When the NFL, Apple Music, and Roc Nation announced that Bad Bunny would headline the Super Bowl LX halftime show on February 8, 2026, the choice reverberated far beyond the stadium in Santa Clara. What might once have been a routine reveal has instead become a battleground in America’s culture wars.

Within days, multiple petitions surfaced online demanding that country music legend George Strait replace Bad Bunny. One petitioner put it bluntly: “The Super Bowl halftime show should unite our country, honor American culture, and remain family-friendly.” That claim — nested in nostalgia, good faith, and concern — opened a wider debate about identity, representation, and who deserves America’s greatest television stage.

How a decision about a musical performer turned into a national flashpoint is a story of alliances, backlash, and the collision of art and politics — one that reveals as much about the current moment as about any halftime show.
The Official Call: Bad Bunny to Headline

On September 29, 2025, the NFL formally announced that Bad Bunny would be the headliner for the Super Bowl LX halftime show. (Reuters) The event is scheduled to take place at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California. (Wikipedia) In the joint announcement, the league and its partners emphasized his global appeal, the possibility for cultural crossover, and the significance of an artist whose work resonates deeply in Latinx communities. (Reuters)

The show will be produced by DPS, with Roc Nation and Jesse Collins as executive producers, and the performance directed by Hamish Hamilton. (Wikipedia) Bad Bunny, in his official statement, tied the gig to heritage: he framed it as an opportunity to elevate not only his music, but the stories, languages, and cultures that have shaped him. (Reuters)

Within hours, the reaction was not uniform joy. Voices from left, right, and center began weighing in — heralding the choice as a breakthrough, criticizing it as political posturing, or questioning its cultural logic.
The Petition Surge

One of the most visible backlash efforts came in the form of Change.org petitions calling for Bad Bunny’s removal. (Change.org) Among them, a petition titled “Replace Bad Bunny with George Strait for the 2026 Super Bowl Halftime Show” quickly gained traction. (Change.org) Its language is telling:

“The Super Bowl halftime show should unite our country, honor American culture, and remain family-friendly, not be turned into a political stunt. Bad Bunny represents none of these values… George Strait embodies unity, tradition, and the timeless American music that truly deserves the 2026 Super Bowl spotlight.” (Change.org)

At the time of writing, this petition has surpassed 10,000 signatures. (Change.org) Another petition, with a narrower goal of “Prevent Bad Bunny from performing at the Super Bowl,” also exists but has gathered far fewer supporters. (Change.org)

Media outlets reported that “some fans are taking drastic measures” to press for a switch. One petition starter, named Kar Shell, told TMZ that she believed Bad Bunny’s style — including his drag-inclusive performances — diverged from what she considered acceptable for a stadium audience on a Sunday night. (TMZ)

These petitions did more than rattle off signatures. They crystallized a worldview: that the halftime stage should reflect a (some would say nostalgic) American canon, anchored in country and conservative ideals, rather than evolving global tastes.
Why George Strait? A Symbol Chosen

Why target George Strait specifically? The petitions are revealing on that point. Strait, a titan of country music for decades, is held up as embodying “American heritage,” “unity,” and “family-friendly entertainment.” (OutKick)

For many supporters, he represents a kind of musical baseline — a “safe” figure whose style is unlikely to offend or provoke. The petition’s framing suggests that obedience to tradition matters more than the cutting edge of music, identity, or representation.

But present-day reality complicates that nostalgia. Strait has largely retreated from large-scale performances and is in his seventies. (OutKick) Whether he would want or be able to mount a new stadium show at this scale is highly debatable. Even critics of Bad Bunny acknowledge the logistical improbability of a last-minute replacement. (OutKick)

Moreover, the petition itself seems to depend on binaries: “Bad Bunny or George Strait,” “progressive or traditional,” “authentic or controversial.” But the musical world is rarely so rigid.
Cultural Backdrop: Latinx Identity, Language, and Politics

To understand why Bad Bunny’s selection ignited such heat, one must grasp the broader currents it intersects with.
Language and Representation

Bad Bunny performs largely in Spanish. His selection as a halftime headliner marks a rare instance of a predominantly Spanish-language artist commanding one of America’s most-watched broadcast platforms. That decision alone carries symbolic weight — and threat — in a nation where language has been contested terrain for centuries. (Wikipedia)

Critics argue that non-English performance undermines the “common culture” of the U.S., while supporters see it as overdue acknowledgment of Latino presence. Jennifer Lopez, for instance, defended him by saying, “Art transcends language.” (People.com)
Political Posture

Bad Bunny is not silent on politics. Earlier in 2025, he declined to tour in the U.S., citing concerns about immigration enforcement and ICE raids. That decision, along with occasional criticisms of U.S. policies affecting Puerto Rico and Latin America, has made him a polarizing figure in certain political circles. (Reuters)

To some conservative voices, he represents a cultural disruption or even provocation. They argue he brings “political messages” onto the field of entertainment. To others, those criticisms reveal a deeper resistance to representation and diversity.
Culture-War Framing

Criticism of the halftime pick is not limited to grassroots petitions. Prominent politicians have weighed in. House Speaker Mike Johnson called the choice “terrible” and suggested the patriotically inclined Lee Greenwood as an alternative. (EW.com) Former President Donald Trump publicly derided the decision as “absolutely ridiculous,” claiming he had never even heard of Bad Bunny. (New York Post)

These reactions reflect something larger: the halftime show has become a proxy in the broader “culture wars” — a fight over who gets to represent “America” in the 21st century.
What the NFL and Producers See

From the league’s perspective, the Bad Bunny pick makes sense on several fronts — commercial reach, global branding, and audience expansion.

