Listen to the article
The Department of Homeland Security has responded sharply to pop star Olivia Rodrigo after she accused the agency of using her song in what she called “racist, hateful propaganda.”
“America is grateful all the time for our federal law enforcement officers who keep us safe,” a DHS spokesperson told TMZ on Friday following Rodrigo’s viral comments. “We suggest Ms. Rodrigo thank them for their service, not belittle their sacrifice.”
The exchange began when Rodrigo discovered that her song “All-American Bitch” had been used as background music in a promotional video for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a division of the Department of Homeland Security. The Grammy-winning artist expressed her displeasure in a since-deleted comment, stating, “Don’t ever use my songs to promote your racist, hateful propaganda.”
It remains unclear whether the comment was removed by DHS officials or by Rodrigo herself. The incident highlights the ongoing tension between artists and government agencies over unauthorized use of intellectual property, particularly when the content is used in ways that conflict with the artist’s personal values or political stance.
Rodrigo joins a growing list of high-profile musicians who have objected to their work being used without permission by government entities. Other artists who have faced similar situations include Beyoncé, Celine Dion, Adele, Pharrell Williams, and Rihanna, all of whom have spoken out against unauthorized use of their music.
This is not the first time Rodrigo has been vocal about immigration policies. In June, she condemned ICE raids in Los Angeles, where she has lived her entire life.
“I’m deeply upset about these violent deportations of my neighbors under the current administration,” Rodrigo wrote on her Instagram Story at that time. “LA simply wouldn’t exist without immigrants. Treating hardworking community members with such little respect, empathy and due process is awful.”
The singer further emphasized her position by stating, “I stand with the beautiful, diverse community of Los Angeles and with immigrants all across America. I stand for our right to freedom of speech and freedom to protest.”
The clash underscores the increasingly politicized landscape of entertainment and the challenges artists face when their creative works are appropriated for political messaging. For many musicians, maintaining control over how their art is presented and what messages it might be associated with has become a significant concern.
Music industry analysts note that artists have become more protective of their work in recent years, particularly as social media amplifies any association between their creative output and political positions they may not endorse. The rapid spread of content online can quickly create unwanted connections in the public mind between an artist and specific political viewpoints.
Legal experts point out that while government agencies have certain usage rights under various legal provisions, artists retain significant control over how their intellectual property is employed, especially in contexts that could be considered promotional rather than informational.
The DHS response suggests the agency views the situation not as a matter of artistic rights but as a criticism of law enforcement personnel. This framing shifts the discussion from unauthorized usage to a debate about respect for government officials, potentially complicating the original copyright and consent issues at the heart of Rodrigo’s complaint.
As the situation continues to develop, it highlights the complex intersection of artistic expression, political messaging, and the rights of creators in an increasingly polarized media environment.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
6 Comments
This seems like a complicated issue with valid concerns on both sides. While artists should have control over how their work is used, law enforcement agencies also need to promote their important role in public safety. A balanced, nuanced discussion would be helpful here.
Interesting to see the DHS respond so directly to Rodrigo’s criticism. It suggests this is a sensitive issue they feel strongly about. I’m curious to learn more about the context and nuances beyond the initial viral comments.
I can understand Olivia Rodrigo’s frustration if her song was used in a way she disagrees with politically. Artists should have a say in how their creative work is utilized. At the same time, government agencies need to communicate their mission and activities to the public.
The use of Rodrigo’s song in a DHS video without her consent raises complex questions about intellectual property, artistic freedom, and government messaging. I hope all sides can engage in a thoughtful discussion to find an appropriate resolution.
The use of Rodrigo’s song in a government video without her permission raises tricky questions around intellectual property rights and artistic expression. It’s a complex issue that merits thoughtful dialogue, not knee-jerk reactions, from all sides.
This back-and-forth highlights the ongoing tensions between artists, their work, and how it’s used by others – especially government entities. While both parties have valid concerns, a constructive resolution that respects everyone’s interests would be ideal.