Radiohead Condemns ICE’s Unapproved Use of “Let Down” in Controversial Post

Radiohead Demands ICE Remove ‘Let Down’ From Social Media Video

Radiohead has publicly condemned U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for using its song “Let Down” in a recent social media video without permission. The band issued a strongly worded statement demanding the video’s removal, accusing ICE of appropriating their work and using it in a manner they deem offensive. This incident adds to a growing list of disputes involving the Trump administration and artists objecting to the use of their music in political messaging, raising questions about copyright, political appropriation and the boundaries of free speech.

The Controversy: A Song Co-opted

The dispute centers on a video posted by ICE on its social media accounts, including X (formerly Twitter), the Department of Homeland Security, the White House, and President Donald Trump’s personal account. The video features a choral rendition of Radiohead’s 1997 hit “Let Down,” from the critically acclaimed album OK Computer. The video accompanies images of individuals ICE claims were victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, with a caption stating, “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.”

Radiohead’s response was swift and unequivocal. “We demand that the amateurs in control of the ICE social media account take it down,” the band stated. “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.” The statement, reported by Rolling Stone, underscores the band’s deep objection to the use of their music in what they perceive as a politically charged and exploitative context.

Beyond ‘Let Down’: A Pattern of Disputes

This isn’t the first time Radiohead has found itself at odds with the Trump administration over music licensing. Just weeks prior, guitarist Jonny Greenwood requested that his score from Paul Thomas Anderson’s 2017 film Phantom Thread be removed from the documentary Melania. Greenwood asserted that Universal failed to consult him before licensing the music for the film, a breach of his composer agreement, as The Hollywood Reporter detailed. This pattern suggests a broader issue of the administration utilizing music without securing proper licensing or consent from the artists.

Other artists, including Sabrina Carpenter, Olivia Rodrigo, and SZA, have also publicly condemned the use of their music in propaganda videos linked to the government’s immigration policies. This trend highlights a growing tension between artistic expression and political messaging, and raises questions about the ethics of using copyrighted material for political gain.

How Music Licensing Works – and What Happens When It Fails

The use of music in videos, whether for commercial or political purposes, is governed by copyright law. Typically, anyone wishing to use a copyrighted song must obtain a license from the copyright holder – usually the songwriter, publisher, or record label. These licenses come with fees and stipulations regarding how the music can be used. Using a song without a license constitutes copyright infringement, which can lead to legal action.

In cases like these, where the administration appears to have used the music without permission, the artists have several options. They can issue a cease-and-desist letter, demanding the removal of the video. They can also pursue legal action, seeking damages for copyright infringement. Even though, pursuing legal action can be costly and time-consuming, and the outcome is not always guaranteed.

What Each Side Wants

Radiohead’s primary objective is clear: the immediate removal of the video featuring “Let Down” from all ICE and affiliated social media accounts. Beyond that, the band’s statement conveys a strong sense of moral outrage at the appropriation of their music for a political message they vehemently oppose. They want to protect the integrity of their art and prevent it from being used to promote a narrative they disagree with.

ICE, appears to be attempting to bolster public support for its immigration enforcement policies. The video, with its emotionally charged imagery and language, is designed to appeal to a specific segment of the population concerned about crime and border security. Whether ICE will comply with Radiohead’s demand remains to be seen. As of February 28, 2026, DHS and ICE had not issued a public response to the band’s statement, according to NBC News.

Political and Strategic Implications

This incident has broader political implications. It underscores the deep divisions within American society regarding immigration and the Trump administration’s policies. The administration’s repeated use of music without permission suggests a willingness to disregard copyright laws and artistic sensibilities in pursuit of its political goals. This approach could alienate potential supporters and further polarize the electorate.

For Radiohead, taking a public stand against ICE could resonate with their fanbase and reinforce their image as politically engaged artists. However, it also risks drawing criticism from those who support the administration’s immigration policies. The band’s decision to speak out demonstrates the growing willingness of artists to use their platform to address political issues.

What Happens Next?

The immediate next step hinges on whether ICE will remove the video. If ICE refuses to comply, Radiohead could pursue legal action. It remains unclear whether the band will take this route, given the potential costs and complexities involved. The situation will likely continue to unfold publicly, with further statements and potential legal challenges. The incident also raises questions about whether other artists will take similar action if their music is used without permission in the future.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting copyright laws and the rights of artists. It also highlights the power of music as a form of political expression and the potential for conflict when art is co-opted for political purposes.