On a crisp morning in Manhattan, the social media feeds of millions lit up with a video that was as simple as it was explosive. One of the most recognizable faces in American television, Whoopi Goldberg, the legendary Oscar-winning actress, comedian, and co-host of The View, sat at her kitchen table, a mug of coffee in her hand. Her voice was calm, almost unnervingly so, but her message was as sharp and resolute as any she had ever delivered. “It’s just beginning,” she said into the camera. “I cannot—and will not—support American Eagle after what they’ve done with this ad. And I encourage others who care about respect, about culture, about fairness, to think twice before spending another dime on them.”

With that declaration, Goldberg launched herself—and the American fashion retailer—into the eye of a cultural hurricane. At the center of the storm? Actress Sydney Sweeney, whose new ad campaign for American Eagle is accused by critics, including Goldberg, of “disrespecting Black culture” through what they describe as tone-deaf imagery and misappropriated symbolism. What might have been a routine brand collaboration has now spiraled into a broader national conversation about celebrity responsibility, corporate accountability, and the increasingly combustible intersection of race, culture, and consumerism in modern America.

The ad in question was intended to be aspirational—at least according to American Eagle’s marketing team. Featuring Sydney Sweeney, the Emmy-nominated star of Euphoria and one of Hollywood’s rising icons, the campaign was designed to target Gen Z shoppers with what insiders described as “a blend of nostalgia and authenticity.” The brand, struggling to retain its cultural relevance in a saturated market, was betting on Sweeney’s undeniable star power to attract a new generation of buyers. But what was meant to sell jeans and crop tops instead sparked a furious backlash. In one widely shared image, Sweeney is styled against a backdrop critics argue draws heavily—and insensitively—from Black cultural aesthetics: braided hairstyles, graffiti-inspired designs, and urban motifs that many see as more caricature than homage.

The reaction was swift and fierce. “The whole thing just felt… wrong,” said activist and cultural critic Tanisha Greene in an interview. “It’s not about Sweeney personally—it’s about the system. You take a white actress, you package her in a watered-down version of Black culture, and then you sell it to teenagers. That’s exploitation dressed up as fashion.” This wasn’t a minor social media spat; it was a deeply felt critique about a pattern of behavior that has long plagued the advertising and fashion industries. The critics were not just offended by a single image; they were reacting to a history of what they see as corporate theft, a legacy of borrowing from Black culture for profit while offering little in return.

For Whoopi Goldberg, the campaign was not just another fleeting controversy—it was a tipping point. As a trailblazing Black woman in Hollywood, Goldberg has long used her platform to spotlight issues of race, representation, and systemic inequities in entertainment and business. Her decision to call for a boycott of American Eagle, however, represents a new escalation in her advocacy. She is a figure who understands the weight of her voice. She knows that when she says, “It’s just beginning,” it is not only a warning to American Eagle but also a rallying cry to consumers who want their dollars to align with their values. Dr. Elaine Hartwell of NYU, a media scholar, noted that Goldberg does not take such actions lightly. “She has a unique place in American media,” Hartwell explained. “When she speaks, people listen. Her endorsement of a boycott gives it a credibility and a staying power that a celebrity tweet could never achieve.”

So far, American Eagle has remained conspicuously silent. Requests for comment from major news outlets have gone unanswered, and the company has not released any official statement addressing the controversy. Silence, in today’s media climate, speaks volumes. For many critics, the lack of acknowledgment only deepens the perception that the brand either does not understand the gravity of the situation or is hoping it will simply blow over. But history suggests that such controversies rarely fade quietly. In 2018, H&M faced global outrage after releasing an ad featuring a Black child wearing a hoodie with the slogan “Coolest Monkey in the Jungle.” The backlash forced public apologies and corporate soul-searching. Goldberg herself referenced this precedent, reminding her audience: “We’ve seen companies make these mistakes before. And every time, they say, ‘We didn’t know.’ Well, you should know.” Her message was clear: there are no more excuses.

Caught in the middle is Sydney Sweeney. The 26-year-old actress, known for her striking performances and wholesome-yet-edgy public persona, has so far remained quiet amid the storm. Her silence has fueled speculation: Did she know about the creative direction of the ad? Was she merely following instructions? Should she be held accountable, or is this fundamentally a corporate failure? “Actors don’t control the ad campaigns,” argued publicist Marissa Klein. “Sydney signed a contract, showed up, did the work. If we’re pointing fingers, let’s point them at American Eagle’s executives and their marketing team.” Still, for others, silence is complicity. Goldberg herself hinted at this, noting: “When your face is on it, you have to ask questions. You have to know what you’re representing.” The debate rages on, with some seeing Sweeney as a scapegoat for a company’s failure and others believing she has a responsibility to speak out.

The controversy is not just about jeans or an actress. At its core, this is another flashpoint in America’s long, unresolved struggle with cultural appropriation in media and commerce. For decades, fashion and advertising industries have borrowed—sometimes stolen—elements of Black culture, repackaging them for mainstream consumption while often excluding or undercompensating the communities that originated them. From the use of hip-hop aesthetics in the ’90s to the corporate takeover of streetwear in the 2010s, the pattern has been strikingly consistent. “Appropriation without acknowledgment is exploitation,” said Professor Malik Johnson of Howard University. “And when you pair that with billion-dollar corporations profiting off aesthetics that Black communities have lived and died for, it becomes not just offensive but systemic theft.” The stakes for American Eagle are high. The brand, once a dominant force in American malls, has struggled to retain its cultural relevance in the age of fast fashion and online disruptors. A misstep like this risks alienating both its Gen Z consumer base—one of the most socially conscious demographics in retail history—and communities who feel targeted rather than respected.

If Goldberg’s boycott gains traction, it could inflict lasting reputational damage. Social media campaigns calling for boycotts have crippled companies before. In the hyper-connected world of TikTok and Twitter, consumer sentiment can shift overnight, leaving brands scrambling to repair relationships. The coming weeks will be pivotal. Will American Eagle issue a public apology and commit to tangible changes in its creative process? Will Sydney Sweeney break her silence, clarifying her role and perspective? Or will the brand double down, betting that controversy will translate into short-term visibility and, ironically, sales? Goldberg, for her part, appears committed to seeing this through. “It’s not about canceling anyone,” she emphasized. “It’s about accountability. It’s about making sure that when we say ‘representation matters,’ we mean it.” At its heart, this controversy is about more than a single ad campaign. It is about the power of images, the politics of representation, and the responsibility of corporations in an era where consumers demand both style and substance. Whoopi Goldberg’s decision to boycott American Eagle is not just a celebrity outburst—it is a reminder of the stakes in America’s ongoing cultural reckoning. Whether or not the boycott succeeds in changing the retailer’s practices, it has already reignited a national conversation about who gets to profit from culture, and at what cost.