The White House has recently published surreal montages of clips taken from popular films, television shows, and video games, all mashed together with real US war footage to modernise its defence communications. The social media strategy kicked off on March 5, days after the White House media team began sharing unclassified footage taken from military vehicles launching strikes at targets in Iran.
One March 6 video included a clip of Yu-Gi-Oh protagonist Yugi Mutou shouting "now end this" appearing for just one second in the 42-second clip, before cutting to an illustration of the President's residence with the timeless "flawless victory" Mortal Kombat soundbite closing the sequence. The video, titled "JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY," features snippets from Top Gun: Maverick, Iron Man, Tropic Thunder, and Netflix sensations Better Call Saul and Breaking Bad, among others.
The issue is straightforward: these companies and creators never authorised their work to be used in government propaganda. Anime mainstay Yu-Gi-Oh criticised the White House for using a clip from the television show in videos promoting US military action. In a statement, the franchise noted that the clip was used "without any authorisation from the rights holder" and that "no permission was granted for the use of this intellectual property." Actor Ben Stiller and Steve Downes, who voices Halo's Master Chief, have criticised the Trump regime for using their likenesses without consent. The Pokémon Company International similarly objected after the White House shared an image replicating the cover art of Nintendo's new game, Pokémon Pokopia, with text reading "make america great again," noting "no permission was granted for the use of our intellectual property."
Yet despite the clear breaches, none of these companies have filed copyright infringement lawsuits. No copyright infringement lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration to date. Under Title 28 of the United States Code, the remedies in such a lawsuit would be limited to monetary damages, and the court would be unable to issue an injunction to stop the infringement. This legal constraint reveals something troubling: a private company using government content faces injunctive relief, but a government using private content faces only financial liability. The asymmetry is not accidental.
The White House's position on the videos is unapologetic. A spokesperson stated that "the legacy media wants us to apologise for highlighting the United States Military's incredible success, but the White House will continue showcasing the many examples of Iran's ballistic missiles, production facilities, and dreams of owning a nuclear weapon being destroyed in real time." This framing presents a choice: either you support military operations, or you support intellectual property law. Few citizens would accept that false binary in other contexts.
The IP abuse sits within a broader pattern of executive overreach becoming visible this week. Anthropic filed suit against the Department of Defence after the agency labelled it a supply-chain risk, with the complaint calling the DOD's actions "unprecedented and unlawful." Anthropic filed two federal lawsuits on Monday against the Trump administration alleging that Pentagon officials illegally retaliated against the company for its position on artificial intelligence safety. Defence Department officials last week designated Anthropic a supply chain risk, citing national security concerns.
The dispute centres on safety guardrails. It followed CEO Dario Amodei's announcement that he would not allow the company's Claude AI model to be used for autonomous weapons, or to surveil on American citizens. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the Pentagon should have access to AI systems for "any lawful purpose" and that it shouldn't be limited by a private contractor.
National security experts say such a label typically applies to foreign adversary contractors that could potentially sabotage US interests. It is highly unusual, experts say, to use the blacklist against an American company. The designation effectively bars all federal contractors from using Anthropic's technology, threatening hundreds of millions in revenue.
Anthropic's legal argument rests on a principle that private companies rely upon: the right to set terms of service without government retaliation. In its filing, Anthropic alleges that the government is retaliating against the company for its use of First Amendment-protected speech. It also argues that Trump does not have the authority to direct federal agencies to cease using Anthropic's technology, and that the company was not granted adequate due process.
The counterargument from the White House is familiar: national security and military necessity. White House spokesperson Liz Huston said the president "will never allow a radical left, woke company" to dictate how the military operates. "The President and Secretary of War are ensuring America's courageous warfighters have the appropriate tools they need to be successful and will guarantee that they are never held hostage by the ideological whims of any Big Tech leaders," Huston said in a statement.
The tension here is genuine. Governments do need military tools unrestricted by commercial terms of service. But the historical warning is equally genuine: when governments label dissent as a national security threat, they gain power to punish it. Anthropic is not claiming the Pentagon cannot use other AI systems. It is claiming the government cannot blacklist a company specifically for refusing to abandon safety practices.
Both episodes this week expose a pattern of executive power used without restraint. The White House borrows intellectual property without permission, knowing copyright law offers no injunctive remedy against government actors. The Pentagon blacklists a company that refuses to abandon safeguards, claiming national security authority that courts have not yet endorsed.
Neither case is purely partisan. Both involve questions that transcend left and right: Can government lawfully use private property without consent? Can executive agencies punish companies for refusing to alter their practices? Can "national security" justify circumventing due process?
These questions matter more than the answers given by either side. A government accountable only to itself, in times of war, invents new forms of power it will later use in times of peace. The proper check is not ideology but law: applied equally, with restraint, and with genuine consequences for violations.