By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Department of Homeland Security under Kristi Noem has come under fire for using copyrighted artwork to promote its anti-immigration agenda, drawing criticism from artists like Hiroshi Nagai. Nagai’s work, depicting an American car on a beach with a looming wave, was used to depict “America After 100 Million Deportations” without his consent, sparking outrage. This pattern of unauthorized use extends to other artists and media personalities, including Sabrina Carpenter and Thomas Kinkade, who have condemned the administration’s actions. Critics argue these efforts employ “edgy” internet humor, memes, and generative AI to appeal to younger audiences and promote mass deportations.
Read the original article here
Artist accuses DHS of stealing work for meme that promotes deporting one-third of US: Let’s dive right in, shall we? It seems there’s a serious artistic accusation brewing, and it involves a work of art, a controversial political meme, and a potential copyright infringement by none other than the Department of Homeland Security. This whole situation is a messy cocktail of art, politics, and potentially illegal activity.
The artwork in question, as I understand it, bears a striking resemblance to the style of Hiroshi Nagai, a Japanese artist known for his vibrant, almost hyperreal depictions of sunny beaches and vintage cars. Nagai’s work has experienced a resurgence in popularity, especially amongst younger audiences. And, as we’re all aware, the DHS seems to want to appeal to those same folks. This, apparently, is why they grabbed it.
Now, from what I’m gathering, the alleged theft occurred when the Trump administration, around New Year’s Eve, posted a message on what used to be Twitter (now X). The message, riddled with inflammatory language, read, “The peace of a nation no longer besieged by the third world,” accompanied by an image of a serene beach scene, remarkably similar to Nagai’s style, with a vintage car parked on the sand. The caption then boldly proclaimed, “America after 100 million deportations.” The implications here are as clear as they are disturbing: a thinly veiled call for mass deportation, targeting a significant portion of the American population.
The sheer audacity of the number, 100 million deportations, is staggering. To even approach such a figure, it seems the intention goes far beyond targeting undocumented immigrants. We’re talking about legal immigrants, naturalized citizens, and potentially anyone who doesn’t fit a very specific, and likely racist, definition of “American.” Historical context paints this as part of a larger pattern of attacks on immigration and denaturalization. Trump’s administration, and individuals like Stephen Miller, have a history of pushing for policies and rhetoric that explicitly target non-white immigrants.
This isn’t just about immigration policy; it’s about a vision of America that is exclusionary and, frankly, terrifying. The very phrase “third world” is a loaded and outdated slur, and the implication that America is “besieged” is a dangerous exaggeration. The silence, or even tacit approval, from many Republican politicians and influencers is particularly troubling. By remaining silent, they are effectively condoning a message that is both unconstitutional and deeply offensive.
Now, regarding the art itself. The potential copyright infringement is serious. The artist, whoever it may be, appears to have had their work appropriated and used to promote a message that runs completely counter to the values of an inclusive, multi-ethnic society. It seems that if the artist did not grant permission, they have grounds for legal action. It seems the federal government has waived immunity from copyright infringement. People should just sue.
The political commentary surrounding this situation is equally alarming. The rhetoric employed in the message, the focus on denaturalization, and the apparent desire to reshape the very definition of “American” are all symptoms of a dangerous trend. It’s a clear signal that they are building a loyal voter base based on a very specific type of voter, rather than focusing on the issues that affect all Americans. I believe the silence from many on the right speaks volumes.
The implications of this kind of messaging are profound. It’s a reminder that political messaging, even on social media, can have real-world consequences, and it’s essential to critically examine the messages we consume and the ideologies they represent. It’s not just about an image and a slogan; it’s about the values and the future of our society.