Neil Young sues Trump committee again in a new copyright case filed on Monday, October 26, in Virginia federal court. The rock star sued the Trump 47 Committee for copyright infringement over the alleged misuse of his song “Rockin’ in the Free World” at an October rally, Reuters reported.
Young said in the complaint that his 1989 song was played without a licence before President Donald Trump took the stage at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, on October 12 in support of Republican midterm election candidates, according to Reuters. Young asked the court for $10 million in damages.
The case is Young v. Trump 47 Committee Inc, US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, No. 3:26-cv-01398, Reuters reported. Spokespeople for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the complaint, Reuters said.
Trump himself is not personally named as a defendant, according to other reports on the filing. The defendant is the Trump 47 Committee, a political group associated with the president.
Neil Young sues Trump committee: what the complaint alleges
The complaint says the committee did not have a licence or Young’s permission to play the song at the Youngstown rally or at any other rally it financed and conducted, according to TheWrap’s account of the filing. Young also argues that the use damaged his reputation and brand because it implies he supports Trump, the Statesman reported.
Alongside damages, Young is seeking court orders that would stop the committee from playing the song in public for political purposes, the Statesman reported. One report said Young is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the defendants from publicly performing “Rockin’ in the Free World” or any other compositions he owns at committee events.
The complaint also argues that the song is a poor fit for Trump rallies. It describes the track as an anthem contrasting political rhetoric with the realities faced by poor, homeless and forgotten people, and it quotes the filing as saying: “In short, the song is the opposite of everything Donald J. Trump stands for.”
That passage, quoted by Reuters, Consequence and others, points to lyrics painting street-level portraits — a mother discarding her baby, addicts lost in despair, garbage piling in the shadows of prosperity — while the repeated chorus delivers what the complaint calls a savage irony, celebrating freedom that is not shared by all.
A dispute that goes back to 2015
This is not Young’s first legal clash with Trump over the song. Young previously sued Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign for using “Rockin’ in the Free World” and another Young song at campaign rallies without permission, Reuters reported.
According to the new complaint, that case was resolved after the campaign promised never to use “Rockin’ in the Free World” again without a licence, Reuters said. Young later dismissed the 2020 lawsuit in December 2020, TheWrap reported, after reaching a settlement that included a promise not to use the song without proper permission.
The history goes further back. Trump used “Rockin’ in the Free World” when he launched his first presidential campaign at Trump Tower in June 2015, prompting Young to object publicly, Consequence reported. At that time, Trump’s campaign said it would stop using the song.
Young has been among the most vocal musicians opposing Trump, the Economic Times noted, and he defended Bruce Springsteen in May 2025 after Springsteen’s criticism of Trump prompted a backlash from the president, according to Blunt magazine.
Why music licensing at rallies is contested
Campaign music disputes often turn on a distinction between a venue licence and an artist’s permission. FactPatrol noted that Trump’s staff previously said they had secured permission from the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) for the track, but ASCAP’s guidance notes that artists may still take legal action if they object to being associated with a particular campaign, and urges campaigns to secure permission from the artist or songwriters as well.
Young’s complaint, as reported, says Trump was personally aware that a licence would be required and that Young has not, and would not, grant one, according to Variety, as cited by the Economic Times.
Whether the court agrees with Young’s reading of the 2020 settlement, and whether the committee had any licence for the October 12 rally, will be central to the case. The filing’s broader claim — that repeated use at rallies implies endorsement — is also likely to be contested, since political committees often argue that playing a well-known song is not the same as claiming the artist’s support.
For now, the lawsuit adds a familiar song to the midterm campaign‘s legal soundtrack, more than a decade after it first played at a Trump launch event — and with a $10 million claim attached.