U2 has dropped a politically-charged EP featuring an anti-ICE track about a shooting in Minnesota, marking the band's most directly political work in years. And look, I have complicated feelings about this.
On one hand, U2 doing political music in 2026 feels both dated and necessary. They've always been activists - Bono's been name-dropping causes since the 1980s. The band has never been shy about taking stands, sometimes to the point of self-parody.
On the other hand, can Bono's earnestness land with younger audiences who grew up on more cynical political art? The EP signals a broader trend of legacy rock acts re-engaging with protest music amid turbulent political times. But there's a difference between being politically engaged and being politically relevant.
The anti-ICE track about a Minnesota shooting is direct and urgent. That's good. U2 at their best channels righteous anger into anthems that inspire action. Sunday Bloody Sunday. Pride (In the Name of Love). They know how to do this.
But U2 in 2026 also carries baggage. They're the band that forced their album onto everyone's iPhone. They're boomer rock stars with generational wealth lecturing about injustice. The sincerity gap is real.
Yet maybe that's exactly why this matters. Younger artists are making incredible protest music - Kendrick Lamar, Childish Gambino, countless others speak to their generation with authenticity U2 can't match. But legacy acts using their massive platforms to speak out? That reaches different audiences.
The question is whether U2 is making this music because they genuinely feel compelled to speak out, or because being "political" is part of their brand identity. I genuinely don't know the answer.
What I do know: we need more artists using their platforms for something beyond selling sneakers and streaming numbers. If U2 wants to make anti-ICE music, good. If it makes people uncomfortable, better.
Just maybe skip forcing it onto everyone's phones this time.
