Latest news with #BlueLivesMatter
The Irish Sun
05-08-2025
- Entertainment
- The Irish Sun
Clip of glam Sydney Sweeney expertly shooting targets goes viral as her ‘secret MAGA life' emerges after anti-woke ad
A CLIP of Sydney Sweeney blasting targets at a shooting range has gone viral - as she's adopted by the MAGA movement and praised by Trump. The video resurfaced after President Trump heaped praise on the actress's "anti-woke" American Eagle jeans advert and she was revealed to be a registered Republican. Advertisement 9 A clip of Sydney Sweeney practicing at a firing range has resurfaced in light of the revelation of her Republican leanings Credit: instagram/@sydney_sweeney/ 9 Sydney had never revealed how she voted, though people are now seeing clues from over the years Credit: Instagram 9 Sydney Sweeney is the star of American Eagle's latest, controversial ad campaign Credit: American Eagle The clip from 2019 shows a younger Sydney expertly burying rounds into a series of human-shaped dummies at the firing range. She appears well-practiced, skilfully banging two bullets into each in quick succession without so much as a flinch. At the end, she flashes a smile to the camera and holsters the weapon. Since Sydney starred in the controversial American Eagle jeans ad, clues that point to her living a secret MAGA life have emerged. Advertisement The 27-year-old grew up in a small, Catholic, Trump-supporting town in Washington with her father, mother and younger brother Trent - and has previously said she had a "religious" upbringing. After accepting her breakout Euphoria role, Sydney revealed she had been nervous about how her community would react. She told Stylecaster in 2021: "What's crazy - and this is going to sound really bad- is when I first got sent the audition, I was too nervous to go do it. "I grew up in a smaller town with my family, who are a little more conservative, and I was like: 'They're going to kill me if I do something like this.'" Advertisement A surprise party she threw for her mom's 60th birthday drew considerable attention when pics were shared of the guests wearing MAGA-style hats and "Blue Lives Matter" shirts. And now, she has starred in the American Eagle ad which has seriously riled voices on the left, who claim it promotes a racial ideal, but delighted the right who hail it as the "end of woke advertising". Trump pours praise on Sydney Sweedy amid 'good jeans' American Eagle ad storm as her voter registration revealed The ad makes a play on the words "jeans" and "genes" - and the main tagline is "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans". It's been claimed that the promotion of Sydney's blonde hair and blue eye traits suggests they are superior to alternative genes. Advertisement Sydney hasn't publicly commented on the furore stirred up by the ad, but made her first appearance at a screening of her upcoming film "Americana" on Monday. She was heckled by a fan who shouted: "Stop the ad, that is being racist," according to TMZ. 9 Sydney flashes a smile after smashing it at the firing range Credit: instagram/@sydney_sweeney/ 9 Sydney sweeney caused controversy by posting Maga-themed pics from from her mom's 60th Credit: Instagram Advertisement 9 Sydney Sweeney is most famous for her roles in Euphoria and The White Lotus Credit: Instagram However, she got into her vehicle without responding. American Eagle defended its advertisement, but removed the video from its social media accounts. It then emerged over the weekend that the actress has been a registered Republican since June 2024 - and she soon received praise right from the top. Advertisement President Trump was delighted when a reporter told him about Sydney's political leanings, and promptly declared that he "loves" her "fantastic" ad. He said on Sunday night: "That's one I wouldn't have known but I'm glad you told me that. 9 Trump's Truth Social post on Monday, where he doubled down on his support for Sydney Sweeney Credit: X 9 Sydney Sweeney was revealed to be a registered Republican since June 2024 Credit: Getty Advertisement 9 The ad's tagline 'Sydney Sweeney had great jeans' ignited major controversy Credit: American Eagle 'If Sydney Sweeny is a registered Republican, I think her ad is fantastic.' Trump then doubled down on his enthusiastic support and cemented the American Eagle ad as a bastion of the "anti-woke" agenda. He declared in a Monday morning Truth Social post that the campaign is "the HOTTEST" and went on to slam "woke" companies like "stupid" Jaguar and Bud Light for their own advertising. Advertisement Jaguar recently put out an ad with models dressed in brightly-coloured, flamboyant clothing - but no cars or the brand's logo. Trump insisted the British manufacturer, whose CEO resigned on last week, should have learned from Bug Light - which suffered a boycott and major losses after an advert featuring a transgender influencer. The President's conclusion: "Being WOKE is for losers, being Republican is what you want to be."
