of music licensing in politics.

The Trump campaign might actually have a license to play the song, probably through something called a Performing Rights Organization (PRO) like ASCAP or BMI. These organizations offer blanket licenses that cover millions of songs. A lot of political campaigns snag these licenses, thinking they’re good to go.

But here’s the rub: having a license doesn’t necessarily mean you have the band’s blessing. It’s kind of like having a driver’s license but borrowing your buddy’s car without asking - technically, you can drive it, but your friend might be pissed off.

In 2012, ASCAP sued an Ohio congressman’s campaign for using music at events, even though the venues had those blanket licenses we talked about. ASCAP argued that those venue licenses don’t cover political campaigns. That question remains open because there haven’t been many court cases that have definitively settled this issue. The Ohio case was seemingly settled out of court. In fact, that’s what almost always happens in situations like these — the politicians settle them out of court because protracted litigation would be an embarrassment for the campaign.

It’s surprising that the Trump campaign has even taken it this far — Cheung is only reminding everyone that the Foo Fighters hate Donald Trump. If the Foo Fighters choose to sue, the legal issue probably still won’t be resolved — the Trump campaign will almost certainly settle for an undisclosed sum that will quietly be handed over to the Harris campaign.

One case, however, that might result in a ruling is the $3 million lawsuit brought against the Trump campaign by the estate of Isaac Hayes. In this one, the estate is not only demanding that a political campaign cease using a song but insisting on damages. And the fact that a judge has granted an emergency hearing suggests that the courts are taking the issue seriously.