“How can these [musicians] tour, write, perform, interview, sleep, eat, and eat, and f-ing work out—like how can they do it all and lead a team, and be a boss, and pay people, and be, like, so politically educated? Also, why the f-k are you looking to me for some political answer? You think I have the f-ing answer?” These words, spoken by American pop star Chappell Roan during an interview on Alex Cooper’s Call Her Daddy podcast, could not have landed at a worse time. The episode, released March 25, 2025, sparked uproar as fans and critics alike reacted to what they perceived as petulance and a stuck-up celebrity attitude.

Roan’s comments reignited a long-standing debate: should celebrities be expected to use their platforms for advocacy—and if so, what should that advocacy look like?

Despite the backlash, Roan’s career hasn’t faltered. Her music continues to thrive, while public discussion of her political disengagement has all but evaporated. This begs a deeper question: how much influence do celebrities truly wield in shaping political change, and does that influence translate into an obligation to speak out?

A woman with wavy blonde hair and red lipstick poses holding a fluffy white and brown cat, looking directly at the camera. Beside her is a screenshot of a Taylor Swift social media post with a long caption about voting, AI, and misinformation.
Taylor Swift's Instagram post discussing her voting for Kamala Harris. Image from Instagram.

The evidence suggests it does. According to CBS News, when Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris in 2024, the voter registration site vote.gov saw 405,999 visitors within 24 hours of her Instagram post. A year earlier, Swift had urged her fans to register, resulting in 35,000 new voter registrations. These outcomes show just how immediate and consequential a single celebrity action can be. And notably, this wasn’t complicated, exhaustive activism—it was as simple as posting on Instagram.

For stars like Roan, the resistance to political engagement often stems from feeling overburdened: touring, writing, performing, and managing a team already leave little room for more responsibility. Yet Swift demonstrates that advocacy doesn’t have to be burdensome to be effective. Small acts can ripple outward into profound civic impact. If simple gestures can spur tens of thousands to political action, then I assert celebrities should use their platforms to champion pressing issues of the moment.

And sometimes, that advocacy takes bolder, more directly political forms. At his Berkshire concert in August 2025, Irish singer-songwriter Hozier addressed the ongoing violence in Palestine, declaring: “Peace and safety and security for everybody in the Middle East means seeing a Palestine that’s free from occupation… it means seeing a Palestine that’s free from these cycles of genocidal violence, of ethnic cleansing, and it means seeing a Palestine that’s free to move towards meaningful self-determination and statehood.” Such moments remind us that celebrity advocacy can range from modest nudges to powerful interventions, each contributing to the broader struggle for justice.

Beyond influence and reach, I view celebrity advocacy as a cultural check on political power—particularly in the United States, where the First Amendment hangs constantly in the balance. What is permitted in mainstream media? What gets censored? Who gets censored? How far can satire and critique really go? These are questions celebrity figures help test, sometimes unintentionally.

Viktor Shenderovich, head writer of the once-aired Russian satirical program Kukly, told Politico: “Satire is the sharpest instrument of free speech. And the first thing all dictators do is crack down on freedom of speech because in a totalitarian state, you can crush the courts, you can crush elections; you can crush everything. But you can’t crush laughter.” His warning resonates in the American context. Recently, late-night host Jimmy Kimmel became a litmus test for free speech when he was suspended from air for nearly a week. His offense? A joke about Donald Trump’s performative grief following the death of Charlie Kirk.

“This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish,” Kimmel quipped. The Walt Disney Company made this statement regarding the suspension of the show: “Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country. It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive.”

What should have been a minor, ironic jab instead prompted censorship, revealing how fragile the space for critique can be. Although Kimmel ultimately reclaimed his show, the episode underscored how precarious—and vital—celebrity speech remains in the current political climate.

So, should celebrities be political? Yes. Must they be? No. There will always be stars like Chappell Roan, reluctant to assume the mantle of advocacy. But there will also be figures like Taylor Swift, Hozier, and Jimmy Kimmel, who recognize their influence and honor their celebrity by using it in service of larger causes. In the end, the choice may be personal, but the impact—when celebrities do step into advocacy — is resonant, far-reaching, and impossible to ignore.

Written by Madysen Moreno, a graduate student in the M.F.A. in Theatre - Arts Leadership program at Virginia Tech.