Neil Young to Trump on Fight With Bruce Springsteen: 'Think About Saving America From the Mess You Made'
Neil Young, one of Donald Trump's most vocal critics in the music industry, weighed in on the president's online fight with Bruce Springsteen and other musicians this week, thanking Springsteen for speaking up while encouraging the world's most powerful person to focus on more pressing issues at hand than what recording artists say about him.
'Bruce and thousands of musicians think you are ruining America. You worry about that instead of the dyin' kids in Gaza,' Young wrote on his website late Monday. 'That's your problem. I am not scared of you. Neither are the rest of us. You shut down FEMA when we needed it most. That's your problem Trump. STOP THINKING ABOUT WHAT ROCKERS ARE SAYING. Think about saving America from the mess you made.'
More from The Hollywood Reporter
Apple TV+ Sets First Peanuts Musical in 35 Years
Cyndi Lauper on if She'd Want Chappell Roan to Induct Her at Rock Hall of Fame: "She's Really Great"
Son of Longtime 'Letterman' Producer Charged With Attempted Murder
Trump's fight with Springsteen started last Friday, after Springsteen criticized the Trump administration during a concert in the U.K., saying that the U.S. is 'currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration.' Trump responded with a rant on Truth Social, calling Springsteen a 'dried out 'prune' of a rocker' and vaguely threatening that Springsteen 'ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that's just 'standard fare'. Then we'll all see how it goes for him!'
Aside from Springsteen, Trump also posted about Taylor Swift last Friday, claiming her popularity dipped after he said he hated her. 'Taylor Swift is right. So is Bruce. You know how I feel,' Young wrote. 'You are more worried about yourself than AMERICA. Wake up Trump!! Remember what the White House is?'
Springsteen, for his part, was unmoved by Trump's words, criticizing him again during the next show. By Monday, the president posted another long-winded rant, calling for an investigation into appearances from musicians like Springsteen, Beyoncé and Bono at Kamala Harris' presidential rallies, claiming without citing evidence that they took money in exchange for endorsements.
'Remember what the White House is? 86/47??? That's what you think about,' Young further wrote, seeming to reference the White House response to a James Comey Instagram post last week. 'You are forgetting your real job. You work for us. Wake up Republicans! This guy is out of control. We need a real president!'
Young has never shied from making his disdain for Trump clear. Back in April, he posted a message voicing his concern that Trump would bar him from returning to the U.S. after his upcoming European tour this summer due to his words about the president. Later that month, he also performed alongside Joan Baez and Maggie Rogers at a Bernie Sanders rally in Los Angeles.
In a separate post on his site, Young shared a video of Springsteen criticizing the Trump administration during a concert, writing 'THANKS BRUCE' in the headline.
'As a Canadian-American dual citizen, I stand with the great majority, thanking you for speaking so eloquently and truthfully on behalf of the American people,' Young said. 'We are with you my old friend. Your great songs of America ring true as you sing them to Europe and the world!'
Best of The Hollywood Reporter
Most Anticipated Concert Tours of 2025: Beyoncé, Billie Eilish, Kendrick Lamar & SZA, Sabrina Carpenter and More
Hollywood's Most Notable Deaths of 2025
Hollywood's Highest-Profile Harris Endorsements: Taylor Swift, George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen and More
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business of Fashion
25 minutes ago
- Business of Fashion
Dear Fashion CEOs, Stop Undermining Climate Action
We have reached a pivotal moment in the fashion industry's understanding of what true climate leadership means. Leadership was once defined by voluntary corporate commitments — a new sustainability pledge or climate goal. But these voluntary efforts have done little to move the needle, rarely graduating beyond pilot programmes, and often amounting to little more than greenwashed marketing. Short-term self-interest and a market that rewards quarterly growth have driven many players to underinvest or stall action. The result is collective stagnation. For the last few years, the belief among climate advocates and progressive executives has been that regulators would step into this void and drive momentum in the movement. Now that is on shakier ground. In the US, the Trump administration is dismantling environmental programmes, even as individual states forge ahead with their own regulations. In the EU, which has led the way on green legislation, concerns about competitiveness are threatening to erode policies that have already been formed. In a period of economic and political uncertainty, businesses are stepping back, greenhushing and deprioritising climate programmes. It is clear change won't come without political support. Real climate leadership from brands means recognising this, speaking out and calling for regulatory change. Instead, many trade groups — including those that represent brands with publicly progressive climate policies — are actively lobbying to undermine tougher environmental regulations, leaning into the political narrative that stiffer oversight is bad for business. Brands that are already doing the work know this is not true. Smart regulation can be a way to level a playing field that is currently stacked against companies that operate more responsibly, while also incentivising and accelerating change. But it won't happen if companies and their lobbyists don't step up to loudly and boldly declare their support for the regulatory change that will enable more meaningful action. As the industry convenes this week at the Global Fashion Agenda's annual sustainability summit in Copenhagen, it's an opportunity for leaders to move beyond the climate blah blah and chart a path forward. The issue is increasingly urgent. In the last six months alone, we've witnessed climate impacts that make inadequate action indefensible: historic wildfires in California, temperatures reaching 48°C in India and Pakistan, and a glacier collapse wiping out a Swiss village. The stakes are not theoretical. I saw the corporate doublespeak firsthand while testifying in Sacramento, California in support of the Fashion Act, a bill that aims to address the climate and chemical footprint of the industry. Alongside me was a persuasive college student; in opposition were business lobbies the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Retailers Association and the American Apparel and Footwear Association. Their argument? That requiring companies to set and meet absolute emission reduction targets would mean increased costs for consumers, even though companies