Sydney Sweeney's jeans and an American (Eagle) controversy

Summary

Post Reports: Sydney Sweeney's Jeans and the American Eagle Controversy

Published: July 31, 2025
Hosts: Martine Powers and Elahe Izadi
Guests: Shane O'Neill (Style Reporter), Rachel Taschian (Fashion Critic)
Episode Title: Sydney Sweeney's Jeans and an American (Eagle) Controversy

---

Introduction to the Controversy

The latest episode of Post Reports delves into the uproar surrounding American Eagle's recent jeans advertisement featuring renowned actress Sydney Sweeney. Released last week, the campaign showcases Sweeney in various denim outfits, portraying her as the quintessential all-American girl next door. However, one particular ad has ignited significant debate across social media platforms, leading to accusations of the brand promoting pro-eugenics and anti-feminist messages.

Detailed Breakdown of the Ad

At [00:47], Colby Ekowitz introduces the ad’s content, highlighting Sydney Sweeney’s portrayal in different denim styles, from all-denim ensembles to flared jeans paired with fitted white tanks. Shane O'Neill provides a visual description at [01:09], explaining, “That particular ad is a sort of close-up pan. Starting from the bottom of Sydney Sweeney's body while she's reclining,” and continues to detail the focus on her jeans and subtle gestures.

Rachel Taschian notes the broader reach of the ad, “There's one ad that's been shared around the Internet, critiqued on social media and talked about in group chats” ([00:54]).

Accusations of Pro-Eugenics and Anti-Feminism

The core of the controversy lies in interpretations that the ad subtly endorses eugenics. At [02:44], Rachel elaborates on the backlash, stating, “There were people who were just commenting pro eugenics, and there were hundreds of these comments in some cases.” Shane O'Neill defines eugenics at [03:33], “It's an unproven and inaccurate theory that you can pass down your best genes selectively,” emphasizing its historical misuse and association with Nazism.

Colby Ekowitz poses a critical question at [04:10]: “Is that kind of part of the sensitivity around talking about someone having good genes?” prompting a deeper exploration of the ad’s implications.

Political and Social Reactions

The episode highlights differing perspectives on the backlash. Colby cites Stephen Chung, Trump’s communications director, who criticized the reaction as “cancel culture run amok” at [05:14]. This comment reflects a broader right-wing sentiment that perceives the backlash as overreactions fueled by liberal ideologies.

Shane O'Neill offers his perspective at [07:25], suggesting that the ambiguity of the ad makes it a "cultural Rorschach," capable of multiple interpretations. He notes, “I think this whole ad campaign can be a cultural Rorschach,” and adds that American Eagle hasn’t made any clarifying statements, possibly because their stock price has benefited from the publicity, which has “gone up, as of right now, I believe, 11% since the ad dropped last week” ([07:25]).

Underlying Intentions and Fundraising Aspect

Rachel Taschian brings attention to the ad's underlying purpose, revealing that the sales from the jeans are part of a fundraiser for domestic violence, with “100% of the proceeds of the price of each of these specific jeans… going to a domestic abuse crisis line” ([06:36]). However, she points out that this aspect has been overshadowed by the political and social debates surrounding the ad’s messaging.

Historical Context: Past Jeann Ads and Controversies

Post ad-break, Colby Ekowitz invites Shane O'Neill and Rachel Taschian to discuss the history of jean advertisements, highlighting past controversies for comparison. Shane references Calvin Klein's 1980 campaign featuring Brooke Shields, noting the provocative nature of ads during that era ([11:51]). He draws parallels between past and present campaigns, stating, “There's one direct analog between those ads and these ads in that there's one of the clips. Is Sydney Sweeney auditioning?” ([14:31]).

Rachel Taschian reflects on the evolution of beauty standards, mentioning, “One of American Eagle's great successes of the past decade is an underwear line called Aerie, which has championed the body positivity movement” ([08:38]). She contrasts this with the current ad, expressing confusion over its alignment with Sweeney’s public persona: “It's like this is not who, this is not why we enjoy this person's celebrity” ([15:58]).

