Bad Bunny is a controversial pick for the Super Bowl – and that’s the point

After the NFL chose triple Grammy winner Bad Bunny as the halftime headliner for the upcoming Super Bowl on February 8, a backlash erupted among Donald Trump supporters and conservative commentators. The president criticised the entertainment lineup last week and said he would not attend the event.

Much of the backlash focused on the Puerto Rican rapper’s identity and politics. As the first solo Latino artist set to headline the Super Bowl halftime show, he was accused by critics of “not being an American artist” despite Puerto Rico being a US territory. Others took aim at his outspoken criticism of the Trump administration, arguing that such views had no place at this prestigious occasion.

The Super Bowl functions as a spectacle to promote ideas of US unity and patriotism through ritualised displays such as the national anthem, military flyovers and televised tributes to troops, visually linking sport to nationhood. Set against this backdrop, Bad Bunny’s selection becomes even more striking. Why would the US’s most important stage give space to an artist who so directly questions its dominance?

Bad Bunny made history with his recent album Debí Tirar Más Fotos which became the first predominantly Spanish-language release to win album of the year at the 68th Grammy Awards. He is also Spotify’s most streamed global artist for the fourth time in five years.

Bad Bunny’s rise is inseparable from his activism, which is woven into his artistic choices, television appearances and live performances. This commitment was on full display last Sunday at his most recent Grammy appearance, where he took the stage with the message “ICE out”.

His Debí Tirar Más Fotos album addresses Puerto Rico’s colonial history and ongoing struggles, a direct critique of US imperial power. The song Lo Que Pasó en Hawaii draws parallels between Puerto Rico and Hawaii, another land colonised by the US. These lyrics refuse to treat colonial harm as historical and instead frame it as ongoing and systemic.

Likewise, his NUEVAYoL music video stands as one of his most direct pro-immigrant provocation. Released on July 4 last year – Independence Day – it reimagines the Statue of Liberty draped in a Puerto Rican flag, recasting the monument as a site where liberation is actively reclaimed rather than merely symbolised. A Trump-like voiceover apologising to Latinos and recognising America as a continent, further sharpens the critique of the ongoing immigration crackdown, exposing the gap between US ideals and people’s realities.

More fundamentally, Debí Tirar Más Fotos grounds its anticolonial message in historically marginalised musical traditions. Bomba, plena, and salsa are genres rooted in Afro-Caribbean struggles and Black cultural traditions, but for a long time they were dismissed due to colonial attitudes. By putting these genres at the centre of his work, Bad Bunny protects Puerto Rican culture and reclaims its history, making it visible to the world.

Bad Bunny further intensified controversy recently by excluding the US from his world tour. He cited concerns about immigration enforcement around venues, particularly the risk posed to undocumented fans.

The decision framed safety as more important than profit. Critics questioned why he would play the Super Bowl while skipping US tour dates, while supporters argued the broadcast lets Latino people watch safely from home without risking detention or harassment.

Why is the NFL choosing BB?

Super Bowl entertainment decisions ultimately serve a clear goal: maximising profit and viewership. The NFL understands that controversy fuels conversation, and conversation fuels ratings. This strategy is not new.

Beyoncé’s 2016 performance referenced the Black Panthers and Black Lives Matter, igniting a backlash while dominating media coverage. Kendrick Lamar’s 2025 halftime show similarly confronted themes of systemic oppression and racial injustice.

Looking at the broader 2026 lineup, the NFL has paired Bad Bunny with Green Day, a pointed choice given conservative calls for an “All American” alternative. Green Day, in contrast, fit comfortably within the US cultural canon: white, English-speaking punk veterans embedded in rock history. Yet their recent performances, such as Coachella 2025, included overt political jabs at Trump and Maga.

Last week, Trump publicly criticised the lineup stating: “I think it’s a terrible choice. All it does is sow hatred. Terrible.”

Overall, selecting artists who generate cultural debate helps the NFL reach younger, more diverse audiences while dominating media cycles for months. This strategy acknowledges demographic shifts in US culture: the growing political and economic importance of Latino audiences, the changing nature of patriotism itself, and the reality that not all Americans view the Super Bowl through the same lens of national unity.

Risky business

When artists take clear political stances, they risk alienating segments of their audience. Public opposition to Trump, for example, frequently triggers coordinated boycotts, social media backlash, and online harassment. But late-night hosts like Jimmy Kimmel have shown how political commentary can ignite national debates while boosting attention and ratings.

For Bad Bunny, these risks appear deliberate, reflecting an authenticity that aligns his political stances with his artistic vision and public persona. His critiques of US colonialism, immigration policy and cultural erasure are inseparable from his music and performances, making his activism a central part of his identity rather than a marketing tactic.

By embracing these positions on the Super Bowl stage, he challenges traditional expectations of entertainment neutrality while amplifying underrepresented voices, particularly within the Latino community. This approach underscores a commitment to cultural and political truth, even when it invites controversy and threatens mainstream approval.

Flavia Cardoso received funding from the Chilean Government (Fondecyt 2016) and the Luksic Foundation in 2022.

Belinda Zakrzewska and Jannsen Santana do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.