Time of India
03-08-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Is Sydney Sweeney a Republican? Fact-checking the viral claim amid the 'controversial' Euphoria actor's American Eagle backlash
makes a splash every time she appears on a commercial (with her sexy commercial scratchy voice, as coined by Stephen Colbert), whether by choice or by sheer coincidence. The ' ' actress has been under scrutiny for the past few days, thanks to her latest and heavily criticized American Eagle campaign, where she claims that she has great 'jeans', a pun on 'genes' that sparked heated debate over racial undertones and alleged ties to eugenics. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Yes, it's attracted more ridicule than her bathwater soap (?!), and what followed was an intense backlash and a whole lot of digging to find dirt on her. Amid mounting criticism over her 'controversial' commercials, now, questions have swirled about whether the 'Anyone But You' star is a Republican or not. More pressingly, did she vote for Donald Trump? Is Sydney Sweeney a Republican ? Multiple sources, including Florida's Department of State voter records (as reported by Newsweek), confirm that a Sydney Bernice Sweeney was registered as a Republican voter in Monroe County, Florida, on June 14, 2024, with an active voter status. A viral post on X by user @time222smoke first claimed that she was a registered member of the Republican Party. BuzzFeed subsequently reported on Sweeney's voter registration after reviewing publicly available records. However, there is no official confirmation that this registration belongs to the Hollywood actress born in Spokane and based in Los Angeles. While she owns a $13.5 million home in Florida's Summerland Key, aligning with the state of registration, none of the public reports confirm directly that the voter record refers to her. Furthermore, there's no official statement from Sweeney's side accepting or denying the claim. In short, yes, there's publicly accessible data pointing to Republican registration, but no definitive confirmation that it refers to the actor herself. Political image so far This isn't the first time Sweeney has faced heat. In 2022, images from her mother's 60th birthday party went viral, with guests wearing MAGA‑style hats and 'Blue Lives Matter' shirts. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Sweeney later clarified that those individuals were family friends, not her family, and she 'didn't intend a political statement.' In fact, on-screen and in public forums, Sweeney is as 'woke' as it gets. She has openly supported liberal-leaning causes such as LGBTQ+ rights, transgender rights, Black Lives Matter, and remained pro‑choice. However, her broader political alignment remains unclear, as she generally maintains a low public profile on explicit partisan issues. Although that hasn't stopped her from attending billionaire Jeff Bezos' ludicrous (to say the least) wedding in Venice and doing another ridiculous commercial selling her bathwater soap! Did Sweeney vote for Donald Trump ? Although multiple outlets have claimed that Sweeney is a registered Republican, there is no credible confirmation of her exact political alignment and affiliation. Which brings us to answer the obvious next question: no credible source confirms that she voted for or endorsed the US President Donald Trump. In essence, she has largely stayed out of electoral politics in public life. Great jeans or poor campaign: The American Eagle controversy Launched in late July, the campaign's centerpiece, 'Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans,' triggered intense debate in the public forum. One video even featured her saying, 'Genes are passed down… My jeans are blue.' The campaign generated a wave of controversy, being accused of invoking racialized beauty standards and eugenics-era rhetoric, noting Sweeney's blonde hair and blue eyes as visual cues in the messaging. Some even labeled the campaign 'fascist‑coded,' 'Nazi propaganda,' or an explicit nod to white supremacist tropes. While many argued that the pun on 'genes' combined with visuals of a blonde, blue‑eyed actress evoked white‑beauty norms and eugenics imagery, American Eagle came out with a rather 'safe' comment, responding to the backlash, stating: 'It is and always was about the jeans… great jeans look good on everyone.' However, despite the controversy, the brand's stock rose by around 10-11% following the campaign rollout, and Sydney Sweeney hasn't yet stopped trending on various social media platforms; evidence that controversy can translate into commercial traction. The final word… Sydney Sweeney's political identity remains ambiguous. The fact that the actress has yet to issue an official statement despite the intense heat speaks for her potential preference to keep her political stance that way. Will this ambiguity play out in her favor? Or she will come out, picking a side, justifying the same? Moreover, will that affect her career in the public eye? That remains to be seen. Sydney Sweeney Ad Row: JD Vance Unbuckles On 'Nazi' Noise, American Eagle Keeps It Casual
Perth Now
