This seems to be similar to pictures and other material that are in Government Reports or Websites. As I understand it, posting the material on a Government website does not imply that it automatically falls within the public domain. In fact, usually the rights do not transfer regardless of whether they came from a Federally funded project or not. Simply because they are on a government website does not make them "fair game".
Therefore, simply because a video is available on a Government Website for download does not give anyone who downloads it the right to redistribute it or transfer ownership rights in any way. When the Blogger uploaded it to YouTube they had to state that they owned the material and had rights to redistribute it, which is clearly not the case. Therefore, the Agency could have easily also requested that the videos be removed from YouTube. Did they?
So, in my mind the blogger should have simply posted the link to the website so any interested reader could also have gone and downloaded the video in question. This also allows the reader to see the explanation and context that the Agency provided in order to explain the videos for themselves. This is often very important and simply posting and viewing a video out of context can be very misleading.