Performative activism is ruining the Grammys
What action have celebrities taken to back up their statements?
Addison Lowry
Music’s biggest night, the Grammys, is full of fan-favorite celebrities, eye-turning red carpet looks and debates about who is most deserving of the prestige of being a Grammy-winning artist. The 15.4 million viewers of the 2025 Grammy Awards may have noticed a notable theme at this year’s show: the Grammys are political.
This year the 2025 Grammys were dedicated to supporting those affected by the Los Angeles wildfires. LA Firefighters were welcomed to present Album of the Year to Beyoncé. Host Trevor Noah spent the evening urging everyone to donate to MusiCares Fire Relief. The problem was not raising awareness for wildfires, the problem seemed to be that many middle people felt offended that they were watching the Grammys and were being asked by those in more privileged positions to donate money. While Noah did specifically ask those in attendance to donate, many took to social media to share their opinions, saying, “I find it gross the Grammy’s are asking regular, everyday people to donate money, especially knowing the tariffs starting Tuesday, while shouting out corporations like Amazon for donating in the same breath.”
Noah specified that they were not asking for large donations but that any amount, even a dollar would benefit those affected by wildfires. However, the website linked on the TV cast had a minimum of a $5 donation , although this was later fixed.
Raising money for those millions who have been affected by the LA wildfires is in no way inherently political. Viewers may have felt bombarded by being asked for donations, but it was the number of calls for activism in acceptance speeches that had many, digging into celebrities past to see just how performative the Grammys are.
When celebrities use their platforms to show support for marginalized communities, or when they speak out against corrupt governments, they are both praised and scrutinized. Activism is an important part of change, and it is crucial that those with platforms use them. However, watching a three-hour program of rich people dedicating speeches to different groups one after another looks superficial. Why does everyone who wins an award feel the need to make a politically charged statement? Is it because it is trendy to do so? Do they truly believe in the causes they are advocating for, and if so, what else have they done to support those causes?
It costs nothing to make a statement after winning a Grammy award; it is essential that artists put their money where their mouth is.
Chappell Roan has become an artist known for making statements, both political and controversial. It was not surprising to see her call out record labels in her acceptance speech for Best New Artist: “I told myself if I ever won a Grammy and I got to stand up here in front of the most powerful people in music, I would demand that labels and the industry profiting millions of dollars off of artists would offer a livable wage, and healthcare especially, to developing artists,” she stated. Roan spoke about how she struggled after being dropped from her record deal that she signed as a minor. For young hopeful artists, Roan followed up her claims with a 25-thousand-dollar donation to Backline, a mental health support system for artists and their families.
Shakira made possibly one of the most noteworthy comments of the night in her acceptance speech for Best Latin Pop Album. Shakira chose to dedicate her speech to immigrants, a seemingly contentious issue since President Donald Trump took office. Shakira received the Crystal Award in 2017 for her humanitarian work and has been known to donate heavily. Shakira’s speech was well received; she was praised for raising awareness and spreading love to a community who could be feeling under attack. While representation is important it is also important to take action, and the Grammy viewers will look forward to seeing what action Shakira follows her speech with.
The most commendable statement made on the Grammy stage was by Charli XCX. Chari closed the evening with a performance of her hit songs “Von Dutch,” and “Guess.” Her performance was filled with notable moments, including raining underwear. During the performance a message on screen clarified that the underwear will be donated to survivors of domestic violence. Without saying anything, Charli’s statement inspired many to donate to the I Support Girls Foundation, as well.
Deemed political by some and simply statements by other, LGBTQ+ rights got screen time as well. Lady Gaga debuted her new music video for “Abracadabra,” Gaga’s music videos are known to include a diverse group of background dancers. Afterwards, while accepting the award for Best Pop Duo/Group Performance, Gaga stated, “Trans people deserve love, the queer community deserves to be lifted up. Music is love.” Along with Gaga, Ariel Loh held up a message on her phone saying “Protect Trans Kids.” Loh is an openly trans woman who also donned a watermelon purse on the red carpet, in support of Palestine.
