Lifestyle
The Met Gala has fueled backlash against stars who are silent about the Gaza conflict
Zendaya at the 2024 Met Gala in New York City. The actress is one of many celebrities whose name has appeared this week on social media “block” lists for not speaking out publicly about the conflict in Gaza.
Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images
Zendaya at the 2024 Met Gala in New York City. The actress is one of many celebrities whose name has appeared this week on social media “block” lists for not speaking out publicly about the conflict in Gaza.
Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images
A collective effort on TikTok and other social media platforms to push celebrities to speak publicly about the conflict in Gaza went into overdrive this week after The Met Gala.
Creators on TikTok have earned millions of views for videos they’ve made linked to hashtags like #celebrityblocklist, #letthemeatcake and #blockout.
Many of these posts list the names of actors, musicians and other high-profile figures whom the video creators say had not yet spoken out against Israel’s attacks on the region — or hadn’t spoken out sufficiently — and therefore should be blocked.
And there’s been a special push in recent days to name those who attended the opulent, star-studded annual Met Gala on Monday.
“I made a Google Doc of every celebrity that attended the Met Gala, and now I’m going through and writing if they’ve been silent, or if they’ve been using their platform to speak up about the genocide in Gaza,” said one TikTok user in a video displaying a long list of celebrity names against a black background with the word “SILENT” in red next to to some, including Zendaya, Nicki Minaj, Keith Urban and Andrew Scott. “Some of these celebrities have not been completely silent,” the Tiktoker continued. “Zendaya did make a post back in October on her story supporting Palestine, but has been silent since. So I went ahead and put ‘silent.’”
The Met Gala fans the flames
Calls on social media to boycott celebrity silences have been on a slow burn for months.
But the fact the New York event, with its unchecked display of privilege and wealth, took place at around the same time as thousands of Palestinians were being forced to flee Rafah at less than 24 hours notice as Israeli troops took control of the Gaza territory’s border crossing with Egypt, fanned the glowing embers into full-on flames.
“The Met Gala was a bit of a hyperbolic moment that got a lot of people’s attention,” said Marcus Collins, an assistant professor of marketing at the University of Michigan. “The celebrity boycotts had existed, but they weren’t really at the top of the social zeitgeist. But then you have a moment like the Met Gala that wasn’t really related to the conflict, but the pieces were all at play. When the attacks [in Gaza] were happening the same day, the juxtaposition just got people talking and moving.”
Even relatively minor celebrities like social media influencer Hayley Baylee — who wasn’t even a guest at the event, but had been hired as a pre-gala host to interview those invited as they headed to the party — were caught up in the backlash on TikTok.
Many creators posted negative reactions to a video Baylee posted of herself that night (which has since been taken down), saying, “Let them eat cake!” It was a nod, as she later admitted in a video apologizing for her actions, to a current trend on social media for looks inspired by Marie Antoinette, and a line from the 2006 film starring Kirsten Dunst, about the ill-fated French queen.
“The world is just not peaceful or stable enough for the average person to accept and enjoy celebrities flaunting their wealth on social media,” said one user on TikTok in response both to Baylee’s faux-pas and the overall flaunting of wealth in New York that night. “Flexing on the peasants only works when the peasants aren’t watching other peasants be wiped off the face of the planet.”
The impact of blocking celebrities on the people of Gaza
The rationale behind the calls on social media to block celebrities, thereby negatively impacting their advertising revenue, is to put pressure on them to use their massive influence to try to stop the violence in Gaza.
“The hope is that it will either bring more visibility to the cause and shift the balance in getting political forces like the U.S. government to do something to mitigate the violence that’s happening in the Middle East,” said Collins. “But as rational as that logic may seem, I don’t think there are very many examples where this has actually worked.”
Collins cited the example of George Clooney’s efforts, albeit in an era before the rise of social media, to end the war in Sudan. A 2014 article in The Guardian by the Sudan-based journalist Maeve Shearlaw assessed the impact of the celebrity’s dedicated efforts over the years to bring about change: “I don’t see that it has halted, or even reduced, the genocide. The killing, displacement, sexual assaults and rape never stopped.”
On the other hand, pressure on social media has occasionally impacted the ways celebrities speak out about world events. For example, the backlash against Oprah Winfrey and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson for asking the public to donate to a Maui wildfire recovery fund last fall caused the pair to put more of their own significant resources into the effort. However, the amount they contributed was not disclosed.
The impact on everyone else
It remains to be seen whether the latest celebrity-blocking social media campaign will bring about positive change for the people of Gaza.
