Macklemore stood onstage at MetLife Stadium and said “Free Palestine”. He spoke about Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, performed ‘Hind’s Hall’ and used the kind of audience most musicians spend their lives trying to reach. Days later, he was removed from his remaining appearances on Ed Sheeran’s LOOP tour.
The mechanics are no longer particularly mysterious. Several venues told promoter Messina Touring Group that shows would not go ahead with Macklemore on the bill, and the promoter removed him. Ed Sheeran later said in a statement on Instagram that it was not his decision and that he had spent days trying to persuade venues to reconsider.
Fine. That answers the contractual question, but it does not let Ed Sheeran retreat into the idea that none of this belongs to him. It was his tour, his audience and his commercial weight holding the whole thing together, and once the private attempts to keep Macklemore failed, the public answer Ed offered was political neutrality.
That is where this stops being an argument about who technically removed a support act and becomes something much more uncomfortable. Music is not politically neutral by nature, and Ed is not an artist with some spotless history of refusing to enter public arguments. He has entered them repeatedly when the cause was one he wanted to speak about.
That record makes the sudden insistence on an apolitical professional platform difficult to swallow. Ed has publicly praised Jeremy Corbyn, spoken about Brexit, signed an open letter warning Theresa May’s government about the consequences of leaving the European Union, performed for an Amnesty International campaign supporting refugees, publicly stood with Ukrainians after Russia’s invasion and directly lobbied Keir Starmer’s government for hundreds of millions of pounds in music education funding. None of those interventions happened by accident.
They happened because Ed believed there were moments when having an audience gave him a reason to say something beyond the next single, album or tour. The argument cannot therefore be that music should remain free from politics, because Ed’s own career shows that he does not consistently behave as though such a boundary exists. The question is which issues are treated as acceptable reasons to cross it.
Ed Sheeran has already shown us that music can be political
In 2017, Ed publicly described himself as a fan of Jeremy Corbyn and praised the Labour leader’s concern for people across classes, races and generations. The same year, when asked about Brexit, Ed said he was born European and loved being European, leaving little mystery around where he stood. A year later, he joined other musicians in signing an open letter to the government warning that Brexit threatened British music.
That is politics. It does not become something else because it was expressed politely or because plenty of people in the music industry shared his view. Ed was a musician using his public profile to express opinions about a political leader, Britain’s relationship with Europe and government policy affecting his industry.
Ed has done the same with humanitarian causes that sit directly beside political decisions. He joined Amnesty International’s Give a Home campaign in support of refugees, playing a concert intended to raise money and awareness while calling attention to the global refugee crisis. Amnesty’s wider campaign explicitly called on governments, particularly wealthy ones, to welcome more refugees.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, Ed publicly told Ukrainians that he stood with them and played the Concert for Ukraine, which raised money for the Disasters Emergency Committee’s humanitarian appeal. Again, there was no suggestion that a concert became somehow contaminated because an artist spoke about people caught in war. Music was being used as a platform for solidarity because the circumstances were considered serious enough to demand it.
Then there is music education. Ed’s foundation organised an open letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer calling for a £250 million package for music education and addressing senior government ministers directly. It argued for public spending, criticised years of declining provision and asked the government to change policy. Whatever else anyone wants to call that, it is participation in politics.
None of this is an accusation. In most of those cases, Ed clearly believed his fame could be useful and decided to use it. The problem comes when that history sits beside a defence of political neutrality at the exact moment another artist has lost access to Ed’s stage after speaking about Palestine.
Ed is entitled to care about refugees. He is entitled to stand with Ukrainians, back music education, criticise Brexit and say what he thinks about Jeremy Corbyn. Macklemore is equally entitled to decide that Palestinians deserve the use of his microphone, and the fact that this particular intervention caused wealthy institutions to push back does not somehow make politics an inappropriate intrusion into music.
It proves the opposite. Politics becomes easiest to describe as unwelcome when speaking carries an actual cost.
Robert Kraft’s organisation, which owns Gillette Stadium, said Macklemore would not be permitted to perform there and cited his recent conduct alongside what Robert described as a wider history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery. Robert also said Palestinian suffering is real and that advocating for Palestinians should not itself be denied, while Macklemore rejects the argument that his support for Palestinians amounts to hostility towards Jewish people and explicitly separated criticism of Israel from criticism of Jewish communities during the MetLife shows.