Impact of Social Media and Public Perception

The hosts discuss the role of social media in amplifying controversies. Rachel comments on how platforms like TikTok encourage extreme reactions, which can distort the quality of information and conversation ([16:25]). Shane concurs, acknowledging that while some view the issue as overblown, the ad must be understood within the broader context of current political and cultural climates ([16:49]).

Conclusion: Navigating Ambiguity and Public Discourse

The episode concludes with reflections on the fine line between meaningful discourse and overinterpretation. Shane emphasizes the importance of contextual understanding, stating, “Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle is not all of American culture, but it's also not divorced from American culture” ([17:48]). Rachel and Shane agree that while the ad has sparked necessary conversations, it also illustrates the challenges of interpreting marketing messages in a polarized society.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Shane O'Neill ([03:33]): “Eugenics… is what inspired Nazism. And historically, it has led to a lot of terrible practices and it's been championed by racists.”

• Colby Ekowitz ([04:10]): “Is that kind of part of the sensitivity around talking about someone having good genes?”

• Shane O'Neill ([07:25]): “I think this whole ad campaign can be a cultural Rorschach.”

• Rachel Taschian ([06:36]): “100% of the proceeds… will go to a domestic abuse crisis line.”

• Colby Ekowitz ([05:14]): “…this reaction to the ad on the left does seem to kind of feed into what Donald Trump says is wrong with liberals…”

---

This episode of Post Reports provides a comprehensive analysis of American Eagle's controversial jeans ad featuring Sydney Sweeney, exploring the multifaceted reactions it has provoked. By contextualizing the ad within historical precedents and current social dynamics, the hosts and guests offer listeners an in-depth understanding of the complexities surrounding modern advertising and its impact on public discourse.

Transcript

[Shane O'Neill]

You're a professional web creator who needs a platform that works as hard as you do. Wix Studio is built for you whether you're a designer, developer or marketer ready to amplify your impact. Build intuitively with advanced design features and AI powered tools. Manage your clients and projects efficiently from one workspace scale with dynamic systems and fully managed infrastructure. Create exceptional websites with hyper efficiency on WIX Studio.

[Colby Ekowitz]

By now you've likely heard about American Eagle's latest marketing campaign. Hey, it's Sydney on set with ae. It's a collaboration between the clothing retailer and actress Sydney Sweeney. The ads for jeans released last week feature short clips and images of Sweeney as a kind of all American girl next door type.

[Rachel Taschian]

At the end of the day, I.

[Colby Ekowitz]

Love to come home and play with my dog.

[Rachel Taschian]

Do you see the camera say hi?

[Colby Ekowitz]

In some she's wearing an all denim outfit, in others, flared jeans with a fitted white tank. But there's one ad that's been shared around the Internet, critiqued on social media and talked about in group chats. Here's Shane o', Neill, style reporter for the Post.

[Shane O'Neill]

That particular ad is a sort of close up pan. Starting from the bottom of Sydney Sweeney's body while she's reclining.

[Colby Ekowitz]

Jeans are passed down from parents to offspring.

[Shane O'Neill]

We go from sort of her ankles up to her waist where we see her buttoning her jeans and even eye col. We see her lips moving for the first time when she says my jeans are blue.

[Colby Ekowitz]

Sydney's Tweeney Casper Jeans from the newsroom of the Washington Post, this is Post Reports. I'm Colby ekowitz. It's Thursday, July 31st. Today I'm joined by two brilliant colleagues. You just heard Shane. Hey Shane.

[Shane O'Neill]

Hi Colby.

[Colby Ekowitz]

And we also have Rachel Taschian, fashion critic for the Post. Hey Rachel.

[Rachel Taschian]

Hi.

