The controversy surrounding actress Sydney Sweeney and her latest campaign for clothing retailer American Eagle has entered a new phase—one marked not by the initial criticism of the ad, but by renewed fury at Sweeney’s response to that criticism.
The ad and the original backlash
In mid-2025, American Eagle rolled out a campaign starring Sydney Sweeney with the tagline “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans.” What seemed at first like a playful denim ad quickly drew heated online criticism. The root of the backlash: the campaign played on the words jeans and genes. In one clip, the word “genes” is shown crossed out and replaced with “jeans.” In another, Sweeney says: “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue.” Business Insider+4The Guardian+4Newsweek+4
Critics argued that featuring a blonde-haired, blue-eyed actor discussing heredity and genetics as part of a fashion campaign evoked longstanding eugenic and white-supremacist tropes—especially in a moment when conversations around race, representation and beauty standards are so fraught. The Guardian+1
American Eagle responded by saying the ad “is and always was about the jeans,” and that “great jeans look good on everyone.” Business Insider+1
The new footage & Sweeney’s tone-deaf reply
A fresh interview clip has reignited the uproar. In a published talk with GQ, the interviewer asked Sweeney: “The criticism of the content, which is that maybe, specifically in this political climate, white people shouldn’t joke about genetic superiority…like that was kind of the criticism, broadly speaking, and since you are talking about this I just wanted to give you the opportunity to talk about that, specifically.” Newsweek+1
Sweeney’s answer? Essentially that she would only speak when she “has an issue” she wants people to hear about, and that “the ad spoke for itself.” She called the reaction “surreal” and added that she hadn’t spent much time following the backlash because she was busy filming. Newsweek+1
Her brevity—rather than any detailed apology or acknowledgement of the concerns—has many critics deeming her reply dismissive or indifferent.
Why the outrage reignited
The renewed anger stems from several factors:
- Unaddressed core concern: Many feel Sweeney and the campaign never robustly engaged with the underlying issue: that the ad’s wording and imagery could be interpreted as endorsing harmful ideas about “good genes,” heredity and desirability. Instead, she seemed to sidestep the question.
- Tone and privilege: Because Sweeney is a white, conventionally attractive actor, some view the campaign—and her response—as benefiting from privilege, while ignoring the deeper implications for marginalized communities. One critic said: “At least recognise the harm your jeans campaign has caused Black folk. The undertone of the campaign is that your genetics are superior to others — the play on words is clear as day and racists LOVED it!” Newsweek+1
- Social-media dynamics: New footage circulated widely, and the moment of her seeming indifference was captured and shared, fueling the feeling that she wasn’t taking the fallout seriously. Yahoo+1
- Broader cultural conversation: The ad came at a time when many brands are scrutinised for representation, implicit messaging, and the ethics of advertising. A campaign that skirts these debates while seemingly leaning into “heritage / genes” rhetoric triggered a bigger reaction than might have occurred in another era.
Brand, actor and political fallout
For American Eagle, the campaign did appear to have commercial success: one article notes that the stock surged after the campaign was announced. Fortune+1
But the reputational cost may linger longer.
For Sweeney, this is also part of an evolving public persona: While she is known for high-profile roles (such as in Euphoria) and branding deals, her refusal to deeply engage with the controversy has drawn criticism not only from online users but from peers. For instance, actor Aimee Lou Wood publicly responded to Sweeney’s interview with a vomiting-emoji reaction on social media. News.com.au
Politically, conservative figures—such as former President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance—weighed in, offering praise for Sweeney and mocking the backlash. Meanwhile, some critics argued the outrage was manufactured or exaggerated. Deadline+1
What happens next?
The situation raises several questions for the future:
- Will Sweeney issue a fuller statement? As of now she’s given a relatively cursory response. Many expect or hope for a more expansive acknowledgement or apology.
- Will American Eagle pivot its marketing or tone-down word-play? Brands may scrutinise forced puns or heritage messaging more carefully given the backlash.
- Will audiences continue to hold celebrities accountable for campaign choices? This appears a test case for how much influence actors, brand ambassadors and advertisers have in shaping public discourse beyond smiley faces and stylised shoots.
- Will the conversation around genes/heritage in advertising intensify? Given the historical baggage—especially in the West—around genetic “superiority,” advertisers may be more cautious about language that touches on heredity, origins, traits and so-called “natural” beauty.
Final thoughts
What began as a fashionable denim campaign has morphed into a flashpoint around race, representation, marketing ethics, and celebrity accountability. Sydney Sweeney’s new interview footage has re-ignited the debate because it underscores how responses can matter as much as the original act. A dismissive answer—or one that fails to reflect the gravity of concerns raised—can extend a controversy rather than close it.
Whether the uproar will materially affect Sweeney’s career or American Eagle’s brand image remains to be seen. But it does highlight an evolving expectation: that when advertising brushes against historical or social fault-lines (here, eugenics and beauty standards), the subsequent response matters significantly.
