With awards season in full swing, celebrity acceptance speeches have once again become prime fodder for social media discourse. Singer-Songwriter Billie Eilish found herself at the center of controversy after accepting Song of the Year at the Grammys for “Wildflower,” where she proclaimed that on stolen land, nobody is illegal — a remark referencing the ICE raids that have taken place across America over the past year.
To say the backlash to Eilish’s speech has been intense would be an understatement. Notably, hers wasn’t the only speech to call attention to the current American political landscape — Olivia Dean and Bad Bunny expressed similar sentiments — but she has absorbed the majority of the criticism. The conversation has since shifted away from the award itself to a broader debate about whether celebrities should be making political statements in the first place.
It’s important to clarify one thing: celebrities have always been political. In many cases, their political statements and actions have been far more dramatic than what we see today. Consider:
- John Wayne helping to create, and serving as president of, the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals in the 1940s, which combatted communism
- Jane Fonda making a visit to Hanoi to oppose the Vietnam War in 1972
- Sinéad O’Connor tearing a photo of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live in 1992
- Charlton Heston becoming president of the NRA from 1998 to 2003
By any measure, these moments were far more inflammatory than a brief awards speech — and the backlash they provoked was far more tangible. So why does it suddenly feel as though celebrities engaging in politics has become more contentious than ever?
During many earlier controversies, public reaction unfolded through print media and television commentary — powerful channels, but ones that moved at a far slower pace. Social media has introduced a new immediacy to controversy, allowing both the inciting moment and the responses to be amplified constantly and in real time. This creates a double-edged dynamic: outrage spreads quickly, but it also tends to dissipate just as fast once the next controversy dominates the timeline.
While Eilish’s comments certainly upset many online, it’s difficult to imagine her facing the kind of sustained hostility Sinéad O’Connor experienced after her SNL appearance — being booed at subsequent performances, for example. Today’s controversies may be louder, but they often prove far more short-lived.
But social media alone isn’t to blame for this heightened sensitivity. Politics have become increasingly polarized in recent years, with party affiliation more closely intertwined with personal identity than ever before. Issues like immigration, abortion and climate change are no longer just political topics — they often function as litmus tests for morality. As a result, a line in an acceptance speech can feel less like a personal opinion and more like a declaration of political allegiance.
This dynamic exists across the political spectrum. As a liberal, seeing Eilish publicly denounce ICE instinctively made me view her more favorably, whether that reaction is entirely rational or not. On the flip side, watching celebrities express conservative viewpoints can negatively shape my perception of them. For audiences who hold opposing political beliefs, the effect is reversed: a celebrity’s political stance can feel either affirming or deeply alienating. In this way, celebrity politics often functions less as persuasion and more as a signal of affirmation or betrayal.
Undercutting much of this discourse is the idea that entertainers should “stay in their lane.” They aren’t politicians, so they should avoid making political declarations. If you’re a singer, then sing and leave politics to the experts. It sounds reasonable enough.
But this falls apart quickly. When has art or entertainment ever been apolitical? Music has long reflected political realities, from 1960s protest songs to rap and hip-hop challenging systemic inequality. Film, television and literature operate in much the same way. It would be difficult to find any form of media entirely devoid of political context. Art reflects the world in which it is created. Even work that appears neutral carries meaning through what it chooses to engage with and what it ignores. No stance is still a stance. Paradoxical, perhaps, but unavoidable. Art has never existed in a vacuum, and asking entertainers to detach from politics overlooks the fact that their work is already shaped by it.
So maybe the question isn’t whether celebrities should stay out of politics, but why we expect them to. After all, our current president is a former reality TV star. Clearly, the line between politics and entertainment has already blurred to the point of near nonexistence, unless the argument is that celebrities shouldn’t engage in politics unless they’re seeking the highest office in the country.
Of course, that isn’t really the point, but it does highlight the inconsistency behind much of the backlash. Celebrities are citizens like anyone else, and as citizens, they have every right to hold and express political opinions. That contradiction became clear to me when I heard TV host Bill Maher’s comments on Eilish’s speech, where he suggested she lacked the historical or policy knowledge to comment meaningfully. But what grants Maher the authority to share his political views if Eilish cannot express hers? Both are entertainers occupying similar cultural spaces. The cognitive dissonance is striking and suggests that the discourse isn’t truly about expertise, but about which voices and opinions audiences are comfortable hearing.
Another common argument is that celebrity political statements simply don’t matter — that they have little real-world effect. This is difficult to reconcile with the controversy itself. By definition, the reaction to Eilish’s remarks demonstrates their impact. The amplification of her speech, whether supportive or critical, extended her message to millions who were not watching the Grammys live. Even backlash increases visibility. It’s hard to claim a statement has no influence while simultaneously circulating it widely across social media. Research also supports this reality: a 2024 Harvard study found that celebrity endorsements can meaningfully influence voter registration and polling behavior, underscoring that these moments do, in fact, carry weight.
The question isn’t whether entertainers should be involved in politics. They already are — every one of them, whether they’ve made a statement or not. Nor is celebrity political expression a new phenomenon. What feels different is our reaction, shaped by a 24/7 media environment where information spreads instantly, amplifying division and intensifying scrutiny. In many ways, the backlash is less about entertainers overstepping and more about the discomfort of hearing political perspectives from voices we once viewed as neutral. Ultimately, there’s no meaningful distinction between Billie Eilish denouncing ICE on the Grammys stage or an everyday American sharing their support for ICE on Facebook or X. Both are individuals exercising their right to speak. If we accept that everyday people are entitled to political opinions, we must extend that same principle to celebrities, whether we agree with them or not.