[Colby Ekowitz]

I am so thrilled to have you both on. Today we're going to be talking about why American Eagle's latest jeans ad have stirred up quite the frenzy, with some critics online calling it a pro eugenics, anti feminist campaign. And then there's others celebrating it as a new era of anti woke marketing. So Rachel, Shane, this again is an ad featuring Sydney Sweeney, who listeners might know from shows like Euphoria and White Lotus. And in the ad she points out her blue eyes and blue jeans and makes this sort of pun on genes and genetics. It seems actually that American Eagle has taken this particular ad down. Adweek reported that American Eagle removed it from their YouTube and Instagram accounts and I haven't been able to find it on any of Their social media pages. So let's talk a little bit about the backlash to that ad.

[Rachel Taschian]

Well, I think a lot of the backlash, you know, bubbled up over the weekend and has continued into the past couple of days. You know, if you went on TikTok and looked at these ads, there were people who were just commenting pro eugenics, and there were hundreds of these comments in some cases. And what happened was that that was one interpretation of the ads that was picked up by a number of different kinds of outlets. Some of them tabloids, you know, some of them blogs or magazines, newspapers, um, and then that became a huge controversy, as if that was the dominant reading or anger with the ad.

[Shane O'Neill]

The sort of short answer is there was a wing of people online who said making jokes about having good genes is promoting eugenics, or at least alluding to eugenics.

[Colby Ekowitz]

And let's remind listeners what that means. Exactly what is eugenics mean in this?

[Shane O'Neill]

So, basically, eugenics, as I understand it, it's an unproven and inaccurate theory that you can pass down your best genes selectively, that you can engineer a better person or a better society by genetics, by breeding and selecting who and who is not left in the gene pool. It's a really complicated and sometimes super duper ugly theory. I mean, eugenics is what inspired Nazism. And historically, it has led to a lot of terrible practices and it's been championed by racists.

[Colby Ekowitz]

I mean, the argument to kind of summarize it from critics of the ad is like, okay, here is this blonde, blue eyed white woman, and we're saying that she has, quote, good genes, and so does her good genes mean that others that don't look like her have bad genes? Right, and so is that kind of part of the sensitivity around talking about someone having good genes?

[Shane O'Neill]

Well, I can speak for myself. When I saw the tagline Sydney Sweeney, Hasbro keens, the very first thing that I thought about was a sort of. The department of homeland security had made social media posts, one that featured sort of like a questionably subtle racist painting, and then one that I would say is explicitly racist, depicting manifest destiny embodied as like, a giant blonde woman chasing native people off of the page. So I think that it's not necessarily ascribing any blame or intention to the ads. But yes, when I saw a blonde woman saying I have good genes, that was the first thing that I thought of, whether it's fair or not.

[Colby Ekowitz]

Hmm, that's so interesting. I mean, on the one hand, you have critics saying this is a pro eugenics ad, but then on the other hand, there seems to be mostly people like, on the right, people like on Fox News that have then criticized the backlash. And in fact, Trump's communication director, Stephen Chung, he even posted about it on X and I'll, I'll read what he said. He says, quote, cancel culture run amok. This warped, moronic and dense liberal thinking is a big reason why Americans voted the way they did in 2024. They're tired of this BS but he spelled out the word for some. You know, this reaction to the ad on the left does seem to kind of feed into what Donald Trump says is wrong with liberals, that liberals are, you know, a bunch of snowflakes who can't handle anything that potentially pushes an envelope.

[Shane O'Neill]

Well, I would push back on it pushing an envelope. I think it's more of returning to a previous envelope.

[Rachel Taschian]

I really do think the ambiguity of the ad is what is creating many of the issues here and the misunderstandings and the controversy, frankly. In fact, these genes are part of a fundraiser for domestic violence. So 100% of the proceeds of the price of each of these specific genes, which I think are 89.99, those will, the funds from that will go to a domestic abuse crisis line.

[Colby Ekowitz]

Has that fact made its way into the discourse?