Those distinctions matter, particularly on a subject where antisemitism is real and should never be excused. They do not turn what followed into an apolitical event. Venue owners exercised their authority over who could appear, the promoter removed Macklemore and the tour was expected to continue without the artist whose speech had caused the dispute.
Macklemore’s response on Instagram was notable for how little interest he showed in presenting himself as the injured celebrity. He described difficult conversations with Ed, continued to call him a friend and kept pointing back towards Palestinians rather than treating a lost stadium slot as the central tragedy. He had used the stage for a reason and accepted that doing so might cost him something.
Then Aaron Rowe, Beoga, Lukas Graham and Finneas began giving something up too. All four withdrew from upcoming appearances after Macklemore’s removal, which makes one part of Ed’s explanation especially awkward: he had cited his responsibility towards support acts, musicians and others relying on the tour as part of the reason for continuing, only for the announced support acts themselves to decide that continuing was not what they wanted.
Aaron had more reason than most to stay. Aaron described Ed as a friend who had changed his life, but argued that his Irish background made it impossible for him to continue while, in his view, wealthy venue owners were using their position to silence someone speaking about Palestinians. Beoga, another act with a long relationship with Ed, also walked away and connected the decision to Irish history and the band’s involvement with Irish Artists for Palestine.
Lukas Graham left while criticising the idea that money should decide which suffering can be spoken about. Finneas pulled out of later South American dates and linked the decision to artists being able to speak for oppressed people. These were not anonymous people on social media demanding somebody else make a sacrifice. They had career opportunities in front of them and decided to give them up.
That does not mean the hundreds of other people employed around a stadium tour can make the same choice without consequences. Crew members, contractors and workers have bills to pay, and nobody should pretend otherwise. But their livelihoods cannot be used to transform the continuation of a commercially enormous tour into the only morally serious option when the artists Ed specifically mentioned have demonstrated that they saw the situation differently.
There is a wider responsibility here for music itself. The industry loves the language of artists having voices, building communities and using songs to connect people across borders, but those ideas become hollow if the acceptable use of that voice ends exactly where the politics become uncomfortable for venue owners, promoters or corporate partners. You cannot celebrate music as something capable of speaking to the world and then demand silence when the subject is Palestine.
Music has always been political because music is made by people living inside politics. Who gets booked, who owns the room, who has access to arts education, whether musicians can cross borders to tour, whether refugees are welcomed, whether governments fund culture and whether artists can speak without losing work are not separate from the industry. Ed already knows that, because he has publicly intervened in several of those questions himself.
That is what makes the neutrality defence so unsatisfying. Ed did not suddenly discover in 2026 that pop stars should never mix their public platforms with politics. His record shows a far more selective approach: there are causes he has been willing to support publicly, politicians he has been willing to praise, government decisions he has been willing to challenge and humanitarian crises he has been willing to put music behind.
Palestine is where that willingness appears to stop, even after the political machinery around his own tour decided that somebody else speaking about it had become unacceptable. Ed says he tried privately to prevent Macklemore’s removal, and that should remain part of any fair account. Once those efforts failed, though, the public position became neutrality while Macklemore disappeared from the bill.
That is not the absence of politics. It is what politics looks like when the people with the greatest institutional leverage get the outcome they wanted and the show carries on around the empty space left behind.
Macklemore chose to speak. Aaron, Beoga, Lukas Graham and Finneas chose to walk. Ed chose to continue while defending an idea of neutrality that his own career has repeatedly contradicted.
Music does not become political only when somebody says “Free Palestine”. It was political when Ed spoke about Brexit, when he praised Jeremy Corbyn, when he backed refugees, when he stood with Ukraine and when he asked the government to spend £250 million on music education. The difference is that those interventions did not result in stadium owners telling his promoter that the show could not continue with him on the bill.
That is when the principle gets tested. Not when speaking is comfortable, widely applauded or professionally safe, but when somebody with money and access tells you that a particular voice has become too costly to keep around.
If music wants to claim that it can comfort people, challenge people, unite people and change lives, it cannot suddenly pretend to be an empty room when the politics become difficult. Palestine did not drag politics onto Ed Sheeran’s stage. Politics was already there.
Read Ed Sheeran’s statement on Instagram, Macklemore’s statement on Instagram, and the latest reporting from BBC News.
Tap Share, then Add to Home Screen.