Since mid-2025, over a hundred protest songs against ICE have been produced, of which a substantial portion is AI-generated. These AI songs sound well-produced with catchy choruses, despite stereotypical musical and lyrical patterns. Some AI protest songs have attracted more clicks than human-produced ones. This paper considers the musical content, reception, and political and ethical ramifications of AI-generated music opposing ICE compared with human-made protest music. First, I outline political roles of protest music—attracting attention, recruiting followers, educating the public, and providing an affective outlet and vehicle for participation. I consider the affordances of AI protest music, particularly speed of creation, and the preexisting forms of protest song, particularly contrafacta and remixes, that AI is replacing. Through interviews with creators, I ascertain their motivations and processes. I analyze the songs as products (musical characteristics, lyrical patterns) and as social process (political messaging, reception). While AI affords fast generation of professional-sounding protest songs, it takes attention away from heartfelt songs by humans or innovative, humorous forms like remixes of past decades. AI-produced “Minnesota Anthem” combines lyrical clichés in nonsensical ways, muddling its message. Yet at 400,000 views, it has outpaced Billy Bragg’s “City of Heroes,” which has a clear political message and vocals conveying anger and authenticity. AI also introduces issues of bias in training materials and the potential for pseudonymous bad actors to produce misleading songs. My analysis highlights how AI protest songs have the potential to both stimulate and deaden affective response to political events.