[Rachel Taschian]

Yes, that was very early on. I think one of the first points of contention, you know, were these ads which were so overtly flirtatious and sexual inappropriate way to promote a product that was supposed to be raising money for domestic violence. But I think that's got a little, that's gotten a little bit lost as the politics of this and this emphasis on the, you know, eugenics or not eugenics conversation has really taken over. And I do wonder, you know, when looking at, you know, the way that American Eagle has sort of backed away from making any comment here, at least so far, the fact that they have removed one of the ads from social media. You have to wonder if this is taking them somewhat by surprise.

[Shane O'Neill]

Also, haven't heard back from the PR rep from American Eagle for questioning.

[Colby Ekowitz]

Yeah, I wondered that too, guys, because I was like, did. Are they like, that's not what we meant, just a pun. Like, we weren't trying to say that her genes are like, actually better than anyone else's genes. Or were they like, yep, this is what, this is what we were hoping to do. We were hoping to, you know, spark conversation and get people talking about American Eagle. I mean, it's hard to know, right?

[Shane O'Neill]

Well, it's impossible to know because they're not releasing a statement which is absolutely their prerogative. There's also an argument to be made that because it's so ambiguous, that's an effective image, that it's something that can be debated and that, you know, one person sees one thing, one person sees another. I think this whole ad campaign can be a cultural Rorschach. What I would say is that I'm not expecting American Eagle to say anything. They have nothing to gain from saying anything right now. Their stock has gone up, as of right Now, I believe, 11% since the ad dropped last week. So as long as there's money rolling in, they have everything to lose by clarifying their position. I guess if their stock had gone down 10% percent, we might be hearing a more explicit position on what they were and weren't trying to do. But as of right now, it seems like a great move for them. It seems like it's generated money and it's certainly generated publicity and chatter, which is interesting.

[Rachel Taschian]

Like, is that, you know, in fashion, when you think about success, is success sales, or is the. Is it the public perception of the brand? And I don't think we'll know for another month or two how this has impacted the sales of the brand. Brand. I think it. It's important to add as well that one of American Eagle's great successes of the past decade is an underwear line called Aerie, which has championed the body positivity movement. I mean, they took that and ran with it more successfully than almost any other brand, except maybe Fenty's underwear line. And, you know, they encouraged, like, people, regular people, to post pictures of themselves in the underwear and they would repost them. I mean, if it's something that feel seen in, then maybe that makes it a good advertisement.

[Colby Ekowitz]

Right? You know, there was a period of time in the. In the 90s and the. In the early 2000s where, like, there was a very clear idea of what made someone beautiful. And then we got into this body positivity movement where different shapes and sizes and races and hair color, like, so many things could be beautiful. So many people could be beautiful. And so now are we coming back around to no, no, no. There's just one kind of beautiful, and this is it.

[Shane O'Neill]

It's a really difficult question, and I think there's never going to be an answer that satisfies everyone about the question of aspirational imagery and whether that has anything to do with yourself.

[Colby Ekowitz]

After the break, Rachel and Shane talk about how companies have long used provocative images to sell jeans. We'll be right back.

[Robin Givhan]

I'm Robin Caban, and I'm the senior critic at large for the Washington Post. I write about politics and race and the arts. You know, there's so much information and misinformation coming at people. And for me, a critic's job is to really cut through that and attempt to direct people towards what is of value. Subscribers are definitely the most engaged, and they're the ones that I feel like I'm most often having a conversation with people who are really engaged in our culture and engaged in civic life in a way that can be really transformative. When you subscribe to the Washington Post, you support this kind of journalism. Learn more at subscribe.washingtonpost.com I'm Robin Givhan, and I'm one of the people behind the Post.

[Colby Ekowitz]

So brands like Calvin Klein and Levi's and Gap, they've been selling jeans in these big campaigns for years. Jean ads are kind of iconic Americana. But this isn't the first time that gene ads have actually sparked controversy. Right. So can you talk through what past controversies have been around people selling jeans?