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Perth Now
Sydney Sweeney embroiled in scandal over eugenics
Such is the febrile political environment in the US today, that an ad campaign for denim can spark a controversy about eugenics. A few days ago, retailer American Eagle was chuffed about signing Sydney Sweeney for its new line of jeans. Its stock price surged 10 per cent on the day it launched its campaign. Everyone was probably patting themselves on the back. Now, it and Sweeney are embroiled in a scandal that has drawn in even the actor's German Shepherd dog. At the core of the brouhaha is the punny, interchangeable use of genes and jeans. The tagline on the print ads and the online video is 'Sydney Sweeney has good jeans'. In one video, a horizontal Sweeney is pulling on the pants, a la Brooke Shields, while intoning, 'Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair colour, personality and even hair colour. My jeans are blue.' What's the harm in that, you might ask. Perhaps at another time in another world, not much. But in America in 2025, the reactions have been visceral, ranging from 'a little tone-deaf' to accusations of outright racism. Some of the comments beneath Sweeney's Instagram post of the campaign have included, 'Oh cute, she's in her Nazi propaganda era!' and 'Promoting eugenics (is) big (in) 2025'. If you'd like to view this content, please adjust your . To find out more about how we use cookies, please see our Cookie Guide. Donald Trump's return to the White House in January has heightened anti-immigration sentiment in the US with much of the discourse centred on what characteristics (racial, physical) constitutes 'American'. Non-Anglo American citizens have been swept up in raids by immigration agents and imprisoned, with allegations they were targeted because of how they look. The Trump administration has also banned diversity, equity and inclusion programs within federal agencies and required the same of any private companies with government contracts. American Eagle declaring Sweeney's blond-haired, blue-eyed attributes as 'good' genes is indeed a sensitive play with American racial politics what it is under the current government. The brand likely didn't mean anything by it, but the association is awkward nonetheless. If you'd like to view this content, please adjust your . To find out more about how we use cookies, please see our Cookie Guide. The fuel to the fire is the chequered perception of Sweeney's politics. As with any starlet who has had a meteoric rise over a handful of years thanks to high-profile roles in The White Lotus, Euphoria and Anyone But You, most aspects of Sweeney's life has come under scrutiny. In 2022, Sweeney was criticised for a series of photos she posted from a family party for her mother's 60th birthday. In one picture, Sweeney had posed alongside her mother, her grandmother and a man wearing a Blue Lives Matter t-shirt. The Blue Lives Matter movement emerged as a counter-argument to Black Lives Matter and is perceived as a right-wing response to protests against police brutality of marginalised communities. Partygoers at the country western-themed event had also worn MAGA parody caps which read 'Make Sixty Great Again'. Sydney Sweeney attends The Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute benefit gala celebrating the opening of the "Karl Lagerfeld: A Line of Beauty" exhibition on Monday, May 1, 2023, in New York. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP) Credit: Evan Agostini / Evan Agostini/Invision/AP At the time, Sweeney responded to the furore, 'You guys this is wild. An innocent celebration for my moms (sic) milestone 60th birthday has turned into an absurd political statement, which was not the intention. Please stop making assumptions.' Despite having previously spoken out in favour of reproductive choice and LGBTQI rights, Sweeney is sometimes seen as perhaps rocking secret right-wing politics and that her love of cars and country music is a signal to conservative voters. In the current controversy, online commentators have even raised the point that Sweeney's dog, Sully, is a German Shepherd, which is, frankly, non-sense. Leave the dog alone. What Sweeney has been upfront about is that she takes brand deals for the money. She said in a 2022 interview with The Hollywood Reporter, 'If I just acted, I wouldn't be able to afford my life in LA. I take deals because I have to.' She is or has been an ambassador for Kerastase, Laneige, Armani Beauty, Miu Miu, Tory Burch and more.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's new executive order promises to ‘unleash' law enforcement — but it won't make us safer
