In a highly publicized legal case, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald J. Trump’s campaign must cease using the iconic song “Hold On, I’m Coming” by Isaac Hayes at campaign events. The decision comes after a lawsuit was filed by the Hayes estate, alleging that the Trump campaign had been using the song without proper authorization. The ruling has drawn attention to a growing trend of artists objecting to political figures, particularly Donald Trump, using their music without permission, sparking debates about copyright, the First Amendment, and the rights of artists to control how their work is used.
The case, presided over by Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, resulted in a temporary injunction that prevents further use of the song by Trump’s campaign. The injunction specifically prohibits the campaign from using “Hold On, I’m Coming” at future rallies or events unless they obtain a proper license. However, the judge stopped short of granting the estate’s request to order Trump’s campaign to remove recordings of past events where the song had been used. This partial ruling leaves open the possibility that footage containing the song from previous rallies may remain available online.
The Song’s Prominence in Trump’s Campaign
For the past year, Donald Trump had been regularly using “Hold On, I’m Coming” as his exit music at campaign events, including at high-profile gatherings such as the Republican National Convention in July and a rally in Bozeman, Montana, on August 9. The choice of the song, a soul classic performed by the legendary duo Sam & Dave and co-written by Isaac Hayes and David Porter, was seen as an attempt to energize crowds and create a memorable moment as Trump exited the stage.
Music has long played a critical role in political rallies, with campaign teams often curating playlists to evoke certain emotions and create a connection with audiences. However, the use of copyrighted music without proper authorization has become a contentious issue in recent years, particularly for Donald Trump, whose rallies have been punctuated by a range of well-known songs, often to the chagrin of the artists behind them.
The Estate of Isaac Hayes Speaks Out
The lawsuit filed by Isaac Hayes’ estate represents a growing movement among artists and their representatives to assert control over how their music is used, especially in political contexts. Isaac Hayes, a pioneering figure in soul music who passed away in 2008, co-wrote “Hold On, I’m Coming” with his songwriting partner David Porter. The song, which was released in 1966 and became a hit for Sam & Dave, remains one of the most recognizable anthems in the soul genre, widely admired for its empowering and uplifting message.
James L. Walker Jr., the lawyer representing the Hayes estate, expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling. “We are very pleased with the court’s decision,” Walker stated. “Donald Trump has been told he cannot use the music of Isaac Hayes without a license. That was our No. 1 goal. Now we work on the underlying trial and case.” The estate’s legal team had argued that the unauthorized use of the song at Trump’s rallies misappropriated the late artist’s work and associated it with political messaging that Hayes did not endorse.
The legal battle is far from over, as the estate continues to seek further remedies, including potential damages and broader protections against future unauthorized use. Walker’s comment that they are now focusing on the underlying trial suggests that this case could set a precedent for how artists’ estates can control their intellectual property posthumously, especially in the politically charged environment of modern campaigns.
Trump Campaign’s Response
Ronald Coleman, the lawyer representing Donald Trump’s campaign, responded to the ruling with a measured tone, noting that the campaign had already agreed to stop using the song. “The campaign had already agreed to cease further use,” Coleman said. “We’re very gratified that the court recognized the First Amendment issues at stake and didn’t order a takedown of existing videos.”
The campaign’s acknowledgment of the First Amendment aspect of the case hints at a larger debate over the use of music at public rallies. While artists and their estates seek to protect their work from being associated with political figures without permission, political campaigns often argue that music played at public events may fall under fair use or First Amendment protections. This tension between copyright law and free speech rights is central to many of the recent disputes between musicians and political campaigns.
A Growing List of Artists Objecting to Trump’s Use of Music
Isaac Hayes’ estate is not the only one to take issue with Donald Trump’s use of music. In recent months, several other high-profile musicians have voiced their objections to having their songs played at Trump rallies without permission. In late August, the Foo Fighters publicly denounced the use of their song “My Hero” during an event where Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsed Trump at a rally in Arizona. The band, known for its left-leaning political views, stated that they had not authorized the use of the song and did not support the political messaging of the event.
Similarly, the Swedish pop group ABBA also objected to the unauthorized use of their music at Trump rallies. A representative for ABBA made it clear that the band had not granted a license for its music to be used at any political event, reinforcing the notion that musicians across genres are becoming increasingly vocal about controlling the use of their intellectual property in political contexts.
Perhaps one of the more surprising examples came from Celine Dion, whose iconic ballad “My Heart Will Go On” was played at a Trump rally in Montana. Following the rally, a post appeared on Dion’s official Instagram page expressing disapproval of the song’s use. The post read, “That song was used without permission, and Celine does not endorse the use of her music for political purposes. And really, that song?” The lighthearted ending of the post highlighted the incongruity of using a song synonymous with the film Titanic at a political rally, further emphasizing the growing disconnect between artists and political campaigns when it comes to music choices.
The Broader Impact on Political Campaigns
The growing number of musicians publicly denouncing the use of their songs at political events, particularly by the Trump campaign, has broader implications for the future of political rallies and campaigns. Historically, political campaigns have relied heavily on music to create atmospheres that energize crowds, signal patriotism, or convey a message of unity and hope. Songs become synonymous with candidates, with some anthems becoming symbolic of entire campaigns.
However, the rise of copyright lawsuits and public objections from artists has made it more difficult for political campaigns to freely use popular music. Campaigns may now be more cautious, ensuring that they obtain proper licensing and permission before using songs at public events. The possibility of legal repercussions or public backlash from popular artists could force campaigns to rely on royalty-free music or commissioned works rather than iconic hits.
The Trump campaign, which has frequently faced objections from musicians, may be forced to rethink its approach to curating music for rallies. Over the years, Trump has used songs from artists ranging from Neil Young to Aerosmith, many of whom have issued cease-and-desist orders or made public statements condemning the use of their work.
Conclusion: A Balancing Act Between Art and Politics
The lawsuit between the estate of Isaac Hayes and Donald Trump’s campaign is just one example of the growing friction between artists and political figures over the use of music. As musicians continue to assert their rights and protect the legacy of their work, political campaigns must navigate the legal and ethical complexities of using popular music at public events.
For now, the ruling by Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. ensures that “Hold On, I’m Coming” will no longer be part of Trump’s rally soundtrack, marking a small victory for the estate of Isaac Hayes. Yet, the broader issue of music and politics remains unresolved, as artists continue to push back against unauthorized use and political campaigns seek to connect with voters through the universal language of music. The case serves as a reminder that music, while a powerful tool for rallying support, is also a deeply personal and protected form of expression that transcends politics.