His Song. Their Ad. Your Tax Dollars.

Aqua RichJo | September 29, 2026

Singer-songwriter JMSN says the government used his music without permission in a taxpayer-funded television advertisement featuring President Donald Trump. Attorneys for the artist, whose legal name is Christian Berishaj, sent the White House a cease-and-desist letter demanding that it stop using “Love Me.” JMSN also disavowed association with a political agenda.

The dispute puts two questions in front of the public: Who authorized the music, and who authorized taxpayers to pay for the message?

For independent artists, that first question is personal. A song carries more than a melody. It carries someone’s labor, reputation and relationship with an audience. Hearing it beneath a politician’s image can create an association the artist never intended.

What the letter establishes

The cease-and-desist letter confirms that JMSN is challenging the use of his work. It is not a lawsuit or a court ruling establishing unlawful conduct. Whether the government or its contractor obtained a license—and what any license actually permitted—remains central to the dispute.

The advertisement pairs the song with Trump imagery and political messaging. It identifies the U.S. government as its payer. Public Citizen has separately filed regulatory complaints challenging the use of public resources for the advertisements.

The White House should explain who cleared the music and release the relevant licensing information. That would give the public something more concrete than competing assertions.

An artist’s objection deserves a documented answer from the people using the work.

The taxpayer bill reaches beyond one song

The Associated Press reports that the Department of Homeland Security tapped $20 million for the broader advertising campaign. That figure should not be presented as the cost of the single advertisement containing “Love Me,” or as proof that the entire allocation has already been spent.

Public Citizen alleges that the advertisements violate restrictions on government-funded propaganda and the Hatch Act. Those allegations remain unresolved. The White House maintains that the spots are patriotic public-service announcements rather than campaign advertisements. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned the spending.

The administration’s description does not settle the legal questions. Neither does a watchdog complaint. The public needs the contracts, spending records, approvals and the reasoning behind the campaign.

Show the music clearance—and the spending records

Who produced the spot? Which rights holders were contacted? What permission, if any, was secured for the composition and recording? Did anyone review whether the presentation could suggest an artist’s endorsement?

On the spending side, DHS should disclose how much has been committed, how much has been paid and where the advertisements are running. Broadcasters should explain how they are responding to notice of the music dispute.

Those answers matter beyond JMSN. Independent musicians routinely negotiate for control over where their work appears. Government agencies and their contractors should be able to demonstrate that they followed the applicable clearance process, just as any other advertiser should.

No Chill News wants to hear from JMSN or his attorney, music-licensing specialists, independent artists, Public Citizen and the officials responsible for the campaign. The next step is to establish what permission existed and how the public money was approved.

The government has asked the public to watch its message. Now it needs to show the paperwork behind the soundtrack and the bill.

Reporting basis: Reuters’ September 29 report and Associated Press reporting. No Chill News has not independently reviewed the music licenses, advertising contracts or full spending records, or interviewed the parties.