.jpeg)
It’s the type of campaign built to go viral: blonde bombshell, Americana aesthetics, and a cheeky double entendre to boot. “Great Jeans. Great Genes,” reads the tagline, sprawled across Sydney Sweeney’s hip-clinging denim ad for American Eagle. The visual formula is familiar: soft lighting, seductive gaze, and a promise of sex appeal through casualwear. But beneath its washed-out palette and all-American nostalgia lies an issue that’s reignited debates about beauty, branding, and coded messaging in pop culture.
Within hours of its release, the campaign faced criticism from all sides. For most, the messaging was absolutely tone-deaf. Academics and fashion critics pointed out the not-so-subtle eugenic undertones of celebrating “great genes” through a white-bodied actress who’s previously been linked, albeit controversially, to conservative political affiliations. A Columbia University professor called out the brand on TikTok, arguing that pairing the word “genes” with a white model “romanticizes exclusionary beauty standards rooted in racial hierarchy.” The video garnered millions of views and sparked an online discourse that couldn’t be ignored.
American Eagle responded swiftly, insisting the line was meant to highlight “self-expression and the timelessness of denim.” But in the age of media literacy and meme-level attention spans, intent often takes a backseat to impact. And the impact here? It left many Black and brown fashion lovers, shoppers, and creatives feeling once again unseen or worse, erased.
Let’s be clear: this is not about Sweeney’s right to model denim or exist within the fashion zeitgeist. It’s about how mainstream fashion, even in 2025, continues to recycle tropes of “whiteness as default,” then dresses it up as “classic.” The visual narrative of the campaign— Sweeney lounging in a denim in denim outfit on a couch could’ve been pulled from any number of mid-2000s catalogs. But the world has changed. Or at least it should have.
Sydney Sweeney herself has said nothing publicly, opting instead for nights out in West Hollywood and karaoke with friends, seemingly unbothered by the online firestorm. But her silence, coupled with her previous proximity to MAGA-sympathizing family members and appearances at conservative events, only added fuel to the fire. Critics argue that fashion can no longer afford to pretend that optics are apolitical.
What’s most telling is the response from American Eagle’s shareholders: their stock jumped nearly 10% post-launch. Is controversy the new marketing strategy? Or are brands still underestimating the depth of public critique when it comes to race, gender, and media imagery?
Fashion has long walked the line between provocation and provocation-as-profit. But there’s a growing segment of young, culturally fluent consumers who are demanding more: more intentionality, more diversity in decision-making, and more willingness to own up when campaigns miss the mark.
American Eagle’s ad might fade from the timeline within a week as most scandals do but its ripple effects are worth paying attention to. Because in 2025, the question isn’t just who looks good in jeans. It’s: who gets to be seen as the blueprint?
