Olivia Rodrigo and the Department of Homeland Security clashed this week after a promotional video for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement used Rodrigo’s song “All‑American Bitch,” prompting the singer to accuse the agency of promoting “racist, hateful propaganda.” The dispute surfaced when Rodrigo posted a comment denouncing the use of her music; that comment was later deleted. DHS responded through a spokesperson, defending federal law enforcement and urging Rodrigo to thank officers rather than belittle their service. The exchange follows Rodrigo’s earlier public criticism of ICE enforcement actions in Los Angeles in June.
Key Takeaways
- Olivia Rodrigo publicly objected to ICE using her song “All‑American Bitch” as a soundtrack for a promotional video; she called the usage “racist, hateful propaganda.”
- DHS issued a statement to TMZ on Friday defending federal law enforcement and saying citizens should thank officers for their service.
- The singer’s comment was deleted after posting; available reporting does not make clear who removed it.
- Rodrigo has previously criticized ICE operations, including public comments about June raids in Los Angeles and an Instagram Story condemning deportations.
- Other high‑profile artists — including Beyoncé, Celine Dion, Adele, Pharrell Williams and Rihanna — have publicly objected in past years to political or governmental uses of their music.
Background
The dispute spotlights a recurring friction between artists and government bodies over the use of copyrighted music in political or promotional materials without artists’ blessing. Musicians in recent years have resisted perceived endorsements when their songs appear alongside political or law‑enforcement messaging. The issue intersects with licensing arrangements, fair‑use claims and public relations risks for agencies that deploy popular music in outreach content.
Olivia Rodrigo rose to prominence after winning multiple Grammys and has become an outspoken voice on social and political matters affecting her community. In June she publicly condemned ICE raids in Los Angeles, arguing that the city’s identity and workforce depend on immigrant communities. That prior activism frames her current objection as consistent with an ongoing stance rather than an isolated reaction.
Main Event
The sequence began when a promotional video tied to ICE used Rodrigo’s song as background music. Rodrigo posted a comment saying, “Don’t ever use my songs to promote your racist, hateful propaganda,” according to screenshots circulated alongside coverage. The comment was later deleted; reports differ on whether Rodrigo or the agency removed it.
DHS responded to media inquiries by telling TMZ on Friday, “America is grateful all the time for our federal law enforcement officers who keep us safe,” and advising Rodrigo to “thank them for their service, not belittle their sacrifice.” The agency framed its reply as a defense of personnel rather than an engagement with Rodrigo’s political critique.
ICE has faced repeated scrutiny over enforcement tactics and public messaging, and the use of a contemporary pop track in a promotional item amplified public attention. The publicity pushed the incident from a niche licensing dispute into a broader cultural conversation about artistic control and government messaging.
Analysis & Implications
The clash underscores how cultural capital and political messaging collide in the digital era. For artists, control over how their work is associated publicly is central to brand and values; for government agencies, easily accessible media can be appealing for outreach but risks reputational fallout. The public pushback by a well‑known artist can quickly turn a routine promotional clip into a reputational challenge for a federal agency.
Legally, institutions often rely on music licensing frameworks, stock libraries, or third‑party vendors to secure tracks, but those arrangements do not always insulate agencies from public criticism. Even where use is technically licensed, perceived endorsement can spur backlash and calls for policy reviews within agencies that handle communications and public affairs.
Politically, the episode may have limited direct policy consequences but can influence public perception of enforcement agencies, especially among younger and more civically active audiences who follow artists like Rodrigo. The incident also reinforces a pattern in which celebrities use their platforms to push back against government actions they view as harmful to communities they represent.
Reactions & Quotes
Rodrigo’s objection was succinct and pointed, leaving little room for equivocation.
Don’t ever use my songs to promote your racist, hateful propaganda.
Olivia Rodrigo (social media, since‑deleted)
DHS answered in a statement to media that emphasized support for federal officers and framed the singer’s remark as diminishing public service.
America is grateful all the time for our federal law enforcement officers who keep us safe. We suggest Ms. Rodrigo thank them for their service, not belittle their sacrifice.
Department of Homeland Security (spokesperson, statement to TMZ)
Observers in the music industry and rights management note that public objections often prompt agencies to reassess use or negotiate clearer licensing and messaging protocols to avoid future controversies.
Unconfirmed
- It is not confirmed whether Rodrigo or the agency removed her original comment; reporting notes the deletion but attributes no definitive source.
- Available public reports do not provide a full chain of custody for the music license used in the video, so whether ICE or a vendor secured permission is unverified.
Bottom Line
The exchange between Olivia Rodrigo and DHS is emblematic of broader tensions over cultural control and government messaging. While the substance centers on a single song used in a promotional video, the fallout touches legal, reputational and political considerations that agencies must weigh when deploying popular culture in public communications.
Expect agencies to review internal protocols on media sourcing and approvals, and for artists to remain vigilant about perceived associations with governmental actions. For audiences, the incident reinforces that media choice in official messaging can become a flashpoint well beyond licensing questions.