“Before I say thanks to God, I’m gonna say ICE out,” said Bad Bunny, wearing custom Schiaparelli, while accepting his Album of the Year award during Sunday night’s Grammys ceremony. “We’re not savages, we’re not animals, we’re not aliens, we are humans, and we are Americans.”
He wasn’t alone in using his time on stage to speak out against the violence happening across the US. Olivia Dean, in Chanel, spoke about her immigrant roots. “I’m a product of bravery and I think those people deserve to be celebrated.” And Billie Eilish, in custom Hodakova — complete with an ICE Out pin — told attendees that “no one is illegal on stolen land”.
On the carpet, high-profile celebrities from Justin and Hailey Bieber to Kehlani wore ICE Out pins, a signal of protest as tensions in Minneapolis and beyond continue to rise. The ceremony came fresh off the heels of last Friday’s National Strike — no work, no school, no shopping — in solidarity with Minnesota and other areas impacted by violence from ICE. On Friday, brands including Brandon Blackwood, fine jewelry brand Mazahri and stores Mr Larkin (Houston) and Rocha (Austin), shut down for the day in support of the general strike. Other brands, like New York-based Kallmeyer, donated a portion of Friday’s sales to organizations that support immigrant rights and legal aid; beauty brand Dieux donated 100%, after raising money for Minnesota schools in the preceding weeks. Marc Jacobs shared an Instagram post with tips on ways to join the strike if you had to work.
These actions of solidarity — primarily from independent brands and high-profile celebrities — feel increasingly necessary as political tensions heighten and violence mounts. “Brands and celebrities speaking out reflect the growing groundswell of outrage and fear that everyone in America is feeling — whether for ourselves, our loved ones, or our communities,” says Danielle Silber, director of strategic partnerships for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which helped spearhead the ‘Be Good’ and ‘ICE Out’ campaign across the Golden Globes, Sundance and, most recently, the Grammys.
“Musical artists are their own brands and like independent brands, understand the need to speak out and relate to their audiences,” says Sara Arnell, brand strategist and adjunct professor at New York’s Parsons School of Design. “Highly publicized forms of protest by celebrities normalize speaking up or speaking out, provide the language of participation (like Ice Out) and set a tone that brands can follow and support. It brings speaking out into collective alignment and belonging.”
As things continue to heat up, and businesses strike and celebrities speak out, bigger brands and conglomerates are left in a tougher spot than they may have anticipated, as consumers assess whether they align with their own views and values. One can’t help but think back to 2020 — the last time there was a cross-industry general strike in the United States — when brands, large and small, spoke out about racism in the US. Nike took a stance with its “For Once, Don’t Do It” ad, and designers including Alessandro Michele (then at Gucci) and Marc Jacobs showed solidarity for the Black Lives Matter campaign on their personal accounts.
Since then, though, brands have gone relatively quiet. It’s rarer to see fashion brands speak out about political issues these days — especially those backed by conglomerates. Still, 71% of consumers say a brand ‘must take a political position’, according to research from Edelman. When a brand doesn’t communicate its actions on social issues, 51% of Edelman survey respondents said they ‘take this to mean the brand is doing nothing or hiding something’.
This is especially true at this moment. Customers were receptive to Mr Larkin’s Friday closure, says designer and founder Casey Larkin Blond, which somewhat surprised her, having had negative commentary in response to political content in the past. “I’ve always had people write, ‘why don’t you stick to fashion?’ and things like that…even on things that are not even very radical. But now, nothing,” she says. “I feel like people are really paying attention.”
Still, speaking out can be risky, says Sam Cummins, co-host of fashion and culture podcast Nymphet Alumni. “Drawing attention to a brand’s moral values is tricky, since it’s very common for brands, especially large ones, to have some dirty laundry,” she says. “Consumers are often suspicious of brand solidarity.”
It’s even less straightforward than it was six years ago. As conservatism retains a stronghold in the cultural sphere, brands risk alienating large — and vocal — consumer segments should they take a strong and definitive stance in the other direction. Most notably, fashion companies are operating in an environment where they fear repercussions should they espouse sentiments that don’t align with those in power. Yet when it comes to human rights, does there come a point when brands must speak up?
The onus
Fashion is a capitalist industry, and large brands with big client bases spanning the political spectrum have more to lose if they were to take a stance on a political issue. Smaller and independent businesses are more flexible, Arnell says. “They can make decisions faster in order to capitalize on the moment at hand. They have the autonomy to align their brand with the values of their audience — or desired audience,” she says. The big multi-national luxury brands, on the other hand, are more cautious by virtue of their makeup. “They have board issues and operational issues and the focus on cultural moments will be through the lens of managing risk.”
