Trump’s Truth Social attacks on Springsteen, Oprah and Beyoncé aren’t legally sound

Nothing appears to incite indignant social media posts from President Trump fairly like criticism from celebrities. And whereas celebrities in 2025 appear much less interested in feuding with the unstable president, Bruce Springsteen did handle to poke the bear with an unsparing speech delivered earlier than a Might 14 live performance in Manchester.

The president observed. On Reality Social, Trump referred to as Springsteen “a pushy, obnoxious JERK” with “atrophied skin.” However the pettiness didn’t cease with dermatological insults. Within the early hours of Might 19, Trump escalated even additional, implying with out proof that Kamala Harris’ presidential marketing campaign paid Springsteen and different stars, together with Oprah Winfrey and Beyoncé, for his or her performances at marketing campaign occasions, which was a “MAJOR AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.” He proclaimed his intention to “call for a major investigation into this matter.” 

Springsteen is not backing down within the wake of Trump’s stream of assaults, and musicians like Neil Young and Eddie Vedder have since come to his defense. The doubling and tripling down is up to now largely symbolic. However may Trump actually examine movie star endorsements?

I do not suppose so. Celebrities usually don’t receives a commission for making endorsements. In response to the Federal Election Fee, candidates can pay for endorsements so long as they’re listed as a marketing campaign expenditure. The Harris campaign has denied paying celebrities instantly, claiming that any cash despatched to Winfrey ($1 million), Beyoncé ($165,000) and others are occasion manufacturing bills paid out in accordance with federal election legislation.

“Usually I am reluctant to respond to rumors in general, but these days I realize that if you don’t stop a lie, it gets bigger. I was not paid a dime,” Winfrey said in video response to the Trump publish. “My time and energy was my way of supporting the campaign. For the livestreaming event in September, my production company Harpo was asked to bring in set design, lights, cameras, crew, producers and every other item necessary (including the benches and the chairs we sat on) to put on a live production. I did not take any personal fee. However, the people who worked on that production needed to be paid. And were. End of story.”

Tina Knowles issued a similar denial final yr when the identical rumors circulated about her daughter: “The lie is that Beyonce was paid 10 million dollars to speak at a rally in Houston for Vice President Kamala Harris. When In Fact: Beyonce did not receive a penny for speaking at a Presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harrris’ Rally in Houston.”

It all looks aboveboard and normal. Then there’s the obvious flaw in Trump’s argument: Billionaire Winfrey is so rich she flies in English Muffins from Napa. Why would she be persuaded to do anything for a paltry million dollars?

In other words, a quick Google search suggests Trump doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on here. But while these two cases appear to be documented and legitimate, Trump’s intimidation can still have consequences. Digging into celebrity campaign endorsements could have a chilling effect — at least while Trump is in office.

Should celebrities be alarmed? Yes. And no. Studies have demonstrated that celebrities are effective at issue-based advocacy. They are often better than politicians at raising the profile of an issue, are perceived as more credible than politicians on many issues and can be persuasive. But there are limits to this influence. Notably, celebrities are generally not persuasive on highly partisan issues. For example, Bruce Springsteen is not going to convince Americans who believe strongly in the Second Amendment that they ought to support gun control.

Last August, a month before Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris, my colleagues and I conducted a national survey of over 1,000 Americans to determine whether her endorsement would make a difference in the 2024 election. In this study, some respondents were shown a picture of Swift encouraging voters to register, and some were shown a picture of her encouraging people to “vote for Democrats.” Whereas Swiftie tremendous followers heeded her name to register to vote, Swifties who already had determined to help Donald Trump weren’t satisfied to change their vote. And undecided respondents have been truly much less prone to help a Democrat after listening to Swift’s endorsement.

These findings are consistent with what we know about celebrity influence more broadly. Harris’ endorsers may have fired up the base, but not changed anyone’s minds, just as Springsteen’s comments at his concert likely only appealed to those who already agreed with him.

There is one recent documented case of a celebrity endorsement tipping the outcome of an election: Winfrey endorsing Barack Obama’s candidacy for the Democratic nomination in 2008. And of course, many others have tried.

In 1920, singer Al Jolson was probably the most famous entertainer in the U.S., and he endorsed Republican Warren Harding for president. Whether he really supported Harding is another matter. He was paid by an ad agency to sing “Harding, You’re The Man for Us.” He was then hired to sing for Harding’s vice president, Calvin Coolidge, in the next election. 

Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 campaign featured performers and endorsers such as Rita Hayworth, Orson Welles, Judy Garland, Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney, Groucho Marx, as well as Frank Sinatra. Sinatra and Garland were back at the 1960 DNC, along with their friends Janet Leigh, Tony Curtis, Sammy Davis Jr., Nat King Cole and Judy Garland. Sammy Davis Jr. would ultimately flip and support Richard Nixon for president, and Sinatra would flip for Ronald Reagan in 1980. The Allman Brothers famously jammed for Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Not every presidential cycle is celebrity-laden as 1944 or 1960 — or 2024. And the Harris campaign was not the first to discover that support from the biggest stars on the planet does not guarantee a win. Warren Beatty, Shirley MacLaine, Peter Paul and Mary, Simon and Garfunkel, Alan Alda, Julie Christie, and Dustin Hoffman could not save George McGovern’s candidacy in 1972. John Lennon’s very vocal condemnation of Richard Nixon did not prevent the Republican’s re-election.

Moreover, there are many documented cases where celebrities wade into politics and it backfires. Congressional Republicans criticized FDR during World War II for consulting with Sinatra, a “mere crooner” who had been exempt from the draft. (Some celebrities also get criticism for inaction. Swift faced backlash for simply not showing up for the Women’s March in 2017). Other endorsements, such as Clint Eastwood’s awkward monologue supporting Mitt Romney at the 2012 RNC, do nothing to help the endorser or the endorsee.

All of this is a sober reminder that voters are swayed more by economic variables and partisanship than they are by a sea of conflicting celebrity endorsements from opposing political parties. 

If celebrities are ineffective at this kind of advocacy, why do they do it? Many of them are keenly aware that their fame gives them a bigger megaphone than the average citizen — for better and for worse.

Time will inform simply how invested Trump is right here. It doesn’t appear to be he has any precise proof of wrongdoing. However once more, that isn’t actually the purpose. Trump transforms criticism into gas for the tradition wars, reinforcing his core help and exploiting political divides to his personal benefit. Celebrities shouldn’t be intimidated by his techniques — if something, Springsteen appears to be relishing this second — however they need to be prepared for them.