Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Demands President Trump Prosecute Taylor Swift for Allegedly Aiding America Enemy ‘Iran’ Through WHO Contributions to War-Torn Regions Including Israel, Ukraine, Gaza, and Palestine

Marjorie Taylor Greene Urges Trump to Prosecute Taylor Swift Over WHO Humanitarian Aid Contributions, Sparking Controversy

Washington, D.C. – June 28, 2025 – In a provocative move, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has called on President Donald Trump to pursue legal action against pop superstar Taylor Swift, accusing her of aiding an American adversary, Iran, through her humanitarian contributions to the World Health Organization (WHO). The allegations stem from Swift’s recent donations to support clean water, medical aid, and solar energy initiatives in war-torn regions, including Israel, Ukraine, Gaza, and Palestine, with Iran also listed among the recipients. Greene’s demand has ignited a firestorm of debate, highlighting tensions within the Republican Party and raising questions about the intersection of celebrity philanthropy and geopolitical policy.

Greene’s Accusations and Call for Prosecution

Greene, a staunch supporter of Trump’s “America First” agenda, took to social media to express her outrage, claiming that Swift’s contributions through WHO indirectly support Iran, a nation she labels an enemy of the United States. In a post on X, Greene wrote, “Taylor Swift’s funding of WHO programs that include Iran is tantamount to aiding our adversaries. President Trump must investigate and prosecute this betrayal of American interests!” Her statement references Swift’s high-profile donation to WHO’s humanitarian efforts, which aim to provide essential resources to conflict zones, including areas affected by ongoing tensions involving Iran and Israel.

The Georgia congresswoman’s call for prosecution appears rooted in her broader skepticism of international aid and her opposition to U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. Greene has consistently criticized policies she perceives as diverting American resources abroad, a stance she reiterated in her attacks on Swift. “While Americans struggle with skyrocketing costs and open borders, celebrities like Swift are funding foreign regimes through globalist organizations like WHO,” she posted, echoing sentiments she has expressed against U.S. aid to Ukraine and other nations.

Swift’s Humanitarian Efforts Under Scrutiny

Taylor Swift, known for her global influence and philanthropy, announced her support for WHO’s initiatives in early 2025, emphasizing the need for clean water, medical supplies, and sustainable energy in regions devastated by war. The donation, reportedly in the millions, was intended to alleviate suffering in conflict zones, including Israel, Ukraine, Gaza, Palestine, and Iran. Swift’s team highlighted her commitment to nonpartisan humanitarian causes, stating in a press release, “Access to basic needs like water and healthcare transcends borders and politics. We must help those in need, regardless of where they are.”

However, Greene’s accusations focus on Iran’s inclusion in WHO’s aid distribution, given the country’s adversarial relationship with the U.S. and its recent escalations with Israel. In June 2025, tensions in the Middle East intensified after Israel conducted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, prompting retaliatory strikes from Iran. The U.S., under Trump’s administration, responded with strikes on three Iranian sites, a decision Greene herself criticized as a betrayal of Trump’s campaign promises to avoid foreign wars.

Greene’s claim that Swift’s contributions constitute aiding an enemy hinges on the argument that WHO’s aid to Iran could bolster its regime. However, no evidence has surfaced to suggest Swift’s donations directly support Iran’s government or military. WHO has clarified that its programs are strictly humanitarian, targeting civilian populations in need, and are subject to rigorous oversight to ensure compliance with international regulations.

Political Context and MAGA Divide

Greene’s call for Swift’s prosecution comes amid a broader rift within the MAGA movement over U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding the Israel-Iran conflict. While Greene has been one of Trump’s most loyal allies, she has publicly broken with him over his decision to bomb Iran, labeling it a “bait and switch” that contradicts the “America First” promise of avoiding foreign wars. In a June 23, 2025, post on X, she wrote, “I can support President Trump and his great administration on many of the great things they are doing while disagreeing on bombing Iran and getting involved in a hot war that Israel started.”

This dissent has placed Greene at odds with other Republicans, such as Senator Lindsey Graham, who support a hawkish stance against Iran. Graham dismissed Greene’s position, stating, “She doesn’t understand the threat Iran poses,” and emphasized the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The internal GOP conflict underscores the challenges Trump faces in balancing his base’s isolationist and interventionist factions.

Greene’s targeting of Swift may also reflect an attempt to rally her supporters by framing the singer as a symbol of globalist elites. By accusing Swift of aiding Iran, Greene taps into a narrative that resonates with her base, which often views international organizations like WHO with suspicion. However, her call for prosecution has drawn skepticism, even among some conservatives, who argue it lacks legal grounding and risks alienating voters who admire Swift’s humanitarian efforts.

Public and Political Reactions

The backlash to Greene’s remarks has been swift, with Swift’s fans—known as “Swifties”—flooding social media with defenses of the singer. “Taylor is helping people in need, not picking sides in wars. This is ridiculous,” one fan posted on X. Others have accused Greene of politicizing humanitarian aid for personal gain, with some pointing to her history of controversial statements, including her past promotion of conspiracy theories.

Democratic lawmakers have also weighed in, with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) calling Greene’s accusations “absurd” and a “distraction from real issues.” Ocasio-Cortez, who previously clashed with Greene over foreign policy, argued that targeting a private citizen like Swift for humanitarian work sets a dangerous precedent.

Legal experts have expressed doubt about the feasibility of Greene’s call for prosecution. “There’s no legal basis for charging someone with aiding an enemy over a donation to a reputable international organization like WHO,” said constitutional law scholar Dr. Emily Carter. “This seems more like political theater than a serious legal argument.” Carter noted that the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments, is unlikely to apply, as Swift’s actions were humanitarian, not diplomatic.

Swift’s Response and Broader Implications

As of June 28, 2025, Taylor Swift has not directly addressed Greene’s accusations, though sources close to the singer indicate she is “disappointed” by the politicization of her philanthropy. Swift has a history of avoiding direct political confrontations, though she has increasingly spoken out on social issues, including voter rights and disaster relief. Her team has reiterated that her WHO donation was intended to support civilians, not governments, and aligns with her long-standing commitment to humanitarian causes.

The controversy highlights the fraught intersection of celebrity influence, political rhetoric, and international policy. Swift’s global platform makes her a high-profile target for political actors like Greene, who seek to leverage cultural figures to advance their agendas. It also underscores the challenges of providing humanitarian aid in politically charged environments, where well-intentioned actions can be misconstrued or weaponized.

Looking Ahead

Greene’s demand for Swift’s prosecution is unlikely to gain traction legally, but it may further polarize an already divided political landscape. For Trump, the controversy poses a delicate challenge as he navigates his second term. Balancing the demands of his isolationist base, represented by Greene, with the interventionist wing of the GOP could prove critical to maintaining party unity ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

For Swift, the episode may prompt a reevaluation of how public figures engage in philanthropy during times of geopolitical tension. While her fans and supporters continue to rally behind her, the incident serves as a reminder of the complexities of wielding influence in a polarized world.

As the debate unfolds, one thing is clear: the clash between Greene’s “America First” rhetoric and Swift’s global humanitarian efforts encapsulates broader tensions over America’s role on the world stage. Whether this controversy will lead to meaningful policy discussions or remain a fleeting political spectacle remains to be seen.