“Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.” The tagline from American Eagle’s latest ad campaign has stirred up a whirlwind of discussion, with the actress showcasing an array of denim styles that leave little to the imagination. The commercial, featuring Sweeney in layered denim outfits, has become a focal point for critics and supporters alike.
In a follow-up ad, the brand emphasizes that “jeans are handed down from parents to children,” a statement that some interpret as a nod to genetics. This connection has led to accusations of promoting discredited race science, particularly in a climate where discussions about race and identity are increasingly polarized.
Sweeney, 27, embodies a classic Hollywood aesthetic—blonde hair, blue eyes—often associated with traditional American beauty. Critics have drawn parallels between her image and historical notions of eugenics, suggesting that her portrayal in the ad could inadvertently align with troubling ideologies. Yet, it’s essential to note that Sweeney’s political affiliations, which lean Republican, have further complicated public perception.
Despite the backlash, some argue that targeting Sweeney is misplaced. The actress is not solely responsible for the messaging of a brand. Following President Trump’s endorsement of the ad, which he labeled “the HOTTEST ad out there,” American Eagle’s stock saw a significant spike—over twenty percent—before stabilizing the next day.
Until recently, many were unfamiliar with Sweeney’s work. This isn’t an endorsement of her or the brand; rather, it highlights a recurring cycle of outrage in marketing. From Kendall Jenner’s controversial Pepsi ad during the BLM protests to Bud Light’s personalized cans for influencers, brands often find themselves at the center of cultural debates.
Today, it seems that influencers and commentators are quick to dissect every detail for potential offense. Sweeney’s commercial has been labeled as fascist propaganda by some, while other brands like Abercrombie & Fitch receive praise for featuring diverse body types in their campaigns. This inconsistency raises questions about societal standards and who gets celebrated or criticized.
Interestingly, Sweeney herself faced scrutiny over her body just months ago, with comments suggesting she needed to lose weight. This duality—being both criticized and praised based on perceived political alignment—illustrates the fickle nature of public opinion.
Amidst this chaos, Sweeney’s past birthday party photos surfaced, showing attendees wearing “Make 60 Great Again” and “Blue Lives Matter” gear. She later clarified that these items were brought as a joke by a friend. The truth of this situation remains ambiguous, but Sweeney expressed frustration over how quickly people turn on public figures.
“People are so fast to build someone up, and then they love tearing them down,” she remarked in an interview. This sentiment resonates in today’s culture where outrage often overshadows meaningful discourse.
While it’s easy to direct anger towards Sweeney or American Eagle, one must consider whether such outrage is productive. Engaging in battles over trivial matters can detract from addressing more significant issues that warrant attention.
As society grapples with various challenges, it’s worth questioning what we gain from this cycle of outrage. In the end, Sydney Sweeney will continue her career, American Eagle will persist in its marketing efforts, and the cycle of celebrity controversies will undoubtedly continue.
For now, I’ll stick with my Levi 501s until new controversies arise about their history or corporate practices. Everything feels absurd in this landscape of cultural conflict.
What do you think?
More Like This
