Sydney Sweeney has quickly become one of the standout actresses of her generation, starring in HBO’s hit series Euphoria, The White Lotus, Anyone But You and even venturing into film production.
While often typecast as a sex symbol and the “blonde” archetype, Sweeney has expressed that she is more complex — she restores vintage cars and is a trained mixed-martial artist. Yet in her recent American Eagle Outfitters jeans campaign, she seemed to lean into the very stereotype she has tried to resist, resulting in criticism for a tone-deaf message that left me questioning whether her earlier claims of complexity were authentic or simply part of a crafted persona.
The Summer 2025 campaign resembled the infamous 1980 Calvin Klein ad featuring a then-minor Brooke Shields, whose sexually suggestive script about her “Calvins” sparked public criticism. To me, the echo of the Brooke Shields campaign underscored how little the industry has evolved in navigating the line between marketing and exploitation.
Similarly, Sweeney’s ad relied on a pun between “genes” and “jeans,” ending with her line: “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue.”
As a result of the lack of irony, the genetic wordplay fell flat and was widely perceived as racially insensitive, particularly given Sweeney’s embodiment of the historical ideal of white, blonde beauty, a standard long intertwined with eugenicist notions of “desirable traits.” These ideas shaped discriminatory practices during the Holocaust and resurfaced in mid-20th-century America, especially during the Civil Rights Era. For me, it was not just a clumsy pun; it was a reminder of how easily the media can unintentionally mobilize harmful ideas about race and beauty.
The ad evoked this troubling past, linking beauty, race and hierarchy in a way that felt careless and out of touch.
In the following months of the ad debut, Sydney made no public comments about the campaign, appearing at events but avoiding acknowledgement. That changed only recently when she sat down for an interview with GQ.
The discussion covered her personal life, upcoming projects and the ad campaign. Her new film, Christy, which centers on domestic abuse, was brought up in connection with her involvement with the American Eagle jeans initiative, which she said was designed to raise awareness for the domestic abuse crisis-prevention hotline.
When asked about her approach, she responded, “I always speak out about something that is important to me. And for me to speak out, I use art.” I found this interesting because, despite the controversy surrounding her campaign, she has yet to speak up and provide reflection or clarification. Her silence was particularly disappointing, especially given her claims that she speaks through her art.
The interview itself felt odd. The interviewer tried to inconspicuously edge Sydney to open up, offering her opportunities to explain the commercial and provide additional context. But Sweeney consistently avoided engaging with the deeper critique. When asked if surprised by the reaction of the ad, she responded with a blank statement, “I did a jean ad. I mean, the reaction definitely was a surprise, but I love jeans.”
Later, when questioned about the President and Vice President’s public support, she simply said, “It was surreal.” This response did little to distance herself from the commercial’s insensitivity, especially considering Trump’s history of sexual assault allegations and discriminatory behavior.
The conversation continued, and the interviewer suggested that, given our current political climate, people may be inferring that “white people shouldn’t joke about genetic superiority.” Sweeney responded, “I think that when I have an issue that I want to speak about, people will hear.” Thus, cementing the idea that the controversy and concern are an afterthought and altogether irrelevant.
Reports on the campaign’s impact were mixed: some expressed that American Eagle’s stock went up 38%, while others noted that in-store visits declined. Sydney remained unfazed, saying, “I knew at the end of the day what that ad was for, and it was great jeans, it didn’t affect me one way or the other.” To put it plainly, I think that statement encapsulates the whole interview.
In a moment where celebrities wield enormous influence and are often held accountable for the messages attached to their image, Sweeney’s silence stands out. She was given the chance to disavow or at least address a campaign that invoked sensitive historical associations, yet she chose neutrality. From my perspective, this neutrality is not harmless; it’s part of a broader cultural pattern where celebrity detachment shields public figures from responsibility. Ideally, this moment should serve as a reminder to celebs and brands of what not to do when confronted with valid public criticism.