This Monday, President Donald Trump issued yet another executive order, this one titled 'Strengthening and Unleashing America's Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens.' As the ominous 'unleashing' in the title makes clear, the order's proposals, like so many 'tough-on-crime' approaches, are far more about indulging in cruel punitiveness than in actually reducing crime. The order's opening line makes it clear that safety is not actually the goal. 'Safe communities,' it says, 'rely on the backbone and heroism of a tough and well-equipped police force.' While data, like that in a recent study, 'Police Force Size and Civilian Race,' makes it clear that policing can help reduce crime, literature reviews such as those produced by the Campbell Collaboration also make it clear that aggressive tactics are unhelpful if not actually counterproductive — as shown in a 2024 paper, 'The effects of hot spots policing on violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis." Moreover, it is increasingly apparent that nonpolice interventions can also significantly reduce crime, quite likely more effectively than policing, with additional social benefits and far fewer social costs. In other words, this executive order is about retaliation, punishment and brutality. It is wrapped in the veneer of 'public safety,' but pushes policies that are often least likely to produce actual safety. The order appears to have two goals. The first half is about politics and messaging. It's an effort to wrest back the narrative about criminal legal reform in support of those who fly Blue Lives Matter flags and instructs the attorney general to do some things she lacks the legal authority to do. The second — and more troubling — half is about policy. It lays out more viable routes Trump may use to cripple reform efforts, although its generic language makes it hard to pin down precisely what it is threatening. The political message of the first half is clear: It argues that the proper way to fight crime is to empower legally unaccountable police to use harsh, aggressive tactics to ramp up the number of people in prison. These tactics may not advance public safety, but they are satisfying ways to exert control over disliked groups. The order starts by instructing the attorney general to create a mechanism to ensure that police officers are indemnified when 'unjustly' sued — something that is basically not needed. A majority of states already have laws indemnifying police officers, and a study in the New York University Law Review of 45 major police departments found that officers were indemnified in 99.98% of the judgments against them. This is about messaging, not policy, and the message is 'police should not be sued, and we stand behind those who are.' What follows in the order are proposals — most of which are outside what the president can do via an executive order, such as using federal resources to increase police officer pay, strengthen legal protections for the police, seek enhancement punishments for those who harm police, and invest in the security and capacity of prisons. In almost all cases, federalism rules prevent Trump from directly telling local governments how to do these things. The feds can try to nudge states via incentive grant programs, but historically states have often been relatively unmoved by such programs, and, other than currently appropriated discretionary funds, the funding would have to come from Congress (despite Trump's fight to get more power of the purse). But like with indemnification, the point here is less about the policy specifics and more about using the presidential bully pulpit to place police at the center of how we think about public safety, and to provide moral (if not financial) support for traditional aggressive styles of law enforcement. The second part of the order, parts 4 to 6, focuses more on actual policies that the Trump administration may be able to use to subvert reforms and entrench traditional, aggressive policing. Part 4 first seeks, at a minimum, to ramp up the infamous 1033 program, which funnels retired military gear to local police departments — it's how the Los Angeles school district ended up with grenade launchers. (It talks of sharing 'assets,' though what those assets are is unstated, and the legal pathway to sharing them is unclear.) The second section of part 4 is the one that has alarmed people the most, but perhaps not for the right reasons. This part calls on the attorney general and the secretary of defense to 'determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime.' This has raised the specter of Trump using the Insurrection Act to circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act (which generally forbids federal troops from engaging in police activity) to use the military to crush protests. Which is definitely possible! The federal response to protests in Trump's first administration were often heavy-handed, and Trump's then-defense secretary, Mark Esper, indicated that Trump wished the response had been more violent still (section 6 of the order, urging greater use of Homeland Security Task Forces, also points in this direction). But military tanks on the streets is an escalation that the military itself may resist and that would likely engender significant public pushback. Jess Pishko, a journalist whose beat is conservative sheriffs, has pointed to a different, and more insidious, possible goal here, one whose invisibility may make it harder to resist: a massive increase in surveillance, by linking the police and national security resources, and