The thousands of fans who filled MetLife Stadium came to see Ed Sheeran. Rapper Macklemore saw something else: an audience large enough to amplify his message about Israel and Gaza.
That choice ultimately cost him the rest of the tour. After Macklemore used his opening sets to display images from Gaza, accuse Israel of genocide and apartheid and proclaim “Free Palestine,” several venue operators refused to host concerts with him on the bill. His removal now sits at the center of a difficult debate: Was Macklemore punished for political speech, or did he misuse someone else’s stage — and disregard the Jewish and Israeli fans standing in front of it?
What Macklemore said at MetLife Stadium
During his opening set on September 4, Macklemore told the MetLife Stadium crowd that reaching audiences of that size was one of the reasons he had agreed to join Sheeran’s tour.
“One of the reasons why I wanted to come on this tour was because I wanted to stand up here on stages and stadiums across America and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart: Free Palestine,” he said.
Macklemore then praised the Columbia University protesters who occupied Hamilton Hall in 2024 and thanked Columbia University Apartheid Divest, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. He performed “Hind’s Hall,” his protest song named for Hind Rajab, a 6-year-old Palestinian girl killed in Gaza, while the stadium screens displayed images of destruction in Gaza and pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations.
Addressing Jewish concertgoers, Macklemore insisted that his message was not antisemitic. “Criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid, being against genocide in no way is a criticism of you,” he said. “My message is for peace, love for all human beings to be treated with dignity, respect and equality.”
But his presentation offered no acknowledgment of the Hamas-led October 7 attack, in which approximately 1,200 people were killed and 251 were taken hostage, or of the Israeli families still living with its consequences. His descriptions of Israel’s conduct as genocide and apartheid are also fiercely contested. For Jewish and Israeli critics, the problem was not that Macklemore asked the crowd to care about Palestinian suffering. It was that by omitting the massacre that precipitated the war, the hostages and Israeli suffering, he transformed a plea for empathy into what they viewed as a morally one-sided indictment delivered to an audience that had not chosen to attend a political event.
Despite the initial backlash, Macklemore returned for Sheeran’s second MetLife show on September 5 and repeated his message.
Why critics say this wasn’t an isolated incident
For many critics, the MetLife performance could not be separated from Macklemore’s previous controversies involving antisemitism.
In 2014, the rapper performed in a disguise featuring a black wig, beard and large prosthetic nose — an ensemble that actor Seth Rogen and others said resembled a stereotypical Jewish caricature. Macklemore initially called the resemblance coincidental, explaining that he had assembled the costume to conceal his identity during a surprise performance. He later apologized, writing that he had not intended to mock Jewish people but understood why the disguise caused harm. The Anti-Defamation League accepted his apology, saying it took him at his word that he had no hateful intent.
Since October 7, Macklemore has become one of the music industry’s most prominent anti-Israel voices. His 2024 songs “Hind’s Hall” and “Hind’s Hall 2” accuse Israel of genocide, reject the idea that anti-Zionism is antisemitic and criticize pro-Israel organizations including AIPAC and Christians United for Israel. After his MetLife appearances, the ADL characterized his speech as “performative, biased and hateful anti-Israel ‘activism.’”
Macklemore, however, has repeatedly insisted that his opposition to Israel’s government and Zionism is not hostility toward Jews, pointing to Jewish anti-Zionist activists who share his views.
Later in 2024, Macklemore led a crowd in chanting “F— America” at a pro-Palestinian benefit in Seattle’s Seward Park. The remark prompted a Las Vegas festival to remove him from its lineup and several Seattle sports teams to reconsider their relationships with him. Although the comment was not itself antisemitic, the episode established a pattern of Macklemore using live performances for provocative political declarations — and facing professional consequences afterward.
That history resurfaced after MetLife. Pop singer Pink, who is Jewish, said Macklemore’s presentation frightened Jewish fans and argued that he could not dictate how his words affected the community. She stopped short of calling for his removal, but said his earlier conduct made it harder to view the performance in isolation.
When does criticism of Israel become antisemitism?
Supporting Palestinian rights, condemning the Israeli government or accusing Israel of violating international law is not inherently antisemitic. Jews themselves hold widely divergent views about Israel and the war in Gaza, and treating every forceful criticism of the country as antisemitic risks shutting down legitimate political debate.
Macklemore has said that his criticism is directed at the Israeli government and its supporters, not at Jewish people. In “Hind’s Hall,” he explicitly rejects the idea that opposing Israel’s actions makes someone antisemitic, rapping, “The problem isn’t the protests, it’s what they’re protesting / It goes against what our country is funding / Block the barricade until Palestine is free.”
But intent is not the only factor that shapes how a message is received. For some Jewish listeners, Macklemore’s performance could not be separated from his earlier appearance in a costume resembling an antisemitic caricature, the surge in antisemitism since October 7 or the omission of Hamas’ massacre, sexual violence, the hostages and Israeli civilian suffering from his account of the war.
Macklemore and his supporters view allegations of antisemitism as an attempt to discredit advocacy for Palestinians. His critics argue that political speech can contribute to antisemitism even when the speaker disavows hatred of Jews — particularly when it erases Israeli suffering, uses inflammatory accusations or dismisses Jewish concerns as a cynical defense of Israel. The disagreement is therefore not only about what Macklemore intended to say, but about what responsibility an artist bears for the context and impact of saying it.
How Macklemore was removed from the tour
In a September 14 Instagram statement, Macklemore said Sheeran informed him that Robert Kraft, the Jewish billionaire whose company owns Gillette Stadium and who founded the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism, would not permit Macklemore to perform there. According to Macklemore, Kraft then rallied operators of other stadiums around an ultimatum: Remove Macklemore or lose the venues.
