This summer, what started as a typical American conversation about race, politics, sexuality, and the nature of fame suddenly exploded into what some might call a full-blown cultural brawl — all sparked by something as simple as a jeans ad.
Here’s what went down: American Eagle released a campaign featuring the very charismatic actress Sydney Sweeney. In one of the ads, she’s wearing a revealing take on the classic Canadian tuxedo — basically a jean jacket that’s barely buttoned. But it wasn’t just the look that got people talking. The script had Sydney making clever puns about “genes” and “jeans.”
She says lines like, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring,” and in another shot zooming in on her cleavage, “My body’s composition is determined by my genes.”
Some viewers immediately connected the genetics talk to her blue eyes and blonde hair. Given last year’s controversies, where former President Trump mentioned “bad genes” as a supposed cause of crime among immigrants, many felt the ad was tapping into a darker conversation happening in America right now.
Cheryl Overton, a seasoned brand strategist, said, “This is intentional. They’re speaking directly to a certain audience. If American Eagle wants to target conservative or far-right Americans, that’s their choice. But people are educated and nuanced — they’re going to call brands out.”
And call them out they did. What followed was a wave of backlash — some accusing the ad of racial undertones, others dismissing the whole debate as ridiculous for making a big deal out of a jeans commercial. Emma McClendon, a fashion historian, pointed out, “People like to think fashion is frivolous, but how we dress is deeply tied to our identity.”
The debate even reached the White House. A spokesperson blamed the uproar on “cancel culture run amok,” while Vice President J.D. Vance suggested Democrats had learned to attack people for simply appreciating Sydney Sweeney’s beauty.
By the end of the week, American Eagle tried to calm the storm with a statement: “Great jeans look good on everyone.” But did it really settle anything?
While the company’s stock jumped briefly during the controversy, the rest of us were left with more questions than answers.
So, was this ad a deliberate white-supremacist dog whistle?
Kimberly Jefferson from a PR firm wondered if the company’s mostly white leadership simply missed how this looked or if it was a calculated move to appeal to conservative or even racist ideals. Northwestern anthropology professor Shalini Shankar believes American Eagle was intentionally aligning itself with a MAGA-friendly, white nationalist image, using language about genetics that’s never casual.
On the other hand, fashion writer Alyssa Vingan called it “lazy writing” — cheap humor playing on Sydney Sweeney’s looks without much deeper meaning. But given America’s current climate, the ad inevitably felt insensitive.
Emma McClendon added, “Between the brand name, the jeans, the car, the dog, and the genetics talk, it’s impossible to separate this from today’s cultural struggle over what it means to be American.”
Some insiders, like freelance photo director Emily Keegin, argue that media outlets on the left have been too quick to downplay the controversy, giving the brand a pass it doesn’t deserve.
And just to clear the air — no, the recent Coldplay couple drama probably didn’t distract anyone from this. Hailey Knott, a former American Eagle employee, said, “That CEO resigned over another controversy a few weeks ago, and honestly, people have moved on. But this jeans ad mess? It’s still fresh in people’s minds.”
