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

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less