Kendrick Lamar vs. Donald Trump: The Super Bowl Showdown
5 min read
Kendrick Lamar’s 2025 Super Bowl Halftime Show was a masterclass in layered symbolism, delivering a powerful message even without explicit lyrics. However, Donald Trump’s presence shifted the narrative, acting as a form of soft censorship that redirected focus onto himself. Yet, rather than neutralising Kendrick’s protest, Trump’s attendance paradoxically amplified its significance – confirming that the real threat to power isn’t just protest, but the curiosity it sparks in forcing audiences to question meaning and intent. In this battle of narratives, the Super Bowl became more than entertainment – it became a stage where politics, art, and discourse collided, setting a precedent for mainstream platforms as arenas for resistance.
If, like me, you had to push yourself to watch the 2025 Super Bowl Halftime Show because 15 minutes of continuous Hip-Hop wasn’t exactly your thing; and unless you’d seen the countless breakdowns of the performance popping up on your social media feed, the whole thing would likely have passed you by. For despite Pulitzer-winning lyrics, the lack of decent subtitles meant it was near impossible to know what was being said unless you already had a deep familiarity with what Kendrick Lamar was saying.
But, what was clear from watching was that, on what is considered to be the biggest stage in American entertainment, there was taking place not simply a performance of music, but the delivery of a message – even if you didn’t quite know what that message was. And that in itself, was part of the design.
Kendrick’s set was a masterclass in saying something without explicitly saying it. Every element – the all-Black cast, the red, white, and blue colour scheme, Samuel L. Jackson embodying Uncle Sam, Serena Williams Crip Walking – was a message in itself. Even if you didn’t understand it, you knew it meant something.
For those who did understand it, it was a rallying call hidden in plain sight. But that in itself raises the question: how effective is a protest if only those “in the know” recognise it as one?
The Role of Censorship: What Wasn’t Said Matters
There’s a difference between an artist self-censoring to fit within mainstream constraints like those on explicit content; and an artist strategically allowing silencing while ensuring the message remains intact. Kendrick’s performance seemed to fall into the latter category.
It is in these gaps that his performance existed. In what he didn’t say as much as what he did. His visuals had to do the heavy lifting, the movements had to speak the unsaid truths. Because explicit critique can be removed, but subtext is harder to erase.
Censorship by Presence: The Significance of Trump Being There
Enter Donald Trump – who, unlike me, likely wasn’t resistant to sitting through 15 minutes of continuous Hip-Hop. His appearance at the Super Bowl was not a passive act. “Football Fan” he may well be, but this almost unprecedented appearance at the Super Bowl of not just a President, but a man who has an uncanny ability to co-opt, deflect, and ultimately dilute any critique aimed in his direction, can be seen as a calculated power play.
Donald Trump and Kendrick Lamar - the culture war made flesh in a direct confrontation between a protest performer and a human lightning rod for the very system his performance seeks to challenge.
Trump’s very presence was a form of soft censorship. Whether intentionally or not, it shifted the narrative so that the focus, instead of being fixed on Kendrick and his message, veered towards the optics of Trump enduring, absorbing, and redirecting whatever message was being given. By showing up, Trump positioned himself as an active participant in a media moment he could manipulate – turning it into a referendum on himself and mutating the message into something that ultimately serves him.
To Trump’s supporters, his attendance would have looked like an act of dominance. They would have “seen” a man so confident in his own ideology, so deeply entrenched in his own version of “truth”, that he could sit through Kendrick’s performance. Had Trump walked out, Kendrick’s message might have appeared to be validated. Had Trump reacted angrily, it might have fuelled the conversation Kendrick wanted to have in spaces Trump would not have wanted him to have them. By being there, Trump was able to absorb the moment, reframe it, and make it about his own resilience. His brand of being “unshakeable”, imperviously invincible, and the man who “stands his ground”, bolstered.
Through the sheer impassive endurance of 15 minutes of continuous Hip-Hop, Trumps presence becomes part of the performance.
Trump’s Presence as an Amplifier, Not a Disruptor
And that’s the thing, because if you didn’t know Kendrick Lamar’s work, if you didn’t catch the symbolism, if you weren’t attuned to the layered signals embedded in the visuals, Kendrick’s Super Bowl performance would have meant little to nothing to you. You probably literally would have just ‘turned the TV off’.
And this is the interesting thing, because if there was nothing controversial, or subversive, nothing worth paying attention to in Kendrick’s performance, why would Trump’s presence feel so pointed? His attendance, in many ways, endorsed the idea that Kendrick’s performance was, in fact, a protest. And if Kendrick’s message was easily dismissible, why would it matter that Trump was there at all?
Thus, Trump’s presence may have paradoxically amplified the very thing that it could be considered to have neutralized. Because, by being there, he confirmed that there was something to react to. Even if he chose not to react at all.
The Danger of Inquiry: When Spectacle Sparks Curiosity
Perhaps then, the biggest risk to power isn’t the protest itself – it’s the curiosity it sparks. It’s when people start wondering and then actively start questioning. Why was the performance staged like that? What did those symbols mean? What was Kendrick Lamar actually saying? Why was Donald Trump even there? It’s this moment of engagement that threatens to disrupt the status quo.
Control of the Narrative: What’s at Stake
Control of the narrative, therefore, is what’s at stake in a showdown like this. The ability to dictate not just what happens, but how people interpret it. In the capitalist system, even the boldest political art exists within a framework that can contain it. But protest in all art forms, is not just about artistry, it’s about impact.
And the Super Bowl Halftime Performance 2025 had impact – one to such an extent that it now sets a precedent. A President was present. It’s had the greatest number of views of any Superbowl Halftime Show. It’s practically inescapable on Social Media – popping up in some form or another like a gif that just keeps giving.
Moreover, this year’s Super Bowl Showdown challenges us all, as well as other artists, to use our platforms in ways that go beyond mere entertainment; and to recognise that even the most commercialised, commodified spaces can be battlegrounds for real discourse. And the fact that Donald Trump was present, the fact that Kendrick Lamar had to enter this fight with him to be heard, underscores how important and necessary both his message and the subsequent discourse are in the first place.
The Battle of Narratives
This wasn’t just a halftime show. It was a battle over meaning and who gets to define that meaning. Kendrick put forth a statement – wordless in some places, explosive in others, layered throughout. Trump, by simply being in the same space, became a participant in that statement.
Lamar’s protest was designed to be recognised only by those primed to see it. But for the rest of us, Trump’s presence makes it impossible to ignore.
