President Donald Trump and the estate of R&B legend Isaac Hayes have reached a formal settlement, ending a protracted legal battle over the unauthorized use of the 1966 soul classic “Hold On, I’m Coming” at political rallies and in campaign media.
The resolution, confirmed in a joint stipulation of dismissal filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, marks a significant moment in the ongoing friction between political figures and the music industry. While the financial terms of the deal remain confidential, both parties moved to dismiss the case “with prejudice,” permanently barring it from being refiled.
A Victory for Creative Legacy
The lawsuit, originally filed in August 2024, alleged that the Trump campaign utilized the song—co-written by Hayes and David Porter—at least 133 times between 2020 and 2024 without obtaining a proper license.
In a statement released on X, Isaac Hayes III, the singer’s son and CEO of Isaac Hayes Enterprises, framed the outcome as a broader victory for intellectual property rights.
“This resolution represents more than the conclusion of a legal matter,” Hayes III stated. “It reaffirms the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and copyrights, especially as they relate to legacy, ownership, and the responsible use of creative works.”
The Legal Battle: Termination Rights and Injunctions
The case was legally distinct from many other artist complaints because it moved beyond public statements into substantive litigation. Central to the estate’s argument was the Copyright Act’s termination provisions, which allowed the Hayes family to reclaim rights to the song from publishers in 2022, 56 years after its initial release.
In September 2024, U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. issued a preliminary injunction ordering the Trump campaign to cease using the track. Although Trump’s legal team argued the campaign was covered by a blanket license from performing rights organization BMI, evidence emerged that BMI had specifically excluded the song after the estate objected.
By April 2025, the court denied a motion to dismiss the case, signaling that the estate had a plausible claim for infringement. The settlement reached this week avoids a full trial that would have scrutinized the campaign’s internal selection of walk-off music.
Musicians vs. Political Campaigns
The Hayes settlement adds to a growing list of artists and estates that have challenged the Trump administration’s use of their catalogues. Previous disputes have involved:
- The White Stripes, who filed and later dropped a similar suit.
- Eddy Grant, whose “Electric Avenue” litigation resulted in a judge finding Trump liable for damages.
- Celine Dion, Beyoncé, and ABBA, all of whom issued formal cease-and-desist demands in recent years.
The Hayes family had initially sought $3 million in licensing fees. While the final figure was not disclosed, the family expressed they are “satisfied with the outcome” and emphasized their commitment to preserving the “dignity and value” of Hayes’ work for future generations.
What’s Next for Campaign Licensing?
This settlement may serve as a blueprint for other legacy estates. As political campaigns increasingly rely on high-energy anthems to define their brand, the “Hayes precedent” highlights the risks of ignoring specific artist objections, even when a campaign holds a general venue license. Legal experts suggest this resolution could lead to stricter enforcement of “opt-out” clauses in music licensing agreements during the next election cycle.
