Only meaningful if Tyler retained the rights. Most likely it's the recording company that holds the rights (as a condition for Aerosmith getting their songs pressed onto vinyl bank in the day) and if Trump or his political organization paid the fee the company or the RIAA on the company's behalf agreed to for a public performance of the songs, they have the right to play the song, whether Tyler likes it or not.
If artists want to retain control of their works, rather than publishers holding the rights, they need to militate for Congress to reform copyright law to follow the plain meaning of the Constitution, which allows Congress to grant exclusive rights to "authors and inventors", not to grant rights that can be alienated form the actual creator of the work and lodged with publishers. The whole point of the British laws the Founders had in mind when they wrote that, which they promptly passed American versions of during the First Congress under the Constitution, was authors, not publishers, inventors, not the well-connected. The Law of Queen Anne (copyrights) and the Statute on Monopolies of 1624 (patents) abolished old practices redolent of cronyism and influence peddling in which all sorts of people could be granted exclusive rights to produce or sell things, and limited it to authors and inventors.
