The term ignorance is bliss has no greater sanctuary than in Hollywood. No one is less incentivised to challenge the status quo than those which have been treated so well by it. And yet, as the 2026 Grammys demonstrated, not all celebrities are willing to be silent. From podiums on stage to the streets, celebrities challenging institutions and conflict has been growing. But the question remains what is a “platform” worth if it does not cost the speaker the same risk as ordinary people? Crucially we must understand that celebrity endorsement is essential, especially when an audience is not guaranteed.
When it comes to protest, celebrities have, until recently, chosen silence. If Hollywood now ‘risks’ the performative side of protest, many have previously chosen luxurious lifestyles in exchange for political voices altogether. For years we have been sold curated, clean, urbanised futures, emphasising self-growth and quiet, despite its reliance on ignorant luxury. While promoted as idols for millions, these celebrities remain conditioned to political silence or neutrality. Often they are “just artists”, of whom have only the capacity to state that we must all learn to “love” each other.
To claim they are “just artists” is to ignore the reality of the modern celebrity ecosystem. It assumes creativity and fandom exists in a vacuum, separated from the society which feeds it.
But as history shows, ignorance is blissful until it risks exposure. Increasingly we have seen celebrities advocate for movements, especially when trying to promise authenticity. Nothing is more repetitive than ignoring protests until its politics affects your livelihood too.
At the Grammy’s 2026, it was no secret the topic of ICE and ongoing anti-immigration rhetoric had taken centre stage in an otherwise – bright, golden blinded award ceremony. From Bad Bunny to Olivia Dean, the message was clear: immigrants are not only welcome but responsible for much of the cosmopolitan culture we profit from. Their contributions provided an open door for others to stand up for those whose voices are often marginalised. Other Stars wore badges like “ICE OUT” on their outfits, echoing similar fashion attire to the “BE GOOD” pins at the Golden Globes weeks prior.
Within hours, headlines decorated these celebrities as brave allies against violent state corruption. Its sentiment mirrors previous stances, such as Black Lives Matter Protests, where we saw celebrities take to the streets, or post black squares on social media, clench fists in unity. However, six years later, we are still witnessing a rise in policies and rhetoric which justify racism, identity polarisation and violence. A paradox, whereby political consciousness, including celebrities themselves is evolving frantically, and yet the levels of overt corruption continues.
When a celebrity does consistently speak out, they risk complete exclusion. Their limelight and livelihood are constantly on the brink; a thin line between cancellation and idolship. Every action they exhibit is under surveillance, worth granted by its outcome profit.
But is this not always a risk?
True, “ordinary” activists don’t have media protection or guaranteed audiences, they risk not just their careers, but everything for justice.
For the Filton 24, many of whom were arrested in August 2024 for alleged criminal damage and violent disorder at an Elbit Systems site in Bristol, UK, they undertook a long term hunger strike in 2025. Severalhavespent months on remand and eventually turned to the ultimate “last resort”, using their own bodies as a form of protest. This wasn’t just a statement but a response to inhumane prison conditions, including censorship, the removal of prison jobs, and the fact that they were being held far beyond the standard six-month pre-trial custody limit.
The hunger strike became the largest co-ordinated action in British prisons since the 1981 Irish hunger strikes, stripping away protest movements to the startling image of starvation. Fortunately, in February 2026, the strike did lead to a victory. Many of the members were released on bail, and the most serious charges, like aggravated robbery, were acquitted.
However these activists face life-determinating consequences which are far more serious than social risks that many celebrities may face. If Filton 24 shows us the reality of state exclusion then, celebrity protest often shows us what the state tolerates. Nonetheless, it is still proof that when the state does silent opposition our integrity remains the final object unchallenged.
Crucially, therefore, celebrity advocacy requires positionality. “No human is illegal on stolen land,” Billie Eilish declared while accepting her Grammy for “Wildflower.” The following morning, the Tongva tribe noted that Eilish’s $3 million estate sits on their ancestral soil. While her message was vital, the disconnect remains: a failure to acknowledge how she too has been rewarded by the very systems she critiques. Activism is not just speaking out at an award ceremony or wearing a badge, but also actively seeing how your platform and institutions have privileged you.
Protest is standing against what the powerful don’t want you to see. Celebrities too are vulnerable. But their platform allows them something not all of us have – representation. It aids and strengthens their importance, forces those at the top to react and do something. But it is most needed when their platform is challenged.
Think of Sinead O’Connor, who in 1992 used her SNL platform to protest systemic abuse within the Catholic Church. There was no “safe” window, no guaranteed applause, but she still attacked a foundational power structure, at its most dangerous. Or Kneecap, who has continued to face censorship. cancellation and even prosecution to continue advocating against the ongoing genocide in Gaza. This unity walks directly in parallel with protests such as the Filton 24 activists and ongoing ‘ordinary’ protests. Not because of performance, nor saviour advocacy but because of a united link of risk.
True celebrity protest is therefore not defined by saying “this is bad” when the room is already in agreement. But when someone who benefits so largely from it challenges power, and faces the very real threat of exile. While artists like Olive Dean and Bad Bunny provided essential advocacy for the ongoing movement, the true test for all celebrities remains whether they can do the same if the doors are closed. If celebrities want to shine the light on the world’s atrocities, they must also be brave enough to take the risk of stepping out of Hollywood boulevard and critiquing its own institutions.
Author: Scarlett Morrison (she/her)
qmunicatemagazine.co.uk 