Lead: On February 18, 2026, Radiohead publicly condemned the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s use of a choral version of the band’s song ‘Let Down’ in a social-media video posted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The group said the use was unauthorized and demanded the video be taken down, delivering an expletive-laced rebuke to the agency. The clip pairs the track with footage and captions that attribute violent crimes to ‘illegal aliens,’ prompting swift backlash from the band and renewed scrutiny of government use of pop music. The dispute follows several recent incidents in which artists objected to ICE or DHS using their songs in immigration-related messaging.
Key Takeaways
- Radiohead said on February 18, 2026 that ICE used a choral version of ‘Let Down’ without the band’s permission and demanded removal of the post.
- ICE’s social post paired the music with a montage and captions accusing ‘illegal aliens’ of rape and murder; the agency posted the clip to its official account.
- Radiohead’s joint statement included the line, ‘Also, go fuck yourselves… Radiohead,’ reflecting the band’s strong rejection of the usage.
- The episode echoes prior objections: Olivia Rodrigo publicly told ICE in November not to use her music, and Sabrina Carpenter objected after another video used her song ‘Juno.’
- Radiohead has previously contested licensed uses: guitarist Jonny Greenwood raised concerns about a ‘Phantom Thread’ cue appearing in the ‘Melania’ documentary and sought dialogue over licensing terms.
- The dispute spotlights recurring questions about music licensing, agency social-media practices, and artists’ ability to prevent ideological or political repurposing of their work.
Background
Government agencies and political actors have increasingly used short-form video clips and licensed music on social platforms to amplify messaging. That trend has produced repeated clashes with artists who object when their work accompanies partisan or divisive content. Musicians can license synchronization rights and master recordings for specific uses, but social posts and repurposed arrangements raise complex questions about who authorized what and whether third-party edits constitute new works.
Over the past year, several high-profile performers publicly asked DHS or ICE to stop repurposing their songs in immigration-focused videos. These public denials underline the reputational risk for agencies that rely on popular music to add emotional impact to messaging. Rights holders—from large publishers to individual artists—often weigh legal remedies against the practical and publicity consequences of a public dispute.
Main Event
On February 18, 2026, ICE posted a video to its social-media channels that intercut images of crime victims with a choral rendition of Radiohead’s ‘Let Down,’ accompanied by a caption blaming ‘illegal aliens’ for rape and murder. The post was amplified on Twitter and drew immediate responses from users and artists. A Radiohead spokesperson told reporters the band did not grant permission for the track’s use and passed along a blunt, jointly authored statement from the group demanding the post be removed.
The band’s statement—distributed through a representative—called on the ‘amateurs in control of the ICE social media account’ to take down the clip, said the song is meaningful to many people, and declared that the agency ‘doesn’t get to appropriate it without a fight.’ The statement concluded with the explicit rebuke, ‘Also, go fuck yourselves… Radiohead.’
ICE’s post included explicit language framing the montage as a defense of ‘thousands of American families’ and stressing the agency’s justification for its actions. That framing and the combination of music plus imagery provoked quick condemnation from the band and renewed media attention on prior instances where artists forced agencies to confront unauthorized or contested uses of songs.
Analysis & Implications
The incident raises legal and reputational questions. Legally, whether ICE had permission hinges on who holds the synchronization and master rights for the choral arrangement and whether a license—if any—covered the specific use. Government entities sometimes rely on licenses obtained by third-party vendors or stock music providers; in other cases, material may be used without clear authorization. Absent visible licensing documentation, artists often respond publicly to pressure agencies to remove contested posts more quickly than court processes can resolve disputes.
From a public-relations perspective, the high-profile denunciation by a band of Radiohead’s stature amplifies scrutiny of DHS/ICE social-media practices. For agencies, the backlash can undermine intended messaging by shifting attention from the policy point to questions about ethics and propriety. For artists, public objections are a tool both to protect moral interests in how their work is presented and to signal a refusal to be associated with messaging they consider hateful or exploitative.
Politically, this pattern feeds into broader debates about immigration enforcement and how government narratives are constructed and broadcast. If agencies continue to rely on popular music to heighten emotional impact, expect more artists to insist on transparency about licensing, to demand takedowns, and to pursue public counterspeech. Over time, repeated conflicts may prompt platforms or rights organizations to tighten verification of licensing claims tied to government accounts.
Comparison & Data
| Artist | Song | Agency | Date (known) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Radiohead | Let Down (choral version) | U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) | February 18, 2026 |
| Olivia Rodrigo | All American Bitch | DHS / ICE (video use) | November (year cited in reporting) |
| Sabrina Carpenter | Juno | ICE (multiple posts) | Prior months (as reported) |
The table highlights three recent, reported incidents where artists objected to DHS/ICE use of songs. Precise dates and licensing records are not always made public, which complicates public assessment of whether an agency acted within its rights or whether a vendor provided a track without proper clearances.
Reactions & Quotes
“We demand that the amateurs in control of the ICE social media account take it down. It ain’t funny, this song means a lot to us and other people, and you don’t get to appropriate it without a fight. Also, go fuck yourselves… Radiohead.”
Radiohead (band statement forwarded by spokesperson)
That statement was circulated by a Radiohead representative and quickly picked up by outlets covering the incident. The band’s language emphasized both emotional ownership of the track and a desire to stop its political repurposing.
“Thousands of American families have been torn apart because of criminal illegal alien violence. American citizens raped and murdered by those who have no right to be in our country. This is who we fight for. This is our why.”
ICE (social post caption accompanying the video)
ICE’s caption framed the video as a justification for the agency’s mission; the juxtaposition of that language with Radiohead’s music is central to the controversy.
“Don’t ever use my songs to promote your racist, hateful propaganda.”
Olivia Rodrigo (public message, November)
Artists such as Rodrigo and Sabrina Carpenter have publicly protested similar uses, signaling a pattern of contention between rights holders and agency content strategies.
Unconfirmed
- Whether ICE obtained any sync or master license for the choral arrangement used in the February 18, 2026 post is not publicly confirmed.
- It is unclear if the choral version was created by a third-party production library, a contractor, or directly sourced by the agency.
- The precise chronology and outcome of Jonny Greenwood’s licensing concerns about the ‘Melania’ documentary remain partially opaque; Greenwood has not issued a detailed public update after initial reports.
Bottom Line
The Radiohead-ICE incident underscores an emerging communications fault line: agencies that deploy emotionally charged visual messaging increasingly rely on popular music, and artists are increasingly unwilling to have their work repurposed for politically charged content without consent. Public, forceful pushback from prominent musicians raises the reputational stakes for government accounts and may deter casual repurposing of songs in the short term.
Practically, expect agencies and platform intermediaries to face greater pressure to document licenses and to respond more rapidly to takedown demands. For artists and rights holders, public denouncements remain an effective tool to contest reuse when formal licensing records are not forthcoming or when moral objections outweigh the costs of litigation.
Sources
- Variety — Entertainment reporting on the band’s statement and context (media).
- ICE official tweet (Feb 18, 2026) — Social post containing the contested video and caption (official agency social post).
- Variety (archive reporting) — Coverage of Olivia Rodrigo and Sabrina Carpenter objections (media).