But some experts say the fact that it doesn’t directly target the issue, but rather focuses on which celebrities are remaining silent, obscures the desired goal.
“That’s not what we’re debating on and trending about and talking about and arguing about,” said Chris Morse, a communications professor at Bryant University. “It’s the fact that Celebrity A won’t tell us their stance. Isn’t that weird that they won’t do that? Let’s boycott them until they do do that.”
Indeed, some stars have seen a fall-off in followers over the past week. For example, Taylor Swift, who’s at the top of many of the block lists, lost around 300,000 followers on TikTok over the past week, according to a comparison between her current TikTok follower number and the number obtained from last week via Wayback Machine, and around 50,000 on Instagram. But that’s nothing for a star of Swift’s magnitude.
“A large celebrity has their touring, has multiple large social channels, is featured on television, is featured in the press,” said Eric Dahan, CEO of the social media marketing company Mighty Joy. “If you have north of 100 million followers and you lose three or five million, it sucks. But is that the end of the world for you? No.”
Dahan added that blocking celebrities doesn’t prevent them from appearing in targeted social media ad campaigns.
“Blocking an account doesn’t prevent you from receiving an ad, because the ad is not run through the celebrity’s account per se,” said Dahan. “And so, for example, you can block Kim Kardashian, but Hulu could run an ad targeting the Kardashians at you.”
Meanwhile, controversies involving celebrities very often bring attention to social media platforms.
“TikTok definitely benefits, right? Because the trend is happening on their format,” said Bryant University’s Morse. “We are constantly mentioning TikTok in all of the stories, and that makes people curious in order to see the trend and see what people are doing. So you got to go to TikTok, and you really got to become a member because you can’t really see too many things without actually engaging with the platform.”
TikTok did not immediately respond to NPR’s request for comment.
And even if the many, much-viewed videos aimed at canceling celebrities don’t help to bring about a change for the people of Gaza, there’s at least an emotional reward for those doing the canceling.
“It does provide some sense of agency,” said the University of Michigan’s Collins. “A sense that I’ve done something to influence other people to do something that perhaps maybe might make a difference. Because in the minds of those folks, it’s better than doing nothing.”
Lifestyle
How does the Kennedy Center board make decisions? This legal filing sheds some light
The Kennedy Center, the facade of which remains covered with a tarp, is seen in Washington, DC, on June 28, 2026. A US federal judge asked on June 24 for an explanation for why a tarpaulin continues to cover the facade of the Kennedy Center where President Donald Trump’s name was recently removed. District Judge Christopher Cooper gave the board of trustees of the performing arts venue until the end of July to explain “the purpose for and status of the tarp and scaffolding that Defendants have erected on the front portico of the Center.”
ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP via Getty Images
More than two weeks ago, President Trump’s name was removed from the Kennedy Center facade though it is still covered by a tarp and the legal battle continues.
On Monday, a U.S. Department of Justice filing on behalf of the Kennedy Center included some surprises. The document was submitted in response to issues raised by lawyers for ex-officio board member Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio who is suing to remove President Trump’s name from the center and stop its closure for renovations.
Among the revelations, the Kennedy Center admitted that, during a board meeting on December 18, 2025, Beatty had been “muted and prevented from speaking.” It was at that meeting that the board voted to add President Trump’s name to the center. The filing later acknowledges the congresswoman was “prevented from voicing her opposition.”
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a living memorial to its namesake. The guidelines for how the theatre complex spends federal dollars are very specific. Among other rules, it states that “no additional memorials or plaques shall be designated or installed.” Beatty argues adding Trump’s name runs afoul of those rules and that any change requires approval from Congress.
According to one of Beatty’s filings, “There was no advance notice in the agenda that the Board would be considering a name change,” a statement the Kennedy Center now does not deny. The center admits that, prior to voting, there was “no discussion about potential risks or downsides of the vote to adopt a secondary name for the Center.” Nor was there a board discussion “about any potential conflict of interest that might result from the vote.”
The center’s lawyers previously contended that if Trump’s name were to be removed, it would “lose money from donors who support” him and “impede the Center’s fundraising efforts.”
Closing for renovations
Earlier this year, Trump announced on social media that the Kennedy Center would close for two years for renovations. He wrote that he made the decision after “a one year review” with “Contractors, Musical Experts, Art Institutions, and other Advisors and Consultants.”
But, according to the center’s lawyers, Trump’s announcement “was made without presenting any plans, analyses, timelines, or funding information to his cotrustees and without any Board vote.”
