Comedian and podcaster Theo Von is asking the Department of Homeland Security to take down an X post that inserted a line from his show into a government video hailing high deportation numbers. Von said the clip was used without authorization and implored DHS to “leave me out of your ‘banger’ deportation videos” while asserting that his positions on immigration are more nuanced than indicated by the post.
What DHS Posted and Why the Video Blew Up Online
The DHS video allegedly accompanies an out-of-context quip—“I heard you got deported, dude. Bye”—with the agency’s own “Bye!” caption, and then turns to a greatest-hits reel on deportations. The agency has dabbled in meme-style social content in recent months, drawing attention and controversy with posts that have framed enforcement matters in gamified or pop-culture language. That tone can increase reach, but it also raises the risk of blowback when words from people in the public eye are manipulated for an endorsement of a policy message they didn’t approve.
Von’s show, This Past Weekend, is consistently among the most-listened-to podcasts on Spotify; that helps explain why the snippet struck a chord, and why there are stakes. When government accounts mine celebrity content, it’s not just a copyright matter; it also pertains to implied endorsement and public communication ethics.
The Legal Question: Copyright v. Publicity Rights
Two sets of laws are at issue. First, copyright: If Von, or his production company, owns the podcast recording, he can pursue a platform takedown under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. X adheres to the following procedures: a notice of infringement must be in writing, include your signature, and be submitted by the rights holder; it must be signed with a physical or electronic signature of the owner or an agent authorized to act. Fair use could be a defense if DHS were using the clip for commentary or criticism, but borrowing a short punchline to pin on an unrelated message makes that argument less straightforward.
Second, right of publicity: Many states prohibit using a person’s name, image, or voice to imply an endorsement without consent. While those claims ordinarily flow from commercial advertising, experts from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Electronic Frontier Foundation both said context is crucial. Government speech, like others among the cases cited by Mr. Malbon, has a great deal of latitude for posts that use or question agency views related to ocean plastics, but agencies can still face reputational and legal scrutiny if it implies that they support an initiative for which they have no official endorsement.
Previous cases highlight the gray area. The Ninth Circuit decision Lenz v. Universal cemented the need to consider fair use before requesting a takedown, while right-of-publicity cases including White v. Samsung indicate how even suggestive persona appropriations can lead to claims. A public agency could ultimately win out on legal grounds, but a platform dispute is likely to be settled well before a court reaches the issue.
What Counts as a ‘Deportation’ in U.S. Reporting?
The video’s central claim — a celebration of very large deportation totals — taps into a theme of persistent confusion in immigration data. The Migration Policy Institute and the American Immigration Council have documented how “removals,” “returns” and “encounters” are different measures that are sometimes confused in public messaging. For instance, while Customs and Border Protection totaled over two million border encounters in recent fiscal years, ICE removals were a mere fraction of that number.
That nuance matters. If a Facebook post says millions were actually deported, even if the originating number mixes up deportations with encounters or voluntary returns, critics will argue that the framing is played. When the hook is a sliver of viral video from a comedian, scrutiny only deepens — especially if the storyline of an enforcement win snares people who were legally present.
Von’s Position and the Politics of Perception
Von wants to stress that he did not approve the use and his position on immigration is more nuanced than a punchline that lasts all of 5 seconds.
This reading follows a larger media pattern: podcast blurbs often burst the boundaries of their native format and show up as grist in political messaging. Remixing of this kind by official accounts can also muddy the line between outreach and propaganda when it uses a personality’s brand to lend gravitas to a policy point, said the Knight First Amendment Institute.
Von, who has interviewed figures from across the political spectrum, has refrained from explicit endorsements and made clear that long-form conversations don’t easily translate into a highlight reel ripe for point-scoring on social media.
What Happens Next in the Theo Von and DHS Dispute
Upon receipt of a DMCA notice from Von, X might take down the video while waiting for DHS to send a counter-notice. It may also, even if it believes the use is legal, take down or edit its post voluntarily in order to defuse a publicity-rights dispute. Either way, the episode is a timely reminder that government social media teams aren’t just managing policy narratives; they are steering through intellectual property and personality rights as well as reputational risks when borrowing celebrity voices to peddle a message.
