By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is facing criticism for unauthorized use of artwork, specifically from Japanese artist Hiroshi Nagai, whose work was used in a post promoting deportations. This marks another instance of the department utilizing artists’ work, including a Thomas Kinkade painting, without permission to promote its immigration agenda. Previously, DHS faced backlash from pop stars like Olivia Rodrigo and Sabrina Carpenter for using their music in videos that encouraged deportation efforts. The agency has defended its actions, stating their commitment to keeping Americans informed and safe, despite the growing condemnation from artists and the public.
Read the original article here
US Homeland Security is being criticized for a very specific action: using a Japanese artist’s work without obtaining their permission. This act of appropriation has understandably sparked outrage and condemnation, bringing into focus a broader discussion about the administration’s disregard for ethical boundaries and legal constraints. The lack of consent in this situation is particularly egregious, especially considering the context in which the artwork was used.
The artwork in question, as it was used, served to promote a highly controversial and ethically questionable idea – the mass deportation of 100 million people. The symbolism of this action, considering the current demographics of the United States, is deeply unsettling, hinting at a desire for a homogenous society. The promotion of such an idea using stolen artwork adds another layer of impropriety, demonstrating a blatant disrespect for the artist’s rights and a lack of moral compass.
It’s easy to imagine the sentiment: ICE or MAGA is taking what it wants, because the people who care about ethics don’t want anything to do with their cause. This situation raises serious questions about who is running US Homeland Security. There’s a strong perception that the people in charge peaked in their younger years and that they’re not operating with the level of maturity or professionalism one would expect from a government agency. The irony is, that they’re attempting to sell a certain image, but they can’t even get the basic steps right – like, getting permission for the artwork.
The response to the situation isn’t really a surprise. The regime isn’t known for caring much about consent and they don’t seem to be overly concerned with things like laws or the Constitution. There is a sense that they view themselves as above the rules, acting like domestic terrorists, without restraint. This is where it becomes clear the government is using white nationalist propaganda on the taxpayers’ dime.
The post on New Year’s Eve, the one that triggered this whole situation, used an image of an empty beach to symbolize “America after 100 million deportations.” It’s hard to miss the comparison to Nazi ideology. This, coupled with the unauthorized use of the artwork, paints a disturbing picture of an administration that doesn’t respect legal boundaries or ethical considerations. There’s a palpable feeling of embarrassment and outrage at the situation, a frustration at the apparent lack of accountability. Republicans are called out for their silence on the matter, essentially seen as complicit in the administration’s actions.
The commentary points out that this kind of behavior, this blatant disregard for rules and individual rights, has become the norm. The administration is accused of trying to get away with as much as possible, driven by partisan politics and an infantile sense of retribution. The frustration is clear: people are tired of this kind of behavior and the damage it’s causing to the country’s fabric.
It’s a pattern, really. The administration steals art and music to show that they can do whatever they want. It is a show, in its way, to prove their power. And it’s disheartening. The overall sense is that the administration is simply testing the limits, seeing what they can get away with.
The condemnation from the Japanese artist specifically focuses on the unauthorized use of their work. The fact that the artist is Japanese adds another layer to the situation. It may have brought the context of the deportations into question for some of the artist’s home country.
The use of the term “condemned” has been questioned, as it implies a mere slap on the wrist rather than a serious consequence. The administration doesn’t seem to think it will have to face consequences for anything it does. The irony here is that the administration is accused of stealing and appropriating, the very behaviors they seemingly abhor in others.
The broader implication is that this administration doesn’t understand the concept of consent, both in the context of artwork and, potentially, in other areas. The government is expected to be more than just “law and order” when it benefits them. This is an administration populated with liars, thieves, abusers, and cheats are stealing artwork to justify their abuses. It’s almost unbelievable that they would attempt to organize 100 million deportations while seemingly unable to grasp the basic rules of copyright.
Finally, the fact that the administration is using stolen art, instead of creating its own, reflects a lack of original thought. It’s stealing other people’s creations is just their way.