Olivia Rodrigo Slams Trump-Era DHS: ‘Don’t Ever Use My Songs To Promote Your Racist, Hateful Propaganda’

Pop Star Olivia Rodrigo Issues Fiery Cease and Desist to Federal Agency Over Music Use

The intersection of pop culture and political controversy reached a fever pitch this week after global music sensation Olivia Rodrigo delivered a sharp, public condemnation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Grammy-winning artist demanded that the agency immediately cease using her music in promotional content, labeling the material as “racist, hateful propaganda.”

This highly unusual confrontation began in late 2025 when a social media account affiliated with a DHS division—specifically one focused on immigration enforcement activities associated with the previous Donald Trump administration—published a video clip featuring one of Rodrigo’s popular tracks. The post intended to showcase the agency’s operations, but instead provoked an immediate and forceful rebuke from the 22-year-old singer, whose political views lean strongly toward progressive causes.

The Controversy: Music Co-opted for Enforcement Policy

The DHS post, which was quickly deleted following the massive public backlash, featured visuals related to border security and immigration enforcement actions. While the specific song title was not widely circulated before the post’s removal, the use of Rodrigo’s music was intended to make the agency’s message more palatable or relatable to a younger audience.

Rodrigo, however, made it unequivocally clear that her intellectual property and artistic message were not to be associated with policies she views as fundamentally harmful. Her statement, issued across her social media channels to her millions of followers, was direct and uncompromising:

“To the Department of Homeland Security: I demand you take down any and all posts featuring my music immediately. Don’t ever use my songs to promote your racist, hateful propaganda. My music stands for inclusion, compassion, and human rights, the exact opposite of your agenda.”

This statement represents one of the most direct and politically charged confrontations between a major contemporary artist and a federal enforcement agency in recent memory.

Context: Celebrity Activism and Immigration Policy

Rodrigo’s strong reaction is rooted in the ongoing, highly contentious debate surrounding U.S. immigration enforcement. The DHS division in question is often responsible for implementing policies related to border security, detentions, and deportations—policies that have been heavily criticized by human rights organizations and progressive political figures for their severity and impact on families.

Why the Music Matters

For artists like Rodrigo, whose brand is built on authenticity and connection with young people, the unauthorized use of their work by a controversial government agency poses a significant threat to their public image. The legal and ethical implications are twofold:

1. Intellectual Property Rights: Using copyrighted music without explicit permission, especially for governmental promotion, often constitutes a violation of copyright law, though government agencies sometimes claim fair use or exemptions.
2. Brand Association: The association of a progressive artist with enforcement policies widely criticized as harsh or discriminatory can severely damage the artist’s credibility and alienate their core fanbase.

Rodrigo’s swift action aligns with a growing trend of high-profile musicians actively protecting their work from being co-opted by political figures or organizations whose values they oppose. Artists often issue cease-and-desist letters to political campaigns, but a direct public confrontation with a federal agency over its operational messaging is less common and carries significant weight.

Legal and Public Relations Fallout

The immediate deletion of the post by the DHS division suggests the agency recognized the severity of the public relations disaster and the potential for legal action. While the government often operates under different legal parameters than private entities, the public shaming by an artist of Rodrigo’s stature forces a rapid retreat.

This incident highlights a critical challenge for government agencies attempting to engage modern audiences through social media: the risk of alienating the very demographic they seek to influence if the content is perceived as disingenuous or politically misaligned. The use of a popular song, intended to humanize the agency, instead served to amplify the political opposition to its mission.

Key Takeaways from the Incident

• Swift Condemnation: Olivia Rodrigo’s response was immediate, using strong, unambiguous language to denounce the DHS’s actions.
• Political Alignment: The incident underscores Rodrigo’s firm stance against the immigration enforcement policies associated with the Trump administration era.
• IP Protection: It serves as a powerful reminder that artists are increasingly vigilant about protecting their intellectual property from unauthorized political use.
• PR Disaster: The DHS’s attempt to use pop culture backfired severely, resulting in a public relations crisis and the forced removal of the content.

Conclusion: The Power of the Artist’s Voice

Olivia Rodrigo’s decisive action demonstrates the significant cultural and political leverage held by major artists in the digital age. By publicly challenging a federal agency and framing its actions as “racist, hateful propaganda,” she not only protected her artistic integrity but also mobilized her massive platform in support of human rights advocacy. The incident confirms that for many contemporary celebrities, remaining silent on contentious political issues is no longer an option when their work is directly implicated.