LONDON, UK – Radiohead has issued a scathing rebuke to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after the agency used a choral rendition of the band’s 1997 hit “Let Down” in a promotional video. The band’s statement, delivered with characteristic directness, demands the removal of the video and includes a pointed message directed at the government agencies: “go fuck yourselves.” This incident underscores a growing trend of artists objecting to their work being used in political messaging without their consent, particularly in relation to contentious issues like immigration policy.
The controversy centers on a video shared by ICE on social media platforms, including Instagram, as part of its “This is our why” campaign. The campaign aims to defend President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and highlight cases of violence involving individuals ICE identifies as “criminal illegal aliens.” The use of “Let Down,” a song known for its melancholic tone and introspective lyrics, as a soundtrack to this imagery has drawn sharp criticism from Radiohead, who assert the appropriation of their music is both inappropriate and unauthorized. The band’s response highlights the ethical considerations surrounding the use of artistic works in political campaigns and the rights of artists to control how their creations are perceived and utilized.
Radiohead’s Strong Condemnation and Demand for Removal
In a statement released through a spokesperson, Radiohead condemned the use of “Let Down” as “inappropriate” and emphasized that it was done without their permission. The band’s full statement, as reported by multiple news outlets, reads: “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.” This forceful language reflects the band’s deep dissatisfaction with the agency’s actions and their commitment to protecting the integrity of their artistic work. The incident has sparked a wider conversation about the ethical responsibilities of government agencies when utilizing copyrighted material in their public messaging.
According to reporting from Variety, the video featuring “Let Down” was cross-promoted by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security, amplifying its reach and further fueling the controversy. This level of promotion suggests a deliberate strategy to associate the band’s music with the administration’s immigration policies, a move that Radiohead clearly opposes. The band’s swift and unequivocal response demonstrates their willingness to take a stand against what they perceive as a misuse of their art for political purposes. The incident also raises questions about the vetting process within DHS and ICE regarding the use of copyrighted material in their public campaigns.
A Pattern of Artists Challenging Political Use of Their Music
Radiohead’s protest is not an isolated incident. A growing number of artists have publicly objected to their music being used in political contexts without their consent. Bruce Springsteen recently denounced ICE and dedicated a song, “Streets of Minneapolis,” to Renée Good, a victim of violence allegedly committed by an individual with an immigration violation. Springsteen’s protest followed the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renée Good, both cases used by ICE to bolster its arguments for stricter immigration enforcement.
Similarly, Zach Bryan, a rising country music star, faced scrutiny after a snippet of his song “Bad News,” featuring lyrics critical of ICE, surfaced online. While Bryan initially appeared to hedge his criticisms, the incident highlighted the increasing willingness of musicians to address politically charged issues in their work. These examples demonstrate a broader trend of artists asserting their agency and refusing to allow their creative output to be co-opted for political agendas they do not support. The use of music in political campaigns is a complex issue, raising questions about artistic freedom, copyright law, and the ethical responsibilities of both artists and political organizations.
The “This is Our Why” Campaign and its Focus on Victimhood
The ICE video featuring Radiohead’s “Let Down” is part of the “This is our why” campaign, a broader initiative by the Department of Homeland Security and ICE to defend President Trump’s immigration policies. The campaign focuses on showcasing victims of crimes allegedly committed by undocumented immigrants, aiming to garner public support for stricter border control and enforcement measures. The video montage depicts faces of individuals described as victims of “criminal illegal alien violence,” attributing acts of violence to undocumented individuals. This narrative has been criticized by immigration advocates who argue it perpetuates harmful stereotypes and fuels anti-immigrant sentiment.
The campaign’s reliance on emotionally charged imagery and narratives has drawn scrutiny from civil rights organizations and legal experts. Critics argue that the campaign selectively presents information, exaggerating the connection between immigration and crime. A DHS spokesperson, Lauren Bis, responded to Radiohead’s criticism by stating, “We fight for the Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, Rachel Morin, Katie Abraham and countless other American victims of illegal alien crime.” This statement underscores the campaign’s focus on victimhood and its attempt to frame the immigration debate in terms of public safety. The use of victims’ names in this context has also raised ethical concerns, as it potentially exploits their tragedies for political gain.
Legal and Ethical Considerations of Music Usage in Political Campaigns
The unauthorized use of copyrighted music in political campaigns raises complex legal and ethical questions. While there is no explicit law prohibiting the use of music in political advertising, copyright law grants artists exclusive control over their work, including the right to authorize its use in public performances and reproductions. Political campaigns typically obtain licenses from performing rights organizations (PROs) like ASCAP and BMI to legally use music in their advertisements. Yet, these licenses do not necessarily grant permission for the use of the music to endorse a particular political message or candidate.
Artists can object to the use of their music in political campaigns even if the campaign has obtained a license from a PRO. In such cases, the campaign may face legal challenges or public pressure to remove the music. The legal landscape surrounding this issue is evolving, and there is ongoing debate about the extent to which artists should have control over how their work is used in the political arena. The ethical considerations are equally important, as artists have a right to protect their artistic integrity and prevent their work from being associated with political ideologies they oppose. The Radiohead case highlights the importance of respecting artists’ rights and obtaining their explicit consent before using their music in political campaigns.
The incident with Radiohead and ICE is a stark reminder of the power of music and its potential to be used – and misused – in the political sphere. As artists continue to assert their rights and challenge unauthorized uses of their work, the debate over the intersection of art and politics is likely to intensify. The band’s forceful response serves as a clear message to political organizations: respect artistic integrity, or face public condemnation.
As of February 28, 2026, ICE has not publicly responded to Radiohead’s demand to remove the video. Further developments in this story are expected as the band continues to advocate for the removal of their music from the agency’s promotional materials. The situation remains fluid, and it is likely to continue to generate discussion about the ethical and legal boundaries of political advertising and the rights of artists.
What are your thoughts on artists taking a stand against political appropriation of their work? Share your opinions in the comments below.