Why Sydney Sweeney’s campaign with American Eagle is facing public criticism

A recent advertising campaign by American fashion brand American Eagle, featuring actress Sydney Sweeney, has attracted significant backlash for what critics have described as racial insensitivity and alleged eugenic undertones.

The campaign, initially intended to highlight American style and raise awareness for domestic violence support, has instead become a flashpoint for public debate over racial representation, historical context, and brand messaging. 

Sweeney, known for her roles in 'Euphoria' and 'The White Lotus,' appeared in a series of adverts for American Eagle promoting a new denim line. In one of the key promotional videos, Sweeney states,

“I’m not here to tell you to buy American Eagle jeans... And I definitely won’t say they’re the most comfortable jeans I’ve ever worn, or that they make your butt look amazing.”

The ad ends with the phrase, “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.” The wordplay between “jeans” and “genes” is further emphasised in follow-up content, where Sweeney appears to cross out the word “genes” on a billboard and replace it with “jeans”.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by American Eagle (@americaneagle)

Another video features Sweeney narrating the biological meaning of genes before concluding, “My jeans are blue,” followed by a repeat of the slogan.

What was seemingly intended as a clever pun quickly drew criticism online. Detractors have argued that the campaign’s language, combined with Sweeney’s blonde hair and blue eyes, evokes historical associations with eugenics and racial purity narratives, particularly those propagated by white supremacist ideologies.

On social media, users described the ads as 'tone-deaf' and 'Aryan-coded', accusing the brand of invoking themes associated with Nazi-era propaganda and white elitism, whether intentionally or not.

Some pointed out that the juxtaposition of beauty, genetics, and national identity within the visual language of the ad resonated uncomfortably with past rhetoric promoting selective reproduction and genetic superiority.

The domestic violence link

Further complicating the reception is the fact that the campaign also includes a philanthropic element. The featured jeans, dubbed 'The Sydney Jean,' were reportedly designed by Sweeney herself, with all proceeds going to Crisis Text Line, a non-profit providing mental health support and resources for domestic violence survivors.

However, critics argue that this charitable angle has been overshadowed by the perceived insensitivity of the messaging. Many found the juxtaposition of eugenics-coded language with a social cause jarring and ill-considered.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 🔺🔻 AF3IRM Hawaiʻi 💜⚔️ (@af3irmhawaii)

Sayantani DasGupta, a professor of Narrative Medicine, analysed the campaign in a reel, arguing that the ads were 'imbued with eugenic messaging'. She contextualised the criticism within a broader American history of forced sterilisation and selective reproductive policies, particularly targeting marginalised communities.

Her analysis suggested that the campaign, whether consciously or not, reinforces narratives that have historically excluded and harmed people of colour and immigrants, particularly in the American South.

As of writing, neither American Eagle nor Sydney Sweeney has issued an official statement in response to the controversy. The brand has not taken down any of the campaign material, and the promotional content remains live across its social media platforms.

Despite the controversy, reports indicate that American Eagle’s stock has seen a significant uptick, reportedly rising by 15%, equating to a $310 million increase in market valuation. While the long-term reputational impact remains uncertain, the short-term financial gain raises questions about whether the backlash may have inadvertently amplified the campaign’s reach.

This incident joins a growing list of recent advertising campaigns criticised for perceived insensitivity or lack of cultural awareness. It also reignites debate over the fashion industry’s history of idealising Eurocentric beauty standards and its slow pace in embracing diversity in messaging and representation.

Whether the American Eagle campaign was an ill-conceived attempt at humour or a deliberate provocation designed to go viral, the response shows the complex terrain brands must navigate in the current cultural climate. As online discourse continues to shape public reception, the line between clever marketing and social misstep appears increasingly thin.