In an age where every choice feels political, can a pair of jeans still just be a pair of jeans? That’s the multi-million-dollar question at the heart of a blistering new culture war, sparked by an unlikely source: a denim-clad Sydney Sweeney and a veteran MSNBC producer who sees a sinister message woven into the fabric of American Eagle’s latest marketing campaign. What the brand likely hoped would be a celebration of youthful Americana has instead become a battleground for accusations of racism, coded conservative messaging, and the very soul of the next generation.
The campaign itself is, on the surface, a masterclass in modern nostalgia. It features Sydney Sweeney, the Emmy-nominated star of “Euphoria” and “The White Lotus,” whose girl-next-door appeal is amplified by a lens flare-drenched, golden-hour aesthetic. She laughs in sun-drenched fields, leans against vintage cars, and embodies a kind of effortless, accessible cool that has been American Eagle’s bread and butter for decades. The collection leans heavily on classic denim, soft tees, and a vibe that feels pulled from a 1990s dreamscape. It’s wholesome, it’s aspirational, and for millions, it’s simply… fashion.
But not for Hannah Holland, a longtime producer at the progressive news network MSNBC. In a stunning public critique that quickly went viral, Holland tore down the campaign’s carefully constructed facade, recasting it not as retro, but as “regressive.” This wasn’t a harmless throwback, she argued, but a “coded message to the next generation,” a deliberate and dangerous “cultural shift toward whiteness” and conservative ideology.
Holland’s accusations were anything but subtle. She claimed the campaign’s aesthetic, with its “vintage sexiness that caters to the male gaze,” was an attempt to roll back cultural progress. She took aim at the casting of Sweeney, a white actress, as evidence of the brand promoting “white supremacy.” In perhaps her most inflammatory claim, Holland even suggested a pun used in the campaign’s marketing, which played on the words “genes” and “jeans,” was somehow connected to “Nazi propaganda.”
To Holland and those who share her perspective, the campaign is a Trojan horse. The familiar, comforting imagery of a smiling, blonde, all-American girl is, in this reading, a tool to re-normalize a mono-cultural, pre-civil rights era vision of America—one that is overwhelmingly white, traditional, and patriarchal. The critique suggests that in the politically charged landscape of the 2020s, there is no such thing as neutral nostalgia. Every look back is a statement about the present, and this one, she insists, is dangerously conservative.
The accusation taps into a wider, ongoing debate about the so-called “trad-wife” movement and the romanticization of traditional gender roles online. Critics see the sun-drenched, pastoral aesthetic as a dog whistle for a return to a time when social hierarchies were more rigidly defined. They argue that by presenting this polished vision of the past without acknowledging its complexities—its exclusions and its injustices—brands like American Eagle are laundering a regressive ideology and selling it to an impressionable youth market.
However, as Holland’s critique ricocheted across social media, it was met with a powerful counter-narrative, one grounded in market realities and a growing exhaustion with a perceived “woke” overreach. The most compelling piece of evidence against Holland’s interpretation came not from a cultural critic, but from Wall Street. In the weeks following the campaign’s launch, American Eagle’s stock didn’t just hold steady; it soared by an astonishing 21%.
This financial success tells a story of its own. It suggests that the vast majority of the public is not only unbothered by the campaign’s aesthetic but is actively embracing it. For every critic who sees a coded right-wing message, there are seemingly thousands of consumers who see a beautiful actress in a pair of jeans they might like to buy. They see the campaign not as an insidious plot, but as a welcome respite from the often-divisive and politically saturated content that dominates their feeds.
Supporters of the campaign argue that labeling it as “white supremacy” is a reckless and irresponsible dilution of the term. They see a young, successful actress at the peak of her career and a brand attempting to capture a feeling of timeless, carefree youth. Is it racist to cast a white actress? Is it sexist to present a woman as beautiful and happy? The backlash to the critique suggests a growing public sentiment that the culture wars have become a caricature of themselves, finding bigotry in every corner and robbing culture of its ability to simply bring joy or celebrate beauty without a political litmus test.
At the center of this firestorm is Sydney Sweeney herself. While she has remained silent on the controversy, her public image adds another layer of complexity. She has, in the past, faced online scrutiny over her family’s perceived political leanings, a testament to the intense pressure public figures are under to align themselves with a particular ideology. In this context, her role in the American Eagle campaign can be read in two ways. Is she a knowing participant in a cultural rebrand, or is she simply a working actress whose brand of all-American beauty was a perfect fit for a client’s vision?
Ultimately, the controversy reveals a profound schism in how we interpret culture. One side sees a sophisticated web of symbols and coded messages, where every aesthetic choice is laden with political meaning. The other sees a surface, an image, and a product, and believes that sometimes, a jean is just a jean. The American Eagle debate is more than just an argument over an ad campaign. It’s a proxy war for the soul of modern culture, pitting critical theory against consumer choice, and ideological purity against the simple, powerful appeal of a nice picture. While MSNBC and its producer may see the seeds of a dangerous social shift, the ringing of cash registers at American Eagle suggests that the market—and perhaps the mainstream—has already cast its vote.
