Today, it seems like politics creep into almost every aspect of life: no one is spared, even brands with no apparent connection to politics. Consumers carelessly label certain types of shoes as racist — sunglasses, right-wing white supremacists. While customers should have the right to withhold their business from companies whose values they do not support, many brands are inaccurately associated with parties or morals. The wrong person endorses the business, and what’s left is heavy damage control. However, a person or organization publicly using a brand is no indication that they represent the company’s values.
In the Oct. 11 episode of Saturday Night Live, host Amy Poehler, the cast and guest Tina Fey performed a cold open poking fun at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the “qualifications” needed to join. Fey, playing Kristi Noem, United States Secretary of Homeland Security, ended her bit about an ICE “job interview,” saying: “Then buckle up and slap on some Oakleys, big boy. Welcome to ICE.” After a beat filled with laughter, the sketch continued, but the sentence had a lasting effect on the audience whether they realized it or not.
In these few seconds before the next joke, the audience subconsciously made associations between not only Oakley and ICE, but also the stigma surrounding ICE.
Oakley is a sunglass brand commonly used in beach volleyball, baseball, snow sports and cycling. A division of Oakley — Oakley Standard Issue — sells high technology glasses and apparel for active military, veterans, fire fighters, emergency services, government personnel and police law enforcement. In creating this, Oakley’s target audience was those who serve our country, including enforcement that regulates law and immigration, which in principle, are necessary and honorable occupations. However, recent examples of police and ICE officers abusing their badges through racial profiling and unwarranted brutality tainted their reputation amongst the public and caused widespread anger.
Oakley released a series of glasses dedicated to police officers called the Thin Blue Line: a symbol used to support law enforcement. However, over time it has become associated with white supremacists and defenders of police brutality. In response to criticism over this product and its intentions, the brand made a statement in June 2020 on their official instagram account stating the company is “firmly against racism and discrimination of any kind.”
Since its release, the Thin Blue Line has come to represent more than its intended values. So while the company needs to be prepared for criticism, it is unfair for Oakley to be known solely as the “ICE” brand when they intended to support so many others: firefighters, war heroes and athletes.
In a Latino Immigrant National Attitude Survey in April and May of 2025, 16% of foreign-born Latinos reported avoiding calling the police, 15% reported avoiding public places such as parks and 14% reported avoiding speaking Spanish in public. This was all done in fear of ICE and questioning about their legal status, proving the immense stigma surrounding the organization. The word “ICE” elicits fear because of the discrimination and aggression that — in some cases — come with this branch of law enforcement.
With the media’s perception of ICE as terrifying sunglass-wearing racists, a similar reputation has latched on to Oakley that is hard to shake. This is not only bad for business but dangerous for society. It contributes to the tendencies of the public to quickly form assumptions, spread misjudgment and dismiss anyone with different views, deepening the political rift.
One could claim that these brands are inviting these associations. New Balance, a shoe and athletic-wear brand, has the reputation of leaning politically right and is often linked to white supremacy. The brand opposed the trade agreement, Trans-Pacific Partnership, that President Obama supported during his presidency. New Balance executive Mathew LeBretton voiced his thoughts after the 2016 presidential election: “The Obama administration turned a deaf ear to us, and frankly, with President-elect Trump, we feel things are going to move in the right direction.” The public interpreted the statement as a complete endorsement of President Trump and all his stances. In response, Trump opposers burned their New Balance shoes and flushed them down toilets. The brand faced more backlash when a white supremacist vlogger deemed New Balance “the official shoes of white people.”
But New Balance responded quickly, assuring the public that they have no tolerance for hate or bigotry. The statement explained that LeBretton was asked to comment only on the trade policy and that his response was taken “out of context.” The company explained, “As a 110-year old company with five factories in the U.S., and thousands of employees worldwide from all races, genders, cultures and sexual orientations, New Balance is a values-driven organization and culture that believes in humanity, integrity, community and mutual respect for people around the world.”
Although the brand only referred to the trade agreement, people understandably inferred “with President-elect Trump, things are going to move in the right direction” as a complete endorsement. Nevertheless, New Balance did not deserve the label of white supremacy thrust upon them. People are impressionable beings, so when they heard a white supremacist designate New Balance as the official “white person shoe,” the public was quick to label the shoe brand as such.
The company continued to demonstrate their opposition to white supremacy with releasing their “We Got Now” campaign, a series of commercials and advertisements featuring a diverse array of athletes such as tennis player Coco Gauff, footballer Bukayo Saka, WNBA player Cameron Brink and baseball star Shohei Ohtani. New Balance took their unwanted “endorsement,” and completely buried it under true representation of what their business is about.
Political polarization today is so inescapable that people feel the need to make clothing items pick a side. This fervor causes the public to quickly attach sometimes unwarranted labels on brands, especially if they see a renowned leftist or rightist use the product.
Society must move away from these generalized associations and — in some cases — baseless judgements because they only further the divide in our nation. If one feels obliged, they should be able to take their business elsewhere, but consumers must learn to be more discerning before they completely reject a brand simply for receiving unsolicited implications and attention.
