On September 10th, shortly after U.S. presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris concluded their closing statements after 90 minutes of intense exchanges on the National Constitution Center’s stage in Philadelphia, Taylor Swift endorsed Harris in a tweet, “I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them.” The pop star signs off her tweet as a “Childless Cat Lady,” poking fun at JD Vance’s infamous remark in a 2021 interview with Fox News.

Swift joins many celebrities who have made a presidential endorsement this election year, including Chappell Roan, Amber Rose, Elon Musk, and Charli XCX.

In recent election years, both Democrats and Republicans have relied heavily on celebrity support, as a now commonly referenced Study conducted by Harvard Kennedy School, published last August, suggests celebrity influence may impact elections.

What was once a part of counter-culture, now mainstream celebrities and top 40 artists face pressure to take stances on social and political issues. It is evident that social media has changed America’s political landscape and how we interact with celebrities. Many celebrities, especially younger millennials, and members of Gen-Z, have adjusted to these expectations, but still, some celebrities are hesitant to do so.

One of which is Micheal Jordan. In 1990, during the Senate race in his home state of North Carolina, Jordan refused to endorse Democrat Harvey Grant, stating “Republicans buy sneakers too.” The context and accuracy of this quote are debated, but it has arguably tarnished his reputation since. Despite this, in the 2020 ESPN documentary “The Last Dance,” Jordan defended his statement, saying “I wasn’t a politician when I was playing my sport. I was focused on my craft. Was that selfish? Probably. But that’s where my energy was.”

Whether or not Jordan and other celebrities who are hyper-focused on their craft are selfish may or may not be true. If they do not endorse a political candidate, that is not inherently wrong and I can appreciate their desire to stay neutral and not potentially offend some fans.

That is not to say social and political activism among celebrities is commendable. It certainly is. But it is unnecessary to pressure public figures who are not actively engaged in politics, since their agreeability may come from something other than a genuine place. Their activism is likely performative, so they can remain relevant, which is equally as selfish as those who avoid it.

In truth, activism among mainstream celebrities is less daring and contributive than it may seem because many are only regurgitating an already popular belief among their fanbase, such as Swift. The average “Swiftie” is a young woman belonging to the Democrat party. Both younger generations and the Democrat Party continue to express concern over climate change, so Swift does too.

In a 2020 interview with Variety, Swift stated that climate change is one of the most “horrific situations we find ourselves facing right now.” Yet in July 2022, Yard released a report of celebrities with the most carbon emissions from private jets with Swift being the worst offender, racking up 8,293.54 tonnes.

After receiving criticism online, Swift’s publicist told AP News that the mega-star “purchased more than double the carbon credits needed to offset all tour travel,” but Swift’s offsets may not be enough, as carbon offset programs have had little effect on the climate.

This hypocrisy among celebrities is what is to be expected when they’re pressured into contributing to social and political discussions. Expecting celebrities to express an informed opinion on such issues is to assume they are informed and care about them. The general public is not entirely at fault for this growing trend; politicians and media outlets have placed more value on the opinions of mainstream celebrities, whose understanding of the topic is often called into question, rather than those well-versed in current issues whose sincerity is notable.

Perhaps, if politicians weren’t as concerned with celebrity endorsements and the media didn’t pump out a plethora of celebrity coverage as a whole, the general public would respond by being more civically minded, shifting their attention to directly engaging with America’s political and social debates.