Executive summary: The US Department of Homeland Security has sparked controversy by employing recruitment slogans that align with white nationalist ideologies, including a phrase from a neo-Nazi anthem, signaling a concerning embrace of extremist rhetoric within federal government communications.
In recent days, DHS social media accounts have promoted recruitment messages featuring the phrase ‘We’ll have our home again,’ which is closely associated with a song popular in neo-Nazi circles. This move comes shortly after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis during an enforcement operation, adding to the sensitivity of the timing. The phrase has been cited in manifestos of white supremacist attackers, such as the 2023 Jacksonville Dollar General shooter, and is frequently used by groups like the Proud Boys at rallies. Researchers from the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism have documented its ties to white nationalist movements in the US and Canada. The adoption of such language by a federal agency marks a significant shift in official messaging.
The recruitment effort is part of a broader DHS strategy to boost hiring through a $100 million ‘wartime recruitment’ campaign, as reported by The Washington Post. This plan includes targeting audiences at events like NASCAR and UFC, and hiring online influencers to spread the message. The use of imagery such as a cowboy on horseback with a Stealth bomber, reminiscent of nostalgic American iconography, further appeals to certain demographics. However, experts argue that these visuals and phrases are not innocuous but are coded signals meant to resonate with far-right communities.
Additional examples from other government agencies underscore this trend. The Department of Labor posted a video with the tagline ‘One Homeland. One People. One Heritage,’ which critics say mirrors Nazi slogans and promotes a narrow view of American identity. Similarly, DHS has used the term ‘remigration,’ which has roots in Nazi ideology and refers to ethnic cleansing, in its social media posts. The State Department has even established an ‘Office of Remigration’ to handle immigration issues, normalizing language that originated in white nationalist circles in Europe.
According to analysis from CNN and The Intercept, the timing and content of these posts suggest intentional signaling to extremist groups. Alice Marwick, director of research at Data & Society, noted that while dog whistles were once used by supporters, they are now being deployed directly by the administration. This removes plausible deniability and makes the government’s alignment with white nationalist ideologies more explicit. The backlash from mainstream artists, such as Sabrina Carpenter and Olivia Rodrigo, who condemned the unauthorized use of their music in ICE videos, highlights the controversy surrounding these tactics.
The implications extend beyond recruitment to affect national discourse on immigration and race. The normalization of terms like ‘remigration’ and the embrace of replacement theory—the idea that white people are being replaced—in official communications can legitimize extremist views. This is particularly concerning given the rise in hate crimes and domestic terrorism linked to white supremacy in recent years. The federal government’s actions may embolden extremist groups and undermine efforts to combat racial violence.
Looking ahead, the continued use of such rhetoric could deepen political polarization and erode trust in federal institutions. Lawmakers and civil rights organizations are likely to increase scrutiny on DHS and other agencies, potentially leading to congressional hearings or policy changes. The ongoing legal battles, such as the lawsuit by Minnesota and the Twin Cities to stop federal immigration operations, add another layer of complexity to the situation.
In conclusion, the US government’s recruitment messaging represents a significant departure from traditional communication strategies, openly courting white nationalist sentiments. This development raises urgent questions about the direction of federal policy and the safeguarding of democratic norms against extremist influences.