Conservative leaning viewers may have turned away from the Grammys, not because the statements come off as performative, but because of the traditionally left-leaning views. Fear not conservatives, Joy Villa returned to the red carpet with a statement of her own. Villa is known for her statement dresses on the red carpet, this year choosing to wear a red “This Hat Stays On” hat, and sharing her support of deportation with reporters on the red carpet: “’I think that the ones that are being deported should be deported.”
While viewers may have missed Villa’s statements as she was not nominated for any awards during the main ceremony, Villa has historically valued shock factor as a means of activism. In 2018 Villa wore a dress that pictured a fetus to support anti-abortion laws. Villa financially supports the organization Save the Storks. While it is unclear if Villa donates to any organization directly related to deportation , Villa’s dresses alone show that she is committed to her causes.
The 2025 Grammys experienced a decrease in viewership from the previous year as 2.5 million less people tuned in this year than last. It was the fourth lowest-viewed ceremony in 25 years. Politics are not going anywhere, but viewers are. To make an effective statement you need to play the game. Activism in the form of donations, hiring diverse backup dancers and celebrating trans artists’ support actually makes a difference. Allow those who disagree with the politics of Hollywood to be able to tolerate the show, and they’ll watch activism they don’t even notice. What’s more of a “gotcha” than viewers celebrating the wins of people they may actually disagree with? Silence is not the answer, it never will be. However, the activism that currently embodies the Grammys is too performative. Show me action.
Words are not enough; we want action from those who can afford it. The most powerful action is the action that does not need to be paraded around or need to be acknowledged. Sometimes when celebrities in influential positions speak out, it is hard to discern if they care seeking change or applause. When a celebrity knows they will be applauded for their words, their speaking out is about them. True activism does not come from a celebrity who wants to be seen as an activist. It comes from selfless acts and actions. No matter what Grammy winners say, their speeches are still about them, it is their action alone that makes a difference.
Album of the Year Ignites Fan Wars– Again
Did nobody listen to Cowboy Carter, or do they just not listen to Beyoncé?
Grace Mculloch
Fan wars and heated debates are never not going to be a result of annual award shows. Music is a very personal experience that evokes strong feelings and emotions, and everybody wants to see their favorite artist be recognized for their work. However, when personal listening habits turn into vicious biases, it is important to take a step back and acknowledge that just because an artist didn’t make your Spotify Wrapped doesn’t mean they are undeserving of their accomplishments.
Pop music has almost always dominated the American musical atmosphere, but this year especially, the “pop girlies” had an admittedly amazing run. Sabrina Carpenter and Chappell Roan both shot up in popularity, Taylor Swift was still making headlines on her Era’s Tour and even Charlie XCX took the world by surprise with the beloved reception of her album “Brat”. However, when these are the types of artists we are surrounding our social media with, it can be easy to equate the music taste of our personalized “For You Page” with that of everybody else’s. How many times has the #1 song on the Billboard Hot 100 been a radio hit you’ve never heard before, because you use streaming services?
White, popular music may be more widely known, but that does not mean other genres of music are inherently unsuccessful. Although country music, especially non-white country music, is not as widely popular right now, there is no doubt that Beyoncé’s “Cowboy Carter” had a major impact on lesser known country artists. Many of the musicians featured on the album, such as Linda Martell, Brittney Spencer and Tanner Adell, had their careers revitalized, and their work thrust back into the spotlight. Additionally, “Cowboy Carter” sparked conversations about country music as a genre, and challenged the dominance of white musicians in it. Beyoncé pays homage to southern black history throughout her album, touching on the roots of country music.
Attempting to downplay the cultural impact, as well as the longevity “Cowboy Carter” will likely have by instead focusing on to discuss TikTok trends and streams as a marker of artistic merit borders on disrespect to the cultural significance music has as an art form.
All this to say, “Cowboy Carter’s” win does not disregard the success and recognition of any of the other nominated albums. There is sometimes a conversation around awards —jumping to the conclusion that if your nominated body of work doesn’t win, it must be bad. Being nominated for a Grammy Award is a huge achievement alone—I personally feel that there can often be arguments for several of the nominees to win, but isn’t that the point? The Grammy’s are supposed to be a celebration of “the best of the best,” but even then, there can only be one winner. It is normal to be disappointed when your favorite artist or work doesn’t win the award they were up for, but turning that personal disappointment into biased assertions that another artist must simply be undeserving of the award begins down a slippery slope.