by expanding law enforcement's access to intelligence gathering resources. This sort of behind-the-scenes collaboration can greatly expand the reach of law enforcement, but in a way far less likely to spark political resistance than the 101st Airborne marching down Main Street. The last key part of the order, section 5, points to another angle Trump may hope to use: directing the DOJ to charge and sue reformers. The first part of section 5 appears to threaten reform politicians by seeking to file federal criminal charges against anyone who obstructs law enforcement from carrying out their duties (although what those charges could be is somewhat unclear). The language is confusing, so it may also just be saying that when reformers refuse to make arrests or file charges, the feds will step in when they can to do so themselves. (The overall tenor of the order, though, seems to caution against assuming the less-harsh perspective.) Perhaps more significant is the second part of section 5, which suggests that Trump also plans to use the civil rights 'pattern or practice' lawsuits that the Obama and Biden DOJs filed to target abusive police departments to target reformers instead. Their less-punitive practices, the argument goes, are in fact the real source of discrimination and civil rights violations. This could, among other things, result in local reformers getting pushed into consent decrees with the feds that significantly limit their discretion. All told, the order represents a serious effort to roll back reforms, both directly (by supplying military gear and by threatening reformers with criminal and civil investigations) and indirectly (by forcefully asserting the tough-on-crime perspective that law enforcement should be encouraged to act aggressively while remaining almost entirely free of any meaningful oversight). It is not a recipe for actual public safety. But it is one for oppressive cruelty and retribution. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lakeville Area Schools OKs $30,000 settlement on Black Lives Matter posters
Following a lawsuit involving posters featuring Black Lives Matter, the Lakeville Area Schools Board of Education approved a $30,000 settlement April 8. In a lawsuit filed more than two years ago, a group of residents alleged their First Amendment rights were violated when the school district allowed posters featuring 'Black Lives Matter' to be placed in classrooms, while not permitting the display of posters that read 'All Lives Matter' or 'Blue Lives Matter.' In a 5-1 vote, with board member Amber Cameron absent and member Carly Anderson opposed, the board approved the settlement April 8. 'We appreciate the many different perspectives shared. Lakeville Area Schools remains committed to continuing to partner with our families and community to provide a safe, respectful, engaging, rigorous, and collaborative learning environment where every student belongs, is valued and can succeed,' the district said in a statement provided Wednesday. Ahead of voting, Anderson said she felt the settlement approval was a premature decision, referencing the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in June to reverse the lawsuit's dismissal by a lower court. 'The Eighth Circuit decision was based on assuming that everything that the claimants were claiming could be possible in any scenario. And so to me, I believe we should have gone through the discovery process, which would have meant gathering all the information relevant to the case. In that situation, what I've understood from our legal counsel is that we are on very good footing, that they felt like what our district did was within the grounds of government speech, and that we had an excellent case,' Anderson said. In January, the Lakeville school board voted to remove the series of posters from district buildings. The posters are part of a series of 'inclusive' posters ordered by the district in 2021, two of which said 'Black Lives Matter,' and were distributed to staff members when requested. Upper Midwest Law Center represented plaintiffs Bob and Cynthia Cajune, Kalynn Kay Aaker, and Aaker's minor children in the lawsuit, which argued that the district violated their First Amendment rights 'by engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.' 'With the Eighth Circuit's decision clearly signaling that the school district's policy was constitutionally unsound, Lakeville Schools wisely reversed their policy and removed the posters from district facilities,' Upper Midwest Law Center said in a statement on its website. 'Because that was what the plaintiffs had sought in the lawsuit, they agreed to dismiss their claims in the settlement in return for the District paying $30,000 in legal fees to the Upper Midwest Law Center.' Lakeville North basketball coach John Oxton announces retirement High school hockey coach, Lakeville officer returns home 2 months after injury Jury convicts alleged ringleader of massive Feeding our Future fraud scheme Another Buck Hill skier wins Alpine worlds medal: Paula Moltzan High School Football: Cretin-Derham Hall hires Ben Burk as football coach
