Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

"And the Oscar Goes To…": A Divided America

Opinion

"And the Oscar Goes To…": A Divided America
a golden statue of a man standing next to a black wall
Photo by Mirko Fabian on Unsplash

The Oscars have always been political, but this year, it promises to be one of the most politically charged awards shows in recent memory. It arrives at a time when the White House's dismantling of DEI programs and mass deportation raids have sent a ripple effect through all facets of American life, including Hollywood.

This is why the Dolby Theater, home to the 97th annual Academy Awards, will be the stage for two competing visions of America: one in which artists, not politicians, shape the culture and another in which the presidency seeks to define it.


At the center of it all is Netflix's cartel musical Emilia Pérez, the most nominated film at this year's Oscars. Directed by French filmmaker Jacques Audiard and loosely based on Boris Razon's 2018 novel Écoute, the film follows a feared Mexican cartel leader, played by Spanish trans actress Karla Sofía Gascón, who orchestrates their own disappearance to transition and start a new life as a woman.

Lauded by festivals for its artistic vision but criticized by others for misrepresenting Mexican culture, Emilia Pérez has become a lightning rod at the intersection of art and politics. If Karla Sofía Gascón, the film's star, becomes the first openly trans actress to win an Oscar, or if the film takes Best Picture as the first Spanish-language film to do so, it would be a direct rebuttal to a White House actively targeting transgender rights and undocumented Mexican immigrants.

The Merging of Politics and Pop Culture

This tension between culture and politics, Hollywood and Washington, is nothing new. Politicians have leveraged pop culture to tap into passionate fan bases and cultural conversations to gain clout for decades. At the same time, celebrities have used their platforms to inspire and shape policy from afar. But today, we're witnessing a complete collapse of those fiefdoms, where the distinction between the two has all but vanished.

Take, for instance, President Donald Trump's recent ousting of the Kennedy Center's leadership and assuming a 'tastemaker-in-chief' role, serving as the new chairman of America's premier cultural institution, in an attempt to dictate what kind of art is deemed 'American.'

Further blurring the lines between art and politics is the possibility of actor Sebastian Stan winning a Best Actor Oscar for portraying Trump in the film, The Apprentice while Trump himself watches from the White House. It's surreal, meta-commentary at the moment we're living in, where politics is entertainment and entertainment is politics, making it impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Award Shows as Political Stages

Meanwhile, award shows like the Oscars, Grammys, and Kennedy Center Honors double as political stages for artists looking to speak truth to power. Jane Fonda, for instance, received the Lifetime Achievement Award at this year's Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards and delivered a speech calling for resistance against divisive politics, saying, "Empathy is not weak or woke... woke just means you give a damn about other people."

Similarly, Richard Gere was recently honored with the International Award at the 2025 Goya Awards in Spain. In his acceptance speech, he criticized the political climate in the United States, referring to President Donald Trump as a "bully" and a "thug" and stating that the U.S. is "in a very dark place."

The Oscars have long been a cultural barometer, where every speech, montage, win, or snub is dissected as commentary on the state of American culture. But what's different now is the speed and intensity of the response. In an era in which a sitting president can react in real-time on social media and enact policies through executive orders, the Academy Awards are no longer exclusively Hollywood's biggest night — they have become a metaphorical tribunal where the industry's choices face instant scrutiny from the highest levels of power.

The Stakes of Oscar Night

With Mexico's borders and trans rights policed and politicized and a president looking to dictate artistic expression, this year's Oscars will show how politicians and celebrities use pop culture to influence public perception and shape national identity. A win for Emilia Pérez would serve as both a cultural statement and a direct challenge to Trump's policies, reinforcing Hollywood's commitment to diversity. It would affirm that stories centered on trans identity and Latino narratives deserve recognition at the industry's highest level.

Regardless of who wins or loses, the entertainment industry cannot separate itself from this political moment. When we hear, "And the Oscar goes to...," the answer will reveal more than just a winner. It will ultimately reveal where America's national identity is headed.

