NFL Asks Homeland Security to Remove Brian Dawkins Tackle Video
The NFL has asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to take down a social media video built around retired star Brian Dawkins.
League spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed the request to Forbes in a statement on Monday, September 28, 2026. Forbes DHS had posted the video on Sunday.
The clip draws on Dawkins highlights. It opens with Dawkins walking out before a game chanting 'the time has come.' It then cuts to a montage of tackles on opposing players set to heavy metal music, according to descriptions of the post. Al Jazeera The post carries the caption 'Our time has come.'
DHS presented the footage as a statement of readiness to protect the U.S. border against what it described as a caravan of immigrants. The edit likened Dawkins' on-field hits to the actions of immigration agents. ESPN
Dawkins is a Hall of Fame safety. He played 16 seasons before retiring in 2011, with stints for the Philadelphia Eagles and Denver Broncos. He retired as one of the most recognizable defensive players of his era.
The request itself is narrow. It concerns use of this footage in this post. The league wants the video removed from DHS channels.
The broader context here is about control over symbols. Game footage is a licensed asset, which means the league decides who can reuse it and on what terms. Player likeness, a player's recognizable image and identity, also carries commercial value after retirement. Government agencies often borrow from popular culture to give official operations a vivid shorthand. Football tackles offer that shorthand for force, timing and defending ground.
Looking at what this means for both sides, the incentives point in different directions. For the NFL, permission is central. Allowing game action to be reused for immigration enforcement without consent would tie the league and Dawkins to a contested policy area. Refusing keeps that boundary. It also signals to players, past and present, that the league will intervene when their images appear in political messaging.
For DHS, attention is central. A well-known star delivering big hits, scored to heavy metal, is likely to draw more engagement than a formal statement about border readiness. Even an objection can extend the life of the message, as press coverage points new viewers to the post. Removal, if it happens, would not erase that wider circulation.
In my view, the episode shows a recurring tension in American public life. Sports organizations seek broad audiences and therefore avoid close alignment with enforcement power unless they choose it. Security agencies seek cultural resonance and therefore reach for widely known sports symbols. Copyright, licensing deals and publicity rights, the right to control commercial use of one's image, provide the formal tools. The immediate contest plays out as public pressure: a request to take down, and a decision whether to comply.
What comes next is procedural. DHS controls the account that posted the video. It can remove the post, leave it in place, or edit it. The NFL has stated its position. The resolution will clarify, in this instance, where the line sits between government speech that invokes popular culture and a rights holder willing to object in public.