“Ed was in a f—ed up position,” Macklemore wrote of Sheeran, whom he described as a friend of 13 years and a “brother.” “His typical apolitical stance was being challenged in a way it never had been before.”
Tour promoter Messina Touring Group confirmed that multiple venues would not allow the concerts to proceed with Macklemore on the lineup. It did not, however, confirm his allegation that Kraft coordinated their decisions. The objecting venues reportedly included Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia, Gillette Stadium outside Boston and stadiums in Atlanta, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Dallas and Tampa.
Allowing Macklemore to remain, the promoter said, “would result in the cancellation of the tour and impact hundreds of thousands of fans.” After consulting stakeholders, Sheeran’s team removed Macklemore from the eight remaining shows he had been scheduled to open.
Sheeran disputed Macklemore’s suggestion that the decision was his. He said Macklemore’s contract was with the promoter, not with him, and that the promoter and venues made the final call. Sheeran added that he had spent the week speaking with Kraft, other venues, promoters and activists “on both sides” in an unsuccessful attempt to “build a bridge.” He also defended Macklemore’s artistic freedom, saying that all of his opening acts are permitted to choose their own setlists. But he said he would not cancel the tour and abandon the fans, crew members, musicians and other opening acts who had made plans or relied on the shows for work.
Kraft defended barring Macklemore from Gillette, which he said was intended to remain “a welcoming environment for all guests.” He cited both the MetLife performances and “a broader history of rhetoric and imagery that we believe has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community.”
“Much of my time and attention for the last decade has been focused on the fight against antisemitism and hate of all kinds,” Kraft said, “and I feel a responsibility to stand up when I believe that line has been crossed.” He also invited Macklemore to meet with him, saying they shared the goal of peace and an end to suffering.
Was Macklemore censored?
Macklemore described his removal as an effort to silence him. In the constitutional sense, however, it probably was not censorship. The First Amendment generally prevents the government — not private promoters, performers or venue operators — from suppressing speech. No government official has been accused of ordering Macklemore off the tour.
Macklemore remained free to express his views, release political music and organize his own concerts. What he lost was access to Sheeran’s tour and several major stages. The First Amendment does not ordinarily guarantee an artist a place on someone else’s bill; promoters and venue operators also possess the freedom to decide which performers and messages they will present.
Still, calling the decision legal does not resolve whether it was right. Stadium operators control some of the country’s largest cultural platforms. If several refuse to host the same artist, they can sharply curtail his access to mass audiences even without violating the Constitution. That concern would become more significant if Macklemore’s unconfirmed allegation of a coordinated campaign were substantiated.
The controversy therefore presents two distinct questions. Macklemore had a right to express his views. But did Sheeran, his promoter or the stadium operators have an obligation to lend him their stages? Almost certainly not.
What responsibility did Macklemore have to Ed Sheeran’s audience?
Macklemore’s defenders might argue that inviting an outspoken political artist means accepting that politics could become part of the performance. His advocacy for Palestinians was hardly a secret: He had released multiple protest songs about Gaza, performed at pro-Palestinian demonstrations and repeatedly condemned Israel before joining Sheeran’s tour.
But Macklemore was not headlining his own concert or appearing at a political benefit. He was an opening act on Sheeran’s tour, performing for an audience that had primarily purchased tickets to see someone else. Many fans had no reason to expect that the evening would include graphic images from Gaza or accusations that Israel was committing genocide.
That distinction matters. Artists have long used concerts to challenge injustice, and audiences do not have a right to be protected from every difficult or unwelcome opinion. But an opening act also enters into a relationship with the headliner, whose name sold the tickets and whose reputation is attached to the entire show. Macklemore’s freedom to speak did not eliminate his responsibility to consider the setting, the audience or the consequences for Sheeran and the hundreds of people employed by the tour.
Sheeran described his political restraint not as indifference, but as a deliberate choice about how to use his platform. Calling the suffering on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “a human tragedy,” he said he holds personal views but generally keeps them private, in part because many young people attend his concerts. While praising Macklemore’s “strength of purpose,” Sheeran said he had chosen a different form of advocacy: using his shows to create “unity, joy, escapism, love, and a place for everyone to feel welcome.” “I choose to use my fame and platform to be a place of safety and sanctuary, to maintain diplomacy and keep conversations open, not closed,” he wrote. “There are different approaches to being an advocate for change.”
Macklemore’s performance nevertheless forced Sheeran to defend that approach publicly, making his attempt to remain outside the political debate nearly impossible. Keeping Macklemore could be interpreted as tolerating or endorsing the presentation; removing him could be characterized as capitulating to censorship. Even saying nothing became a choice that others could assign political meaning.
Critics of neutrality argue that silence in the face of injustice protects the powerful. That conviction has animated generations of protest music, and Macklemore clearly sees himself as part of that tradition. But political restraint can serve a purpose, too. A stadium concert brings together tens of thousands of strangers, including people intimately connected to both Israeli and Palestinian suffering. By presenting the pain of one population while excluding the other, Macklemore risked turning an appeal for empathy into an erasure of part of his audience’s experience.
That is ultimately what makes this controversy larger than Macklemore. Artists should be free to use their own platforms to express political convictions, including views that audiences find offensive. But freedom of expression does not guarantee freedom from criticism, contractual consequences or the decisions of other people who control the stage.
Macklemore believed the size of Sheeran’s platform made speaking out more important. His critics believed it made accuracy, context and restraint more important. The dispute is not simply about whether artists should address injustice. It is about whether possessing a microphone confers an obligation to use it — or an obligation to think more carefully about everyone listening.
