Can the Government Use Zach Bryan’s Song in a Video to Get Back at Him?

In early October 2025, Zach Bryan posted a snippet of an unreleased track widely referred to as “Bad News,” with lines criticizing ICE raids. Within a day, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) publicly chided him—its public-affairs chief told TMZ he should “stick to ‘Pink Skies’”—and a DHS video promoting ICE/Border Patrol actions appeared online set to Bryan’s 2020 song “Revival.” Many saw the timing as a deliberate taunt. Coverage from Pitchfork, Entertainment Weekly, and The Guardian captured both the DHS criticism and the use of “Revival” in a recruitment/PR-style video. 

Wait, can they do that? They are the government, but can they get away with it?

Digging deeper, there are two distinct questions: (1) can the federal government do this from a copyright standpoint, and (2) does the seemingly retaliatory motive change the analysis?

The copyright basics: why a “sync” almost always needs permission

Pairing a song with video is a synchronization use (“sync”). A sync typically requires permission from the song’s publisher (for the underlying composition) and, if you use the actual recorded track, a master license from the label/owner of the sound recording. There is no compulsory sync license in U.S. law; these permissions are negotiated by agents and lawyers. Educational and industry resources make this point plainly, and even large broadcasters like PBS publish guidance that sync is a distinct license separate from public performance. 

If DHS (or a DHS contractor) synchronized “Revival” to agency footage without obtaining those licenses, that’s textbook infringement unless a defense applies—most prominently, fair use. 

The fair-use statute sets out four factors (purpose/character, nature, amount, and market effect). Promotional, recruitment, or PR videos tend to be non-transformative and target the very licensing market sync fees are designed to capture—two reasons courts often view unlicensed promotional syncs skeptically. Recent practice commentary and case coverage about social-media videos using hit songs without permission echo the same caution. 

Bottom line on the baseline rule: absent permission, a government promo/recruitment video with a commercial-style purpose is unlikely to be fair use. Now if the government wanted to make a parody version of it, that would be a different analysis.

A special rule kicks in when the copyright violator is the Fed.

When the alleged infringer is a federal agency, you don’t sue like you would a private brand. The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars ordinary infringement suits unless Congress says otherwise. Congress did, via 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), which waives immunity for federal copyright infringement—but channels claims to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and limits the remedy to money damages (no injunction forcing DHS to take the video down). The statute authorizes recovery of “reasonable and entire compensation,” essentially the fair value of the license DHS should have obtained. 

Two practical wrinkles matter:

1. “For the United States.” If a contractor created/posted the video at DHS’s request, § 1498(b) still funnels the claim against the United States (not the vendor), so long as the use was “for” the government. That structure is designed to keep federal projects moving while converting IP disputes into a damages remedy paid by the Treasury.  
2. No injunctions against DHS. Even if infringement is clear, a court won’t order DHS to stop using the track; it will set compensation. Practically, many agencies still remove disputed content to limit exposure or public fallout—but that’s a policy choice, not a legal requirement.

Does the apparent Retaliatory motive change the copyright analysis?

Short answer: not much, for the copyright claim itself.

Copyright is largely about exclusive rights and market harm. DHS’s apparent motive—antagonizing Bryan after critical lyrics—doesn’t make the use more “fair”; if anything, it underscores a non-transformative purpose (government messaging) that competes with the sync market for the song. The four factors still point against fair use: creative work (factor 2), likely recognizable/use of the hook (factor 3), and a harm to the licensing market (factor 4). 

Could the motive support a separate claim (e.g., First Amendment retaliation)? That’s far less straightforward. The government has broad latitude under the government speech doctrine to express its views—even caustically. Creating a new damages action for retaliatory use of IP against federal officials runs into modern limits on expanding Bivens-type remedies. In other words, while the facts may look punitive, the cleanest legal path is still the copyright route via § 1498(b), not a constitutional tort. 

What defenses might DHS raise?

• Fair use. As above, weak in a recruitment/PR context. A “news reporting” or “commentary” angle is hard to maintain when the video’s thrust is agency promotion rather than critique or analysis of the song. Courts after the Supreme Court’s Warhol decision scrutinize whether the secondary use offers a meaningfully different purpose; here, matching a hit song to bolster agency messaging looks similar to commercial branding—unhelpful for DHS.  
• Platform licenses. Agencies sometimes argue that posting on a platform (e.g., Instagram, X, TikTok) is covered by the platform’s music deals. (This is why you can use song snippets in the videos, stories and posts you put up without paying)
• Those licenses usually do not grant blanket rights for governmental or promotional sync uses in uploaded videos; they primarily enable user listening or certain creator tools and often exclude commercial/advertising contexts, which require direct sync licenses. Courts have rebuffed similar arguments in private-sector disputes. 
• No master used. If DHS used only the composition (e.g., a cover) and not Bryan’s master recording, it would still need the sync license from the publisher (and likely a master from the cover owner if a recorded cover was used). Either way, permission is required.  

Legal options for the musician

1. File a § 1498(b) claim in the Court of Federal Claims.
   
   He can sue for money damages—“reasonable and entire compensation”—with proof focused on customary sync pricing for a song of this profile and this usage (national government PR/recruitment). Evidence: copies of the video, timestamps, platform metrics, internal DHS credits if visible, and any proof a contractor produced the piece “for the United States.”  
2. Leverage platform takedown procedures (DMCA-style).
   
   Although you can’t get an injunction against DHS in court, you can still notify platforms that a specific upload uses your copyrighted work without authorization. In other words, you can’t stop the Government from using it but TV stations, websites and ad platforms may refuse for fear of suit. Platforms may remove the video to maintain safe-harbor status. This is often the fastest practical fix, especially if the clip is spreading virally. (Note: takedown targets the hosted copy, not DHS as a defendant.) 
3. Public and industry pressure.
   
   High-profile artists and rights-holders routinely achieve quick removal via public statements and direct outreach to agency counsel. Recent attention to unlicensed social-media uses by brands shows reputational risk moves needles even before courts do.  
4. Consider who owns what.
   
   If Bryan does not control the publishing or master outright, his publisher/label will typically take the lead; they are essential parties for any claim or settlement over sync rights. (Most major-artist sync negotiations are publisher/label-driven.)  
5. Document damages early.
   
   Save analytics (views, engagement, press coverage) to support valuation. Industry ranges for national-scope governmental promo syncs can be substantial, and the Court of Federal Claims will look to the fair market value for comparable uses. It would be an interesting dilemma. By going political in his messaging, did he do more damage on his own to his popularity than the government’s use? 

So…was DHS’s use legal?

Based on current reporting, if DHS (or its contractor) synchronized “Revival” into a government-produced video without permission, the conservative legal view is that the use infringes. The primary defense—fair use—looks weak for a promotional/recruitment clip, and platform licensing is unlikely to cover it. The special federal-defendant rule doesn’t excuse the use; it simply channels the remedy to money damages in the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b). 

As for the apparent retaliatory motive: it fuels the narrative but doesn’t convert an otherwise unlicensed sync into a lawful one. Copyright law cares most about permission and market substitution—and here, the use competes directly with the paid sync market.

Final take

Artists have every right to criticize the government. The government has every right to respond. But no one—public or private—gets to convert a hit song into a PR soundtrack without the proper licenses. If DHS wanted to send a message, it could have delivered it without walking onto a copyright landmine. The legal path for Bryan or his rights-holders is clear: press for removal on platforms, and seek full-value compensation under § 1498(b).