Nothing seems to incite angry social media posts from President Trump quite like criticism from celebrities. And while celebrities in 2025 seem less interested in feuding with the volatile president, Bruce Springsteen did manage to poke the bear with an unsparing speech delivered before a May 14 concert in Manchester.
The president noticed. On Truth Social, Trump called Springsteen “a pushy, obnoxious JERK” with “atrophied skin.” But the pettiness didn’t stop with dermatological insults. In the early hours of May 19, Trump escalated even further, implying without evidence that Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign paid Springsteen and other stars, including Oprah Winfrey and Beyoncé, for their performances at campaign events, which was a “MAJOR AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.” He proclaimed his intention to “call for a major investigation into this matter.”
The doubling and tripling down is so far mostly symbolic. But could Trump really investigate celebrity endorsements?
Springsteen isn’t backing down in the wake of Trump’s stream of attacks, and musicians like Neil Young and Eddie Vedder have since come to his defense. The doubling and tripling down is so far mostly symbolic. But could Trump really investigate celebrity endorsements?
I don’t think so. Celebrities typically do not get paid for making endorsements. According to the Federal Election Commission, candidates can pay for endorsements as long as they are listed as a campaign expenditure. The Harris campaign has denied paying celebrities directly, claiming that any money sent to Winfrey ($1 million), Beyoncé ($165,000) and others are event production expenses paid out in accordance with federal election law.
“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 post. “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 last year when the same 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.” While Swiftie super fans heeded her call to register to vote, Swifties who already had decided to support Donald Trump were not convinced to change their vote. And undecided respondents were actually less likely to support a Democrat after hearing 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. The Harris campaign was not the first to discover that support from the biggest stars on the planet does not guarantee a win. 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 tell just how invested Trump is here. It doesn’t look like he has any actual evidence of wrongdoing. But again, that isn’t really the point. Trump transforms criticism into fuel for the culture wars, reinforcing his core support and exploiting political divides to his own advantage. Celebrities shouldn’t be intimidated by his tactics — if anything, Springsteen seems to be relishing this moment — but they should be ready for them.
Mark Harvey
Mark Harvey is a professor and director of graduate business programs at the University of Saint Mary. He is also the author of "Celebrity Influence: Politics, Persuasion, and Issue-based Advocacy." 
