Singer Condemns Military Video Featuring Her Hit Song
Katy Perry has criticised the White House for using her song Firework in a video showing US military strikes on Iran.
The video was published on the official White House TikTok account on July 23, 2026.
It showed military aircraft, missiles and explosions. Several blasts were edited to match prominent moments in Perry’s 2010 song.
The post also carried a warning directed at Iran, turning the popular anthem into a soundtrack for military messaging.
Perry publicly responded two days later.
She said she was “deeply appalled and angry” after discovering that her music had been used in the video.
The singer said she was not consulted and had not personally approved or supported the use of the song.
She described the military presentation as a complete violation of the track’s intended meaning.
Perry Says ‘Firework’ Was Written to Inspire Hope
Perry explained that Firework was created as an anthem of hope, healing and inner strength.
The song encourages listeners to recognise their value during difficult personal moments.
She said pairing it with images of bombing and destruction directly contradicted that message.
According to Perry, her music was intended to unite and empower people rather than celebrate violence or warfare.
Released in 2010, Firework became one of Perry’s biggest international hits.
The song reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100 and became closely associated with confidence, resilience and personal empowerment.
Its uplifting message has also made it a popular choice for celebrations, public events and motivational campaigns.
The White House video therefore attracted immediate attention because it used the song’s explosive imagery in a literal military context.
The White House later responded to Perry through another social media post.
Its reply referenced her Part of Me music video, in which she appears in a military setting.
The administration also noted that Perry sold rights connected to her music catalogue in 2023.
However, ownership and licensing questions are separate from Perry’s personal objection to the political and military message attached to the song.
Dispute Renews Debate Over Artists’ Consent
The controversy has revived debate over the use of popular music in government and political content.
Artists do not always control every licence connected to their recordings or compositions.
Rights may be held by publishers, record companies, catalogue owners or digital platforms.
As a result, an artist’s personal approval may not always be legally required if the necessary commercial licences have been obtained.
However, musicians often object when their work appears to support a political campaign, military operation or government policy they oppose.
Such disputes can create the public impression that an artist has endorsed a message without actually doing so.
Perry joins a growing group of musicians who have criticised political organisations for using their work without personal consent.
Ariana Grande, Olivia Rodrigo, Céline Dion, Bruce Springsteen, Kesha and other artists have raised similar objections over political or government videos.
The incident also demonstrates how social media has changed political communication.
Official accounts increasingly use popular songs, fast editing and entertainment-focused content to reach younger audiences.
However, this approach can create copyright, licensing and reputational disputes when artists reject the message attached to their work.
Perry has not merely objected to a technical licensing issue.
Her criticism centres on the transformation of a hopeful song into a soundtrack for military destruction.
The White House has not indicated that it plans to remove the video.
