Ed Sheeran says he did not personally make the decision to remove Macklemore from his U.S. tour, pushing back after the rapper publicly questioned how his departure unfolded following his outspoken support for Palestinians.
View this post on Instagram
The Macklemore tour removal has turned into a larger dispute over who actually controlled the decision. According to Reuters, tour promoter Messina Touring Group said multiple venues informed organizers that concerts could not proceed with Macklemore on the lineup after his remarks during Sheeran’s September shows at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.
Sheeran addressed the controversy Tuesday and made his position on the conflict clear while distancing himself from the final touring decision.
“I am appalled by the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The suffering and pain caused on both sides is a human tragedy,” Sheeran said.
Sheeran said Macklemore originally approached him about joining the Loop Tour and that he welcomed the idea.
“Macklemore asked to join my tour last year, and I agreed, because I respect him as an artist.”
Sheeran said his opening acts are allowed to choose their own setlists, meaning Macklemore was not being directed by Sheeran about what music or messages he could include in his performance.
The controversy erupted after Macklemore used his MetLife Stadium appearances to voice support for Palestinians and perform “Hind’s Hall,” his 2024 protest song inspired by the Palestinian solidarity movement. Macklemore declared “Free Palestine” during his performance while imagery connected to Gaza appeared as part of the set.
Macklemore later insisted his statements were not attacks on Jewish people. According to his response, the rapper said his message was about Palestinian freedom and civilian suffering rather than Jewish identity.
Pressure over the performances quickly extended beyond social media. Messina Touring Group said venues scheduled to host upcoming Sheeran concerts informed the promoter they would not proceed if Macklemore remained on the lineup.
Sheeran says he attempted to resolve the conflict before the Macklemore tour removal became final.
“One of these people was Robert Kraft. I was also involved in direct talks with promoters along with activists on both sides to try and find a mutual resolution for all, but the venues’ and promoters’ decision was final,” Sheeran said.
New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft controls Gillette Stadium, where Sheeran is scheduled to perform September 25 and 26. Kraft publicly confirmed that he did not want Macklemore performing at the venue. Kraft defended the decision while saying support for Palestinians should not come at the expense of Jewish people.
In a statement, Kraft said, “Macklemore’s recent actions, material shared from the stage during Ed Sheeran’s shows in New Jersey, and a broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery that we believe has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community, we determined that his participation in the September 25th and 26th concerts at Gillette Stadium would cross that line.”
Sheeran maintains that the contractual and logistical reality matters. According to Entertainment Weekly, he said Macklemore’s contract was with the tour promoter rather than with Sheeran personally. He also argued that abandoning the remaining stadium dates could have cost jobs for crew members and other musicians while disrupting shows for thousands of ticket holders.
The controversy also places Sheeran in familiar territory.
This is not the first time the singer has been pulled into the Israel and Palestine debate and then publicly argued that his involvement had been mischaracterized.
In January 2025, Sheeran responded after posts circulated suggesting that he had performed for wounded Israel Defense Forces soldiers as a show of support for Israel. A fact check by Lead Stories found that characterization was misleading.
The underlying event was a large public Sheeran concert in Cyprus in September 2024. According to Lead Stories, the OneFamily charity obtained tickets and arranged for wounded Israeli soldiers and bereaved young adults to attend the concert. The performance itself was not organized as an IDF event or a Sheeran concert specifically supporting Israel.
Sheeran responded directly at the time.
“The story about wounded soldiers at my show, was a charity that sourced tickets to my show in Cyprus last year, which was a large-scale public concert. This sort of reporting is devisive and damaging, please research before you post things.”
That earlier controversy differs significantly from the current dispute because Macklemore’s removal involves actual decisions by venues and promoters. Still, the two situations share one notable theme. In both cases, Sheeran has found himself connected to a politically charged controversy surrounding Israel and has publicly argued that assumptions about his personal role or beliefs did not accurately reflect what happened.
That context gives additional weight to Sheeran’s decision to explicitly say he is not responsible for Macklemore being removed.
“I have my personal views on this devastating conflict. Just because I choose not to speak publicly, it doesn’t mean I don’t have them, and it doesn’t mean I don’t care,” Sheeran said, according to Entertainment Weekly.
He also declared, “I am not complicit.”
Macklemore, meanwhile, has made Palestinian advocacy a major part of his public platform. Reuters reports that he released “Hind’s Hall” in 2024 amid pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations and has continued criticizing Israel’s conduct in Gaza. He has also rejected allegations that criticism of Israel should automatically be treated as antisemitism.
The rapper has not limited his criticism to outside organizations. According to Entertainment Weekly, Macklemore described having difficult conversations with Sheeran before his removal and said Kraft’s objection to his presence at Gillette Stadium played a significant role in what followed.
Still, Macklemore has stopped short of presenting the dispute as a personal feud between the two artists. According to the Associated Press, he acknowledged his relationship with Sheeran while continuing to challenge the circumstances that resulted in him losing his remaining tour appearances.
Sheeran’s position is that he attempted to mediate but could not overrule the stadium operators and promoters controlling the shows.
“If we focus on shouting the loudest, nothing will ever change,” he said.
For Sheeran, the Macklemore tour removal now creates a second high-profile example in less than two years of the singer pushing back when an Israel-related controversy leads people to draw conclusions about his personal politics. The difference this time is that the dispute is not simply about how an event was described. It involves millions of dollars in touring infrastructure, venue owners exercising control over their stadiums, an artist losing his place on one of the year’s biggest tours, and two musicians offering different perspectives on where responsibility for that decision ultimately belongs.