[Shane O'Neill]

Two big ones that come to mind that I think are directly referenced in this particular American Eagle Campaign is a 1980 Calvin Klein campaign with Brooke Shields. Maybe you've heard that slogan, nothing comes between me and my Calvins.

[Colby Ekowitz]

You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.

[Shane O'Neill]

That came from these ads featuring a very young Brooke Shields with TV spots that were shot by Richard Avedon, who's, you know, a giant in fashion photography. She was, I believe, 15 years old when that ad was shot. And today Brooke Shields has expressed some ambivalence about appearing in those ads. I had sort of forgotten the content. I revisited some of the commercials that are available on YouTube or Facebook to revisit those ads.

[Colby Ekowitz]

Genes are fundamental in determining the characteristics of.

[Shane O'Neill]

Of an individual. And I was struck that there's language about natural selection in the gene ads that Brooke Shields was doing, which I found very surprising just because a big part of this controversy with the American Eagle ads is that they're making a joke about genes and genetics. Both feature a beautiful, very popular actress in a similar reclined situation selling jeans, and both of them are making jokes or alluding to genetics in one way or another.

[Colby Ekowitz]

What's interesting, though, Shane, is that in the early 80s, the. The genetics part of it was not the controversy with the Calvin Klein ad. Right. It was the fact that they were sexualizing a teenage girl.

[Shane O'Neill]

Yes, the. The. The. The. The bigger issue in the 80s was the fact that Brooke Shields was underage not that we were talking about genetics. You know, Sydney Sweeney is an adult. So that, that's sort of like off the table in this discussion. Although genetics seem to be a much hotter button issue right now than they were in 1981.

[Colby Ekowitz]

Yeah, yeah.

[Shane O'Neill]

Let me speak again to my, my personal experience. There's another ad campaign, another Calvin Klein ad campaign from 1995 that was shot by Stephen Mizell and it featured people auditioning sort of ambiguously. It's a wood paneled room with carpeting and a ladder. And there's an off camera male voice giving direction.

[Rachel Taschian]

You think you could rip that shirt off of you.

[Shane O'Neill]

It's very sleazy. It's pretty unsettling.

[Rachel Taschian]

It's a nice body. Do you work out?

[Shane O'Neill]

I remember when that ad campaign came out, my mother just being like, this is pornography. And me being like, lighten up, mom. Low rise jeans rule. You know, watching it as an adult, you know, you know, watching It As a 41 year old, I was like, oh, yeah, this is extremely provocative. And I think there is something to be said from a marketing standpoint about things that drive a wedge between people can be really meaningful because it becomes a totem. And by the way, there's a direct analog between those ads and these ads in that there's one of the clips. Is Sydney Sweeney auditioning?

[Colby Ekowitz]

Hi, I'm Sydney Sweeney and I'm from Spokane, Washington.

[Shane O'Neill]

And it's same thing off camera, not nearly as provocative or suggestive, but she's walking on camera, she's presenting herself as though she's auditioning.

[Colby Ekowitz]

I can work as a local hire as well though, and I am available for the American Eagle jeans campaign shoot. Profile in hands, please.

[Shane O'Neill]

And there's a male off camera voice sort of directing her.

[Colby Ekowitz]

Thanks.

[Rachel Taschian]

What was strange about that one is that Sydney Sweeney is an incredibly famous actress and producer who makes really intelligent choices about the roles that she plays. You know, she's making this film where she stars as a female boxer and she's also producing that. I mean, I think we have this image of her as being really in control of her femininity. And to see her sort of put in this small town gal, almost casting couch situation, it just didn't make sense to me. It's like this is not who, this is not why we enjoy this person's celebrity.

[Colby Ekowitz]

She's not the every woman, right?

