President Donald Trump ramped up his ongoing feud with Bruce Springsteen in a fiery late-night rant, calling for a formal investigation into the rock star’s appearance at a campaign rally for then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
The dispute reignited after Springsteen began his “Land of Hope & Dreams” tour by declaring that the U.S. was being led by a “corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration.” Trump quickly retaliated by mocking Springsteen as a “dried out prune of a rocker [who] ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT.”
Following that, Springsteen addressed Trump directly at his concert, calling him an “unfit president” and accusing his administration of “persecuting people for their right to free speech and voicing their dissent.” Trump fired back online, this time dragging other celebrities into the mix—accusing Springsteen, Beyoncé, Oprah Winfrey, and Bono of providing “illegal” support to Harris’ campaign.
“HOW MUCH DID KAMALA HARRIS PAY BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN FOR HIS POOR PERFORMANCE DURING HER CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT?” Trump posted on Truth Social. He went on to question whether payments to these celebrities constituted unlawful campaign contributions and vowed to call for “a major investigation into this matter.”
Interestingly, scrutiny over Harris’ campaign finances had already emerged within Democratic circles, after she raised over $1 billion but lost every battleground state. Reports from The New York Times noted questions around large expenses—like a $1 million town hall hosted by Oprah Winfrey and high-profile performances by stars like Lady Gaga and Jon Bon Jovi.
Springsteen appeared at a Harris rally in Philadelphia on October 28, while Beyoncé spoke at one in Houston three days earlier. Although it’s unclear what role Bono had in the campaign, he recently criticized Trump’s foreign aid policies during a press event for his Apple+ documentary.
Adrienne Elrod, a senior adviser to the Harris campaign, said in an interview that no celebrities were paid for their endorsements. “We have never paid any artist and performer,” she told Deadline. However, she explained that campaign finance law required the campaign to cover logistical expenses such as sound, lighting, and staff. For example, Harris’ filings show a $75,000 payment to Springsteen’s Thrill Hill Productions for “travel and event production.”
As for Oprah, she confirmed she took no personal payment for the town hall, although her company, Harpo Productions, was reimbursed for production costs including crew, equipment, and the event setup.
USA Today reported that the campaign paid Beyoncé’s production company $165,000 after her Houston appearance. Her mother, Tina Knowles, pushed back on rumors that the singer had been paid $10 million, stating that Beyoncé actually paid for her own travel and glam team.
Despite these clarifications, Trump repeated those rumors in a subsequent post, claiming, “According to news reports, Beyoncé was paid $11,000,000 to walk onto a stage, quickly ENDORSE KAMALA, and walk off to loud booing for never having performed, NOT EVEN ONE SONG!”
He concluded with an all-caps accusation: “THIS IS AN ILLEGAL ELECTION SCAM AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL! IT IS AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION! BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN, OPRAH, BONO AND, PERHAPS, MANY OTHERS, HAVE A LOT OF EXPLAINING TO DO!!!”
COMMENTARY:
It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the Democratic Party relies heavily on glitzy celebrity endorsements — and not just through admiration or shared values. Time and again, financial records show major payouts to production companies linked to celebrities who “endorse” Democratic candidates. Whether it’s Beyoncé, Oprah, or Bruce Springsteen, there always seems to be a large check attached to their support. It raises a real question: if the candidate is so great, why do you have to pay people millions just to stand next to them?
This pattern suggests that these endorsements aren’t coming from genuine passion or conviction. They’re business deals — slick, choreographed performances funded by campaign dollars to create the illusion of widespread support. When voters see celebrities speaking for a candidate, they’re meant to believe it’s organic. But if you dig even slightly beneath the surface, it looks more like a PR stunt that costs a fortune to pull off.
And let’s be honest — this tactic seems to be covering up something deeper: a lack of real, grassroots enthusiasm. If a campaign has to shell out hundreds of thousands, even millions, just to get someone to say a few nice words, it says a lot about how uninspiring the candidate might be. Great leaders inspire support. They don’t have to rent it.
What’s more telling is how hollow many of these celebrity endorsements actually are. They don’t talk about policy. They don’t explain why the candidate deserves support. It’s usually vague messaging about “hope” or “fighting for what’s right” — buzzwords with no substance. It’s smoke and mirrors, designed to appeal to emotions while avoiding tough questions.
The media often hypes up these celebrity endorsements like they’re game-changers, but voters aren’t as easily fooled as they once were. Most working Americans aren’t swayed by what millionaires say from stages in L.A. or New York. If anything, the overuse of celebrity backing can feel like a slap in the face — a reminder that the elite think they know what’s best for everyone else.
When these campaigns lose, despite raising billions and parading out the biggest names in entertainment, it’s even more revealing. Harris, for instance, lost every battleground state, even with all that star power behind her. It proves that no amount of glitter can cover up weak leadership, uninspiring messaging, or a disconnect with everyday people.
Instead of investing in real outreach, the Democrats double down on the Hollywood strategy. They act like Americans are just waiting to hear what Bruce Springsteen thinks before they make up their minds. It’s insulting. People care about inflation, crime, border security, and jobs — not what song someone sings on stage.
Meanwhile, Republican candidates tend to get support from ordinary people — truckers, small business owners, military families — folks who aren’t being paid to show up. There’s something far more authentic and powerful about that kind of support, because it isn’t bought. It’s earned.
If the only way a candidate can look popular is by hiring someone famous to vouch for them, maybe the problem isn’t with the public. Maybe it’s with the candidate themselves. If their ideas and leadership were strong, they wouldn’t need a celebrity sugarcoating.
In the end, this obsession with celebrity endorsements is a distraction. It might make for a nice headline, but it doesn’t move the country forward. It reveals a shallow strategy — one that substitutes glitz for grit, and scripted performances for real conviction. And voters are starting to see right through it.
ARTICLE:
https://share.newsbreak.com/d5ihkupi?s=i16
Discover more from Free News and Commentary Today
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
