American Eagle, a clothing and accessories retailer, launched a controversial jean campaign starring actress Sydney Sweeney on July 25. Sweeney gained mainstream recognition for her roles in “Euphoria” and “The White Lotus.” At first glance, unknowing viewers just saw another denim advertisement.
In the advertisement, Sweeney said things like, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue.”
The ad used a pun on jeans versus genes. The camera lingered on close shots of Sweeney’s blue eyes, blonde hair and pale skin. Critics claimed that the ad carried coded messages about beauty standards and eugenics.
Meanwhile, others defended the ad, insisting that it was simply playful and smart marketing. Some pointed out that the cinematography was commonly used in fashion brands and the overall ad reflected the brand aesthetics rather than pushing an ideology.
The controversy that quickly followed the campaign reveals how contemporary advertising is never just about selling products — it represents brands’ perspective on diversity, race and equity.
The emphasis on good genes combined with shots of Sweeney’s eurocentric features suggests an immoral stance beyond innocent wordplay. To many, the emphasis on her appearance recalls eugenic ideologies. Eugenics rhetoric is historically rooted in the belief that certain physical and genetic traits are inherently superior and should be promoted, often at the expense of marginalized groups.
In today’s sociopolitical climate, marketing choices can be interpreted as political statements. For example, Sweeney’s rumored political affiliation as a Republican voter further fueled interpretations that the ad was not just about denim, but also promoted conservative ideals surrounding beauty and race.
A YouGov survey showed that American Eagle’s approval among Republicans rose significantly after the campaign while Democrats’ dropped. Even President Donald Trump praised the ad and used Sweeney’s registration to position the campaign as culturally significant.
Meanwhile, critics argued that the ad’s tone and imagery are not neutral but part of broader social discourses about race, beauty and inclusion. By pairing the phrase “great jeans” with imagery that visually emphasizes traits like fair skin and light eyes, the ad’s pun on “genes” risks evoking ideas of genetic superiority. Especially since the model featured in the ad, Sweeney, aligns with historically dominant beauty standards.
The fact that the ad came out during times of ongoing tension over diversity, race and equity also stirred more conflict. Although some conservative commentators framed criticisms of the ad as cancel or woke culture, others view the backlash as a valid critique of how subtle messages regarding race are perpetuated in commercial media.
The split in opinion surrounding the ad is driven by race, age, gender and partisan lines. White respondents of the YouGov survey tended to approve more of the ad than Black or Hispanic respondents. Meanwhile, younger people were more likely than older viewers to express concern about the ad’s implications.
This divide shows how consumer culture is now tied to representation and identity. Consumers are more likely to gravitate towards brands that mirror their own values and affiliations. According to data collected by Sprout Social, there is also an unwritten rule for them to take a public stand regarding political and social issues. Brands are no longer just responsible for selling their products.
The American Eagle advertisement exposes how companies need to master the act of modern marketing — they cannot afford to treat language or imagery as neutral, because audiences inevitably interpret products as statements about identity.
Shortly after the campaign went viral, GAP, another clothing retailer, released its own jeans ad featuring Katseye. Katseye is a global girl group that includes members from various ethnic backgrounds. This advertisement received a more positive reception from audiences.
By centering diversity, GAP conveyed the sense of confidence and empowerment that American Eagle aimed for but struggled to achieve. These contrasting campaigns reveal how modern marketing cannot be disentangled from politics.
When an advertisement only highlights a beauty ideal historically associated with privilege and frames it through rhetoric suggestive inherent superiority or exclusivity, it risks alienating audiences who are excluded from that ideal. who do not see themselves in that narrative. GAP’s decision to feature Katseye resonated with a global and multicultural audience — showcasing empowerment without implying that beauty is determined by genetics.
Ultimately, advertising today is never just about the products. While American Eagle insists that the ad is focused on denim rather than promoting notions of genetic superiority, this incident shows how even small choices in advertising are rarely neutral in such a polarized society.
Deanza Andriansyah is an Opinion Staff Writer for the Fall 2025 quarter. She can be reached at dandrian@uci.edu.