like Gap, VF, and Nike have already made voluntary commitments to such targets. We brought data from McKinsey showing that industry-wide decarbonisation, once co-ordinated, is not only feasible but affordable. The Committee listened, the bill progressed, though it must still pass through several other stages of approval by January in order to make it into law. In New York, lawmakers have been working on a similar legislative proposal since 2022. This is why brands who say they favour a greener industry need to step up. The Fashion Act is gaining traction in California. But to move it across the finish line and into law, we need industry voices to be present in the room and use their platforms to publicly support it. That's why New Standard Institute, the industry think tank I run, has launched an advocacy arm — to enable us to meet anti-regulation lobbying with equal force. This is a model not just for the Fashion Act, but for future legislation that sets smart incentives — both sticks and carrots — aligned with the sustainability commitments many brands already claim. To the companies that have signed on to support the bill, thank you. In the months ahead, we invite more of you to move beyond pledges and pilot programs. We also call on current supporters to step up their engagement: be public, be vocal, and advocate clearly for the Fashion Act. Join us in supporting infrastructure that can match lobbying power with lobbying power. Show legislators that industry — the forward-looking, innovation-driven side of it — is ready to lead. Navigating the turbulence of tariffs and shifting global standards is a challenge. But leadership isn't about waiting for clarity. It's about showing up in the storm. Let's lead. Maxine Bédat is the founder and director of fashion think tank New Standard Institute. She has helped spearhead bills focused on regulating fashion's environmental impact in California and New York. The views expressed in Op-Ed pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Business of Fashion. How to submit an Op-Ed: The Business of Fashion accepts opinion articles on a wide range of topics. The suggested length is 700-1000 words, but submissions of any length within reason will be considered. All submissions must be original and exclusive to BoF. Submissions may be sent to opinion@ Please include 'Op-Ed' in the subject line and be sure to substantiate all assertions. Given the volume of submissions we receive, we regret that we are unable to respond in the event that an article is not selected for publication.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Signs Order Doubling US Steel, Aluminum Tariffs to 50%
(Bloomberg) -- Supply Lines is a daily newsletter that tracks global trade. Sign up here. Where the Wild Children's Museums Are Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars At London's New Design Museum, Visitors Get Hands-On Access LA City Council Passes Budget That Trims Police, Fire Spending President Donald Trump has raised steel and aluminum tariffs to 50% from 25%, following through on a pledge to boost US import taxes to help domestic manufacturers. Trump cast the move, which took effect at 12:01 a.m. Washington time on Wednesday, as necessary to protect national security. An order signed on Tuesday said the previous charge had 'not yet enabled' domestic industries 'to develop and maintain the rates of capacity production utilization that are necessary for the industries' sustained health and for projected national defense needs.' 'Increasing the previously imposed tariffs will provide greater support to these industries and reduce or eliminate the national security threat posed by imports of steel and aluminum articles and their derivative articles,' according to the directive, which the White House posted on X. Trump's latest levy is fanning trade tensions at a time when the US is locked in negotiations with numerous trading partners over his so-called 'reciprocal' duties ahead of a July 9 deadline. The president's ability to unilaterally impose tariffs also stands on shakier legal ground after a federal court last week knocked down many of his other duties put in place under an emergency law. His levies on metals were not subject to that ruling, however, and the president has sought to show he's undeterred from pressing countries to make offers at the negotiating table. Metals charges on imports from the UK will remain at the previous 25% rate to allow the two nations to work on new levies or quotas by a July 9 deadline, according to the order. A key component of the nations' framework reached last month was an effort to lower trade barriers on steel, though the two sides did not agree on the extent of relief for British steel and the deal has yet to take effect. Mexico has said it will ask the US administration for its own exemption from what Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard has called an 'unsustainable' increase. Trump announced his decision to hike steel tariffs during a speech at a United States Steel Corp. plant in Pennsylvania last Friday, where he endorsed the sale of the company to Japan's Nippon Steel Corp. while pledging that it would remain under some form of American control. 'That means that nobody's going to be able to steal your industry,' he told steelworkers. 'It's at 25%, they can sort of get over that fence; at 50% they can no longer get over the fence.' He later announced in a social media post that the aluminum tariff would also rise to the same level. --With assistance from Derek Wallbank. (Updates with order taking effect, Mexico seeking exemption in paragraph nine.) YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Hamilton Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump's 50 per cent steel and aluminum tariffs go into effect
WASHINGTON - Tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum to the United States are increasing to 50 per cent today after President Donald Trump followed through on his plan to double the duties. Trump signed an executive order Tuesday to increase the levies from their previous rate of 25 per cent, saying it was necessary to protect national security and industries in the United States. Prime Minister Mark Carney says the tariffs are both unlawful and unjustified and that Canada is intensively negotiating with the U.S. to have tariffs removed under a new economic and security deal. The latest steel and aluminum increase doesn't apply to imports from the United Kingdom, which remain at 25 per cent while the Trump administration works out details of a trade deal announced last month. About a quarter of all steel used in the United States is imported and Canada is its largest supplier. The Canadian steel and aluminum industries say doubling the tariffs will have a devastating impact while economists warn the higher tariffs could also lead to cost increases for Americans. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 4, 2025.