Bad Bunny is one of the most-streamed artists globally, with huge influence well beyond U.S. borders. (OutKick) Choosing him aligns with the NFL’s push into new markets, especially Latin America.

Moreover, the league typically avoids public changes once a headliner is confirmed — contracts, logistics, rehearsals, and production costs are deeply committed. One critic framed this as: “The NFL wants the attention; they don’t want the fight.” (OutKick)

The league has not publicly answered the petitions or threats of boycott. But the momentum already created — from viral petitions to political commentary — has forced the halftime show into national discourse far earlier than many performances enter conversation.
Responses and Defenses

Bad Bunny’s Position

During an “Saturday Night Live” monologue, Bad Bunny responded to critics with humor and defiance. He told detractors who don’t understand Spanish that they have “four months to learn.” The line was cheeky, defiant, and intentionally provocative. (People.com)

He’s also publicly tied the performance to Puerto Rican identity, emphasizing that the moment carries cultural weight for his community. (Reuters)
Supporters in Entertainment

Some of his peers have spoken up. Jennifer Lopez defended him in interviews, insisting that the Super Bowl is a platform for stories that challenge boundaries. (People.com) Others—especially Latinx artists and fans—see this as a long-overdue recognition rather than provocation.
Congressional Pushback and Counterprogramming

Politicians like Mike Johnson and Trump may amplify the controversy, but they risk reinforcing the petitioners’ narrative that this is not just about sport or music, but about values and symbolism. (EW.com)

Additionally, Turning Point USA — a conservative activist group — announced plans to create an alternate halftime program to run in parallel. (Wikipedia) The notion of counterprogramming at the Super Bowl is unprecedented in political terms and points to how high the stakes have risen.
Beyond the Petitions: Implications and Risks

Symbolic Gatekeeping

The petition logic suggests a gatekeeping model: only certain genres, identities, or styles deserve maximum visibility. That thinking sets risk thresholds for future artists: how “safe” can you be? How much deviation from tradition is tolerable?

If the NFL capitulates, or even wavers, it signals that cultural decisions on living stages are still vulnerable to ideological pressure.
The Slippery Slope of “Family-Friendly”

“Family-friendly” is frequently deployed as a moral trump card. But the term is vague: it can be wielded to exclude, to sanitize, or to police expression. Who decides what content is acceptable? And is the halftime show a concert or a staged television spectacle with broader expressive ambitions?
Representation vs. Popularity

Bad Bunny’s selection may not perfectly align with the taste of every viewer. But arguments against it that lean purely on identity — language, race, gender, style — risk collapsing into exclusion. If representation becomes conditional on universal appeal, the notion of diversity is undercut.
The Illusion of Reversibility

Contracts, production, logistics — these aren’t decisions made overnight. Even if public sentiment were overwhelmingly against the announcement, reversal would cost more than media narratives admit. The petitions, then, might function more as protest theater than real reversal campaigns.
Possible Futures

    No Change
    The NFL holds firm. The show proceeds with Bad Bunny. The petitions and political noise provide visibility but don’t alter outcome.
    Performance Modulation
    Producers might alter parts of the show — remove or soften segments critics find objectionable — to appease audiences, while keeping the overall headliner.
    Counterprogramming as Parallel Ritual
    Turning Point USA or others mount a live alternative broadcast, undercutting ratings and pushing a narrative of division.
    Future Policy Shift
    If the backlash is enormous, the NFL might commit to more culturally “neutral” headliners in subsequent years, such as cross-genre or bilingual acts.

What Fans Are Saying

On Reddit and social media forums, reactions run wide: from outrage to exasperation. Some users lament the politicization of entertainment, warning that artists are being dragged into identity battles they can’t win. Others celebrate the moment as overdue representation breaking into the mainstream.

One Reddit comment put it simply: “He’s Latino, he’s proud, he speaks out — and now he’s being punished for it on football’s biggest stage.” (Reddit)

Another asserted: “Don’t pick someone only because they’re ‘safe.’ The halftime show should push boundaries, not reinforce them.”
The Weight of the Stage

The Super Bowl halftime is more than a performance slot; it’s a national megaphone. Every note, every costume, every camera cut is magnified. The artist must deliver spectacle and meaning in equal measure, for an audience that includes children and critics alike.

Choosing Bad Bunny amplifies multiple messages: Latin representation, multilingual cultural presence, and the claim that the mainstream can bend to include voices long on the edge. The backlash — petitions, politics, protest — is a counterclaim: that the mainstream must look a certain way.

No matter how the performance goes, this moment has already become about more than the music. It’s about what America sees in itself at 5 p.m. on a Sunday: place, identity, tradition, disruption.
Epilogue: When the Lights Fade

In the weeks leading to February 8, 2026, the stage will be assembled, rehearsals will be scrutinized, and narratives will be locked in. The petitions will either fade into digital memory or be etched into halftime lore.

When the first note is struck, it will do far more than start a song. It will signal who we believe we are — a nation confident in its diversity, or a country still struggling over cultural gatekeeping.

Because when millions watch an artist light up that line between sport and spectacle, the question isn’t just who performs — it’s who belongs.

And tonight, that question is being asked not on the gridiron, but in social media threads, courtroom debates, and cultural memory.

Reuters
People.com
EW.com
New York Post