[Rachel Taschian]

She's not the every woman, but she's also not a vulnerable woman who's fallen predatory to the dirty side of Hollywood and advertising. You know, that's Just not who we've come to know this person to be.

[Colby Ekowitz]

Hmm. So, guys, at. At the end of the day, I mean, this is an ad, right? Like, it's. Is it really that serious? Are we taking it too seriously? I mean, I had. I'm on a group chat with some of my college friends and they were texting me about this yesterday and they were like, I don't get it. Like, why is everyone mad about this? Please explain. Should we be mad too? Like, are we trying to project meaning onto something that maybe doesn't mean what people think it means?

[Rachel Taschian]

I think that online people jump to extremes. You know, the way that social media is designed, it encourages you to say the most extreme thing in the shortest amount of time. Yeah, I guess you could say that social media in a way has, like, degraded the quality of information we receive, but also the quality of conversation.

[Shane O'Neill]

I hear people's complaints that, like, we're talking too much about this. I definitely understand the argument of, like, a beautiful woman selling jeans. How is this news? Like, I understand that this is something that we see all the time. I guess I would also add that I don't think it's fair to hang an entire industry onto one ad campaign or certainly one person. There's a couple ways you can look at it. First of all, I think apart from this, we've already seen it like, the Runway models are thinner than ever or as thin as they used to always be. I've talked to plus size models who say they're just not getting booked the way they were even a few years ago. So I don't think it's unfair to say that that's happening and to investigate why that might be. I do think it's unfair to hang all of that onto one ad campaign or onto Sydney Sweeney herself. So I think part of the frustration that some people have is that there is a tendency to take one cultural moment and use that as a way to explain all of American culture or all of American politics. And I think that that a really frustrating way to look at the world. And I think it's also a really popular way to look at the world, especially when we're talking about online discourse. That said, I also don't think the answer is like, you're taking it too seriously, so you have no right to talk about it or talk about how it makes you feel or how it connects to history. So I think there's a fine line that we have to thread here. Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle is not all of American culture, but it's also not divorced from American culture. I think you have to look at it in the context of what's happening in politics and in the world in order to understand why these reactions are happening.

[Rachel Taschian]

Blue Jean baby.

[Colby Ekowitz]

Well, guys, thank you so much. It was a blast having you on. Thanks for talking through this with me. I appreciate it.

[Rachel Taschian]

Of course. Thanks for having us.

[Shane O'Neill]

Such a pleasure.

[Colby Ekowitz]

Shane o' Neill writes the Style Memo newsletter for the Post. Rachel Taschian is our fashion critic. That's it for Post Reports. Thanks for listening. If you appreciated this conversation, please subscribe to the Washington Post. There's a new offer for premium subscribers. It's a way for you to share the Post journalism with other people in your life. A premium subscription now comes with three extra accounts, three accounts that you can give to friends or family members. And if you subscribe now, there's a great sale happening. You can get your first year for just $3 every four weeks. Three bucks every four weeks. After the first year, the price is $17 every four weeks. And you can cancel anytime. There's also an even better deal if you pay for the whole year up front. To see that and to sign up now, go to washingtonpost.com subscribe. That's washingtonpost.com subscribe. There's also a link in our show notes. Today's show was produced by Thomas Liu. It was edited by Rena Flores and mixed by Shawn Carter. Thanks to Carla Spartos. I'm Cole Bjkowicz. We'll be back tomorrow with more stories from the Washington Post.

[Robin Caban]

You listen because you know the power of good journalism and the Washington Post is there for you 24 7. When you become a Washington Post subscriber, you get excited. Exclusive reporting you can't find anywhere else. You also get sharp advice columns, delicious recipes, TV and music reviews and so much more. Right now, you can get all of that for just $4 every four weeks. That's for an entire year. After that, it's just $12 every four weeks and you can cancel anytime. Add to your knowledge and discover all the Post has to offer. Go to washingtonpost. Com subscribe. That's washingtonpost. Com. Subscribe.