I haven't received any text to translate yet. Could you paste the Dutch text you'd like translated? One thing to flag: the line you shared seems to be only a headline, and it appears to be missing a word or two ("Neil Young spant opnieuw rechtszaak aan tegen Trump comité om Rockin' in the Free World"). If you'd like me to translate it as is, here it is: Neil Young files another lawsuit against Trump committee over Rockin' in the Free World

Neil Young has taken legal action once again against an organization tied to US President Donald Trump. Through his company Silver Fiddle Music, he filed a lawsuit on Monday, October 26, in the federal court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He is demanding $10 million from the Trump 47 Committee, the political action committee that organized the event. Trump himself is not named in the complaint.

The trigger was a rally on October 12 in Youngstown, Ohio, where Rockin' in the Free World from 1989 was played before Trump took the stage. According to the five page complaint, this happened without a license and without Young's permission, making it an unlawful public performance. The suit claims Trump was personally aware that a license is required for the song, and that Young has not granted one and would not do so. The song is also said to have been played at other gatherings before, meant to rally Republican voters ahead of the midterm elections. Besides damages, Young is asking for an injunction against future performances at events held by or connected to the committee. According to The Guardian, he also cites reputational harm, since use of the song gives the impression that he supports Trump.

The case has a history. In 2020, Young already went to court against the campaign company Donald J. Trump for President Inc. over the use of Rockin' in the Free World and Devil's Sidewalk, including at a rally in Tulsa. Young had been objecting ever since the song was used at Trump's campaign launch in 2015. That case was settled and Young withdrew it. According to the new complaint, the campaign promised at the time never to use the song again without a license and permission. The current committee, however, is a different organization, so that settlement does not automatically apply to it.

In the complaint, Young's lawyers describe the song as a razor sharp protest anthem that sets the hollow promises of American political rhetoric against the harsh reality of the poor, the homeless, and the forgotten. The chorus, they say, is bitterly ironic, celebrating a freedom that clearly isn't there for everyone. Their conclusion: the song is the opposite of everything Trump stands for. On his website, Young mockingly thanked Trump for attending so many of his concerts in the 1980s and 1990s, but left no doubt that he does not allow his music to be used this way. He wrote that he regrets it had to come to this, but that money and transactions are something Trump understands.

The legal point is that political campaigns generally need a public performance license for music played at gatherings, even if they have bought a legal copy of the recording. Permission has to come from the rights holders of the musical work, either directly or through a performing rights organization. For comment, the White House referred questions to the Republican National Committee.

Young is not alone. The estate of Isaac Hayes brought a case in 2024 over Hold On, I'm Coming, which was settled. Eddy Grant went to court in 2020 over Electric Avenue in a campaign video, and Jack and Meg White did the same in 2024 over The White Stripes' Seven Nation Army. The Rolling Stones, Rihanna, Adele, R.E.M., and Prince's estate have also criticized Trump's use of their music in the past. Young himself released a protest song about the Trump administration, Big Crime, in 2025.