Liberals are clutching pearls again. The White House and conservative voices have slammed the left’s outrage over an American Eagle jeans ad featuring actress Sydney Sweeney, as Variety reports. The ad’s clever wordplay has been twisted into something sinister by the perpetually offended.
The controversy centers on a simple jeans campaign. American Eagle’s advertisement, starring Sweeney, uses the tagline “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans,” a playful nod to both her figure and genetics. Some liberals, however, saw it as a dog whistle for white supremacy and body shaming.
The ad itself is straightforward. Sweeney appears, highlighting how genes influence traits like hair color and personality, before noting that her jeans are blue. It’s a lighthearted pitch, but the left’s reaction suggests they’ve misplaced their sense of humor.
Enter Steven Cheung, White House communications manager. “Cancel culture run amok,” he declared, labeling the liberal backlash as “warped, moronic and dense.” His sharp rebuke frames the controversy as a symptom of progressive overreach.
Cheung’s point hits hard. The left’s rush to vilify a jeans ad as racist or exclusionary reveals their obsession with finding fault where none exists. It’s a tired playbook that alienates anyone with a grip on reality.
The ad never mentions race. Sweeney’s line about genes and blue jeans is a clear marketing pun, not a manifesto on heritage. Yet, the outrage machine churned anyway, proving Cheung’s point about liberal oversensitivity.
Megyn Kelly, a conservative podcast host, didn’t hold back either. “She’s being called a white supremacist,” Kelly said, mocking the left’s claim that the ad glorifies Sweeney’s white heritage. The accusation, she argues, is absurdly disconnected from the ad’s intent.
Kelly’s take is spot-on. The ad celebrates Sweeney’s physique, a key part of her public image, not her skin color. Liberals’ fixation on race here is a self-own, exposing their inability to engage with nuance.
The left’s logic is baffling. They argue the ad’s choice of a “white, thin woman” as its face is inherently problematic. This ignores the obvious: Sweeney’s fame and figure make her a natural fit for a jeans campaign.
The liberal critique hinges on a false premise. They claim the ad’s focus on “genes” subtly promotes a white, thin ideal. In reality, it’s a clever double entendre about denim and DNA, nothing more.
Sweeney herself keeps it simple. “Genes are passed down from parents,” she says in the ad, tying it to her blue jeans. The left’s attempt to spin this into a cultural battle is a stretch even by their standards.
Kelly dismantles this further. “They’re completely ignoring the reference to her body,” she notes, pointing out the left’s willful misreading of the ad’s intent. It’s a masterclass in missing the forest for the trees.
Cheung ties this to a broader sentiment. He suggests the liberal outrage reflects why voters rejected such thinking in 2024. The constant policing of language and intent is exhausting, and Americans are over it.
The ad controversy is a microcosm. A harmless campaign becomes a lightning rod because the left can’t resist turning everything into a moral crusade. It’s the kind of overreach that fuels backlash.
In the end, this is about jeans, not ideology. The left’s outrage over Sweeney’s ad is a self-inflicted wound, proving they’re more interested in signaling than sense. Conservatives, meanwhile, are just laughing at the absurdity.