Because conglomerate-backed luxury brands shy away from speaking out, the burden falls on smaller brands to resist and ‘get political’. This is nothing new, founders point out; it’s always been the smaller, independent players who have been the most politically active. “The bigger ones come in at the end when it becomes more performative,” Blond says.
Instagram content
For larger brands, it can be a lose-lose situation, experts warn. If they take a vague stance that goes no deeper than a post or statement, they risk hollowing out the messaging, Arnell cautions. Cummins agrees, noting that the mainstream has caught onto the fact that, when large corporations do speak up, it often comes from a cynical place. “Walmart has one aim: to grow and profit by any means necessary,” she says. “Big brands have realized it’s safer to lay low during times of strife, since they can easily catch strays from people who are frustrated with the system, and these companies often represent a distorted version of it. The average person now feels patronized when big brands posture charity.” It’s a sentiment that cuts across political affiliations, she adds.
Brands are conscious of this. Mr Larkin’s Blond has friends in the industry who, she says, feel advocacy can be performative if they’re not generally ‘political people’. “So they just don’t [speak out] because they’re like, am I just following the crowd because they’re doing it — even though I believe this is wrong?”
Even so, following the killings of Renee Good, Keith Porter Jr., and Alex Pretti, larger businesses have begun to speak out — and take action — Silber says, likening this to the celebrities now taking a public stance. “Whether it’s Patagonia demanding Congress hold ICE accountable for the harm it’s caused, Lush stores urging their customers to stand up to ICE’s attacks, BCorps hosting a know your rights training for its 2,000 member companies, or Bad Bunny declaring “ICE OUT” at the Grammys, it’s clear that we’re at an inflection point as a country,” she says. “While it can feel daunting to speak out in the face of threats, other non-violent movements have shown us that collective action is what best protects our rights in the long run.”
Proximity matters
When it comes to weighing in, proximity matters — to both the cause but also to the consumer.
Whereas the majority of the businesses that went on strike, and celebrities who have spoken out, are US-based, many fashion companies are not. Luxury conglomerates are, by and large, foreign entities, says Thomaï Serdari, professor of fashion and luxury marketing at NYU’s Stern School of Business. “While they operate and gain a lot on American soil, they risk sounding impertinent if they take a stand against a different country’s politics.” Mr Larkin, on the other hand, stocks Los Angeles-made brands that have been impacted by ICE raids. The Houston store is sandwiched between neighboring restaurants that have protocol for their staff in case ICE comes to the venues. “It’s not just on your TV,” Blond says.
There’s also a level of dissonance between consumers and conglomerates, experts flag. After all of the talk — and subsequent backpedalling and silence — of 2020, consumers are less receptive to symbolic or empty gestures. Smaller brands, on the other hand, are more accessible and transparent.
“One of the great things about small brands is the intimacy they can build with their customer base,” Cummins says. “With smaller brands, there’s a sense of familiarity. You can DM an independent designer, but God knows how anyone could get in contact with [a luxury CEO].”
The neutrality question
The question, then, is whether a large corporation, removed from a personal identity, has a place in politics. But neutrality in 2026 is near-impossible, Arnell says. “In this environment, silent brands will be suspect, as if they have something to hide, or be seen as just not caring at all. Neither is good,” she says. “There’s no more quietly reducing policy language as we saw in 2020. Events like the day of protest, strikes and the Grammy Awards have raised the bar. Brands can’t hide from what’s happening.”
Still, it’s not as simple as opting in or out, which is glaringly apparent in luxury brands’ approach to dressing the current administration. When discussing Melania Trump’s relationship with luxury brands, stylist Bailey Moon recalled working on the brand side during Donald Trump’s first term. “She would wear things and we would just kind of be like, ‘ugh, OK’, and you just don’t do anything about it because you can’t prevent a customer from buying the clothes.”
Though Serdari doesn’t believe neutrality is possible at the individual level in 2026, she’s less convinced when it comes to company action. “There are many more complexities that define each business and consumers don’t necessarily have the full picture,” she says.
Whereas conglomerates are limited in their actions by corporate red tape, smaller brands left to take action are limited by sheer capacity. Though Blond has always imbued her work with politics, she understands founders who simply don’t have the capacity to do so. “When you’re this one man show and [you’re an] indie business and you’re hanging on by a thread as it is, it’s hard. You’ve got kids and you’ve got to go to the grocery store, you have to make it.” But she still carves out the time.
Cummins likens neutrality to apathy. Both are dangerous. “It’s easy to become jaded or ironically detached from major causes because of past fumbles,” she says. “That’s why transparency and simplicity can feel hopeful. A platitude can be delivered with concealed cynicism, but something measurable and quantifiable, like a monetary donation or participation in a strike, can give people a sense of hope.”
More from this author:
Post-Versace, Capri Beats Sales Expectations
