Aura Kasih
The United States White House has recently launched a peculiar suite of digital games, ostensibly designed to communicate policy objectives and engage the public, but which have rapidly drawn significant criticism for their questionable content and apparent disregard for intellectual property rights. The games, described as "policy-themed arcade games," have ignited a firestorm of debate, with allegations of racial insensitivity and unauthorized use of popular game mechanics and characters dominating the discourse. This initiative, seemingly intended to modernize governmental outreach, has instead become a focal point for discussions on ethical communication, digital governance, and the responsibilities of public institutions in the digital age.
At the heart of the controversy is a game titled "Build the Wall," which bears a striking resemblance to the iconic puzzle game Tetris. In this White House-produced iteration, players are tasked with arranging falling geometric shapes to construct barriers, ostensibly to prevent a "zombie border siege" originating from the southern border. The antagonists in this digital scenario are depicted as "aliens," a term the administration has previously employed to refer to non-citizens, raising immediate concerns about the game’s underlying messaging. The visual and gameplay mechanics are clearly derived from Tetris, a globally recognized and cherished game, leading to immediate questions about intellectual property and the legitimacy of its use in a government-backed project.
The Tetris Company, the official steward of the Tetris brand, has publicly distanced itself from the "Build the Wall" game. A spokesperson for the company, Kerri Brusca, issued a statement clarifying that Tetris was not involved in the creation of the game and emphasized the brand’s long-standing commitment to fostering unity and joy through play across diverse cultures and generations. Brusca stated, "For more than 40 years, Tetris has brought people together across generations and cultures through play and joy. The objective of the game has always been to stack with purpose to clear as many lines as possible. We are currently reviewing the matter." This statement signals a potential legal review and underscores the gravity of the copyright infringement allegations.
Beyond the Tetris example, reports indicate that other games in the White House’s digital portfolio appear to have borrowed heavily from established gaming franchises. Companies such as Sega, Nintendo, and Xbox, along with the creators of the immensely popular mobile game Flappy Bird, are reportedly among those whose intellectual property may have been utilized without authorization. As of the time of reporting, these other companies had not yet issued public statements regarding the White House’s alleged use of their trademarks or game designs. The absence of immediate responses from these entities does not diminish the significance of the claims, as the unauthorized appropriation of copyrighted material by a governmental body raises profound questions about legal precedent and public trust.
This is not the first instance where the Trump administration has faced scrutiny for alleged copyright infringements. Previously, the Department of Homeland Security was compelled to remove certain social media content, described as "racist" and "fancam-esque," following DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown requests. These past incidents suggest a pattern of disregard for intellectual property rights and an inclination to utilize existing cultural assets without proper clearance, often for politically charged messaging. Such actions can undermine the credibility of government institutions and invite legal challenges that can be costly and damaging to public perception.
The strategic intent behind the creation of these policy-themed games appears multifaceted. On one level, they seem designed to serve as a contemporary and potentially engaging method to promote the administration’s policy agenda. The use of gaming mechanics, a medium with broad appeal, could be an attempt to reach a wider audience, particularly younger demographics, and to frame policy objectives in an accessible and entertaining format. Furthermore, these games may also be intended to rally support among a specific base of supporters who resonate with the administration’s messaging and style, while simultaneously engaging in what some observers describe as "trolling" the political opposition. The inclusion of games like "Rio Run," which mimics the gameplay of Snake but features a Border Patrol agent collecting migrants, exemplifies this approach, aiming for a humorous, albeit controversial, connection to immigration policy.
However, these digital endeavors have also inadvertently cast a spotlight on the perceived shortcomings and contradictions within the administration’s policy initiatives. The very act of gamifying complex and often contentious issues can serve to highlight the stark realities of policy failures or the ethical dilemmas inherent in certain governmental actions. For instance, the administration’s persistent efforts to construct a physical barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, including attempts to build through protected federal lands like Big Bend National Park, have encountered significant opposition, even from within the Republican party. The "Build the Wall" game, by focusing on this singular policy objective, can be seen as a simplified, and perhaps even distorted, representation of a policy facing considerable challenges and widespread dissent.
Another example illustrating this point is the game "Flappy Bill," which is presented as a variation of Flappy Bird. In this game, the player guides a bald eagle tasked with delivering legislation to the National Mall. While seemingly innocuous, the game’s premise is undermined by the administration’s actions concerning environmental protection. The rollback of protections under the Endangered Species Act, legislation credited with aiding the recovery of species like the bald eagle, stands in stark contrast to the symbolism employed in "Flappy Bill." This disconnect highlights the potential for government communication efforts to backfire when they fail to align with or actively contradict policy actions. Similarly, the administration’s proposed renovations of the National Mall have also faced public criticism, further complicating the narrative presented in the game.
The game "Supply Line," which draws inspiration from Tapper, presents players with the task of intercepting unhealthy processed foods on a conveyor belt before they are consumed. This game appears to critique the quality of food available, particularly to schoolchildren. However, this initiative also underscores the ineffectiveness of certain health and human services initiatives under the current administration. Despite the rhetoric surrounding healthy eating, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been associated with policies that have arguably weakened food safety regulations and public health oversight. For example, the administration’s actions have been linked to difficulties in investigating outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, such as cyclosporiasis, often referred to as the "explosive diarrhea parasite." The gutting of regulatory bodies like the Food and Drug Administration can have tangible negative consequences for public health, making the "Supply Line" game a potentially ironic reflection of the administration’s actual impact.
The broader implications of these White House-produced games extend beyond mere entertainment or policy promotion. They raise critical questions about the role of government in leveraging digital platforms for communication and engagement. While innovation in communication is essential, it must be conducted with a commitment to ethical standards, respect for intellectual property, and a genuine desire to inform rather than to propagandize or mislead. The use of copyrighted material without permission not only exposes the government to legal liabilities but also erodes public trust by demonstrating a lack of integrity and respect for creators’ rights.
Furthermore, the alleged racial undertones in games like "Build the Wall" are particularly concerning. In an era where racial equity and inclusion are paramount societal concerns, government communication should actively promote understanding and respect, not perpetuate stereotypes or divisive rhetoric. The decision to frame non-citizens as a "zombie siege" and to use "aliens" as a derogatory term for migrants is not merely a stylistic choice; it reflects and potentially reinforces harmful biases. This approach stands in direct opposition to the principles of a just and inclusive society, and it is incumbent upon public institutions to uphold these values in all their communications.
The future outlook for government-sponsored digital content is likely to be shaped by the controversies surrounding these recent initiatives. There will undoubtedly be increased scrutiny from copyright holders, regulatory bodies, and the public regarding the ethical and legal boundaries of such endeavors. Future government communications may need to navigate a more complex landscape, balancing the desire for innovative engagement with the imperative of responsible and lawful practices. The White House, and indeed all governmental entities, must prioritize transparency, respect for intellectual property, and sensitivity in their communication strategies to effectively serve the public and maintain its trust. The creation of digital content, especially by public institutions, carries a significant responsibility to be accurate, ethical, and respectful of all individuals and intellectual contributions. The current situation serves as a potent reminder that technological innovation must be guided by strong ethical principles and a commitment to the public good.
Lisa Mariana
Safa Marwah
Ayu Aulia