Jack Rico is an entertainment journalist, TV host, and media pundit with over two decades of experience covering Latinos in media and entertainment. Recently featured on ABC News' primetime special "Latinos in Hollywood" and co-host "Brown & Black" on CUNY TV, a limited television adaptation of our Webby-nominated podcast.


Read More

The U.S. Pentagon.

Buried in the 2027 NDAA, Section 224 could fundamentally reshape U.S.-Israel defense ties. Is Congress creating an irreversible military partnership?

Getty Images, Westend61

America Should Stay Single

As we wait to see what comes of ceasefire negotiations between the United States and Iran, the House just released its 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Buried within it lies Section 224, titled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” a provision representing what would be a radical departure from how we work with even our strongest allies, turning America’s relationship with a close collaborator into a permanent military-industrial integration. The U.S. has worked with NATO partners on co-production and shared supply chains in the past, but never like this. Many are calling it a merger. We should all be calling it off.

Section 224 could inextricably link the fate of our country’s defense to another’s. The Secretary of Defense would be directed to designate an executive agent to fuse ventures with Israel so significantly that it would touch almost every area of defense tech: AI, autonomous systems, energy, cyber, biotech, and beyond. It also proposes “network” and “data fusion,” which means, as the director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute warned, “the U.S. military’s data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.America First may soon sound more like a sarcastic punchline than a platform.

Keep ReadingShow less
AI Could Save Thousands—So Why Is Healthcare Still Hitting the Brakes?

Discover how generative AI in healthcare could reduce misdiagnoses, improve chronic disease management, and save hundreds of thousands of lives—if policymakers accelerate adoption instead of waiting for risk-free perfection.

Getty Images / Pakorn Supajitsoontorn

AI Could Save Thousands—So Why Is Healthcare Still Hitting the Brakes?

Imagine that the only way Americans traveled was on foot or on horseback. And assume that 100,000 people died each year because they couldn’t reach a hospital in time or firefighters arrived too late.

Suddenly, they learned that thanks to a technological breakthrough, cars and trucks will become widely available within three years.

Keep ReadingShow less
This 3D rendered image shows a central AI processing chip sitting atop a glowing blue printed circuit board.

Can AI profit-sharing help workers? Examining public wealth funds, AI taxes, economic transition policies, and the future of work.

Jason marz / Getty Images

There’s No Easy Path Through the AI Transition

“Trending” policy ideas tend to garner attention for all the wrong reasons: they seem like silver bullet solutions that will save us from taking on much harder reforms. Proposals to share profits from leading AI companies with the public are the latest example. It’s the rare policy scheme that seems to have united President Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders, and CEOs at the leading AI labs. While the proposals for AI profit sharing vary in their precise details, a quick review of their likely outcomes should quickly deflate the popular excitement that has formed in response to calls for new taxes, public wealth funds, and the like. It’s important to reveal such limitations so that the AI policy discourse can move on to mechanisms more likely to address the real concerns of the American people.

In our first hypothetical world, the two leading AI labs—Anthropic and OpenAI—give away 3% of their equity. That’s not nothing! Based on current figures, such a contribution could kickstart a public wealth fund of about $55 billion. Let’s then imagine that fund earns 10% a year (a big “if” but let’s run with it). Per The Economist, this AI would reach a staggering $140 billion within ten years. How much would that benefit Americans? If annual payouts were 4% — what the publication reports is a proper amount to keep the fund going and growing — Americans would have an extra $20 in their pocket.

Keep ReadingShow less
For Imre Huss, Fixing Democracy Starts With Talking to a Stranger
a couple of people sitting at a table with cups of coffee

For Imre Huss, Fixing Democracy Starts With Talking to a Stranger

The Democracy Architects Council, presented by The Bridge Alliance Education Fund and Civics Unplugged, offers a paid, one-year fellowship for eight fellows ages 18 to 28, each selected for their work across a distinct sector of democratic life.

The youngest member of the Democracy Architects Council is building AI-powered civic tech, but he says the real work of democracy still happens face to face.

Keep ReadingShow less