Can Zach Bryan Sue the Feds For Using His Song ‘Revival’ In Trolling Social Media Video?

The Department of Homeland Security used a Zach Bryan song in a promotional video on social media – a trolling jab at the country star after he released a song criticizing ICE raids. Can he sue them for copyright infringement?

The video, posted Tuesday to the official DHS account on X, featured Bryan’s signature hit “Revival” over a montage of footage of masked federal agents arresting people. It came under the caption “We’re having an All Night Revival,” the song’s central refrain.

The post came amid days of right-wing outrage after Bryan released a snippet of a new song that said Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a unit of DHS, plans to “bust down your door.” Captioned “The fading of the red white and blue,” the lyrics seemed to be a reference to President Donald Trump’s controversial immigration crackdown and mass deportations.

Bryan currently seems to be trying to deescalate the situation, saying his lyrics had been “misconstrued.” But since he almost certainly didn’t authorize the use of his song, the DHS video begs the question: Can Bryan hit back by suing the government for copyright infringement?

The answer is yes, with some big qualifications.

Using a copyrighted song in a social media clip requires a so-called sync license, the same way that movie producers need to get permission and pay fees to feature a song in their film. Assuming Bryan didn’t grant such a license just to be trolled by the Trump administration, the video posted by DHS is a textbook example of copyright infringement.

Doesn’t everyone use music in social media videos? Platforms have licensing deals with music companies, allowing their users to soundtrack their videos with a huge selection of legally-cleared songs. But that kind of license is aimed at non-commercial uses by individual users and likely wouldn’t cover a promotional video by an entity like DHS – and Elon Musk’s X famously doesn’t have one anyway.

The agency likely isn’t shielded by “fair use,” either. If a person who disagreed with Bryan’s opinion on ICE and wanted to criticize him, they might successfully argue they had a right to use his music. But that’s a much harder argument to make for what amounts to a recruiting advertisement by a large entity that would normally pay for the music in its ads.

Bringing lawsuits against the federal government can be difficult due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which largely shields it from civil actions. But when it comes to copyright law, Congress has formally waived that restriction and created a path for rightsowners to sue over exactly this situation.

Unlike a typical copyright case, Bryan would bring his hypothetical infringement lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, a special federal court designed to handle cases against the government. And unlike a normal case, he could only ask for “reasonable and entire compensation” for the use of his song, not an injunction forcing DHS to remove the video.

However, Bryan could still get the video pulled down by using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which empowers copyright owners to file takedown notices directly with platforms like X – and requires those platforms to comply unless the alleged infringer disputes it. It’s unclear if the star has filed such a notice; the clip remains live on X as of Thursday afternoon.

Last month, comedian Theo Von objected to another DHS post on X, which featured a clip of him saying “Heard you got deported dude, bye.” The right-leaning podcaster, the son of a Nicaraguan immigrant, said: “Yooo DHS i didn’t approve to be used in this. I know you know my address so send a check. And please take this down and please keep me out of your ‘banger’ deportation videos.”

It’s unclear if Von lodged a formal DMCA complaint, but the clip was pulled down the next day. It’s not clear if DHS deleted it or if X removed it.

One major caveat to any discussion of Bryan’s song: It’s unclear whether he owns the rights to it. The star reportedly sold or was close to selling some of his catalog earlier this year, though the exact parameters of that deal have not been made public. He would need some ownership stake in the song’s publishing or master rights in order to sue DHS.

Perhaps even more importantly, Bryan appears unwilling to pick this kind of fight. Litigation is expensive and difficult under the best circumstances, and a case over the clip is unlikely to yield much in the way of actual monetary damages. It would also obviously further inflame a situation that Bryan – a country superstar with a fandom that spans the political spectrum – seems intent on calming.

“This song is about how much I love this country and everyone in it more than anything,” the star said Tuesday. “When you hear the rest of the song, you will understand the full context that hits on both sides of the aisle. Everyone using this now as a weapon is only proving how devastatingly divided we all are. We need to find our way back.”

Reps for both DHS and Bryan did not immediately return requests for comment on the “Revival” clip.