The Kennedy Center has long denied reporting by The Washington Post that ticket sales plummeted after President Trump became the Center’s board chair. In Monday’s legal filing, the Center admits that, by October 2025, “nearly half of the Center’s tickets were going unsold.”
Lifestyle
ICICLE: Capturing Interest in Chinese Brands
Lifestyle
‘Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep’ is full of beautifully written grotesqueries
Paul Tremblay has made a career of pushing the horror genre – and the novel format – in strange and exciting new directions.
In his latest, Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep, the author offers an amalgamation of genre elements that can be best described as psychological-dystopian-science-fiction horror. It’s a mouthful, but the narrative does all of that and more in a way that defies categorization.
Julia Flang is a former semiprofessional gamer working two mediocre jobs she dislikes and living in a modest ranch house in a San Fernando Valley suburb with her retired uncle, whom she calls Uncle Fun. Julia likes movies and gaming but there’s little else going on in her life, so when her estranged mother, the CFO of a large tech company, contacts her with a possible job offer – a “once-in-a-lifetime thing” that pays handsomely just for doing the interview – she hesitantly agrees.

The job is relatively simple and perfect for someone with gaming skills: using a controller built into a phone to get a man, who is stuck in a vegetative state, from California to the East Coast. It will require her to learn how to control his body – walking, moving, sitting, standing, using his arms – so she can maneuver him out of the facility where he is located and into cars and planes and through crowded airports. A fan of movies, Julia decides to call the man Bernie – after the movie Weekend at Bernie’s. When the ethics of the job start to bother her, Julia realizes it’s too late and she must go through with it. However, she’s soon contacted by people interested in sabotaging the whole thing, people who, like her, don’t align with the shady interests of conglomerates and those set to make “gobs of money” from this new, somewhat inhuman technology.
As with every Tremblay novel, any synopsis barely scratches the surface. The novel’s chapters alternate between Julia and you (yes, you). Julia’s chapters are “normal” in the sense that they obey a chronological order and have action, basic descriptions of movement and places, and dialogue. The chapters in second person are like fever dreams from a shadow world; the desperate experiences of a man trapped inside his own body with no control of it, no clue what’s happening to him, and only a few fragmented memories of his life. Also, Tremblay uses a similarly fragmented style of storytelling (including words and sentences trapped in boxes and/or “moving” on the page) to keep things interesting but also confusing and creepy.
This novel operates on several different levels and – planes of existence? Bernie has a head full of AI that controls his body, but his consciousness is still there and struggling to regain control, struggling to remember things. There are monsters, leeches, mysterious rabbits, and eerie shadows in his world, but the true horror comes from the lack of control, from being moved around against his will and having no clue what comes next. Bernie is the embodiment of losing control to AI, and when taken together with the commentary of creativity and AI and the meta interludes in which the author takes a wrecking ball to the fourth wall and addresses readers, this is the best anti-Generative AI story horror has produced so far.
Despite the horror of it, this is a very funny novel. Julia is sarcastic and struggles to keep her comebacks in line, but the conversations she has and messages she writes are always entertaining. However, the humor is far from the crown jewel here. That title belongs to a plethora of big ideas Tremblay juggles. The nature of life, death, and consciousness, the evils of conglomerates, inhuman practices in the name of capitalism, and AI, and even what it means to be human are all explored here: “Is Bernie alive? Is he feeling pain? Is he experiencing everything as a prisoner looking through the bars of his body? Has his consciousness been winnowed to a metaphysical keyhole? Where does consciousness begin or end?” There are no definite answers here, but the way Tremblay infuses humanity, love, the importance of relationships, and humor throughout the narrative provides the kind of answers that can’t and don’t need to be spelled out.
A genre-bender full of big ideas that constantly switches between a world full of real or uncomfortably plausible nightmares and a bizarre hellscape in which loss of self, memory, and autonomy are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, Dead but Dreaming of Electric Sheep is a horrific and terrifyingly disorienting novel that invites readers to consider a future that already started. Tremblay has always been an innovator, but this beautifully written collection of real and imagined grotesqueries cements him not only as one of the most original and exciting voices in horror but also as one of the smartest, most engaging authors in contemporary fiction.
Gabino Iglesias is an author, book reviewer and professor living in Austin, Texas. Find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @Gabino_Iglesias.

-
World6 minutes agoMap: 6.0-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes Off Mexico’s Coast
-
News13 minutes agoIn the United States, Every World Cup Team Is a Home Team
-
Lifestyle51 minutes agoHow does the Kennedy Center board make decisions? This legal filing sheds some light
-
Technology1 hour agoMeta is adding ridiculous ‘rate limits’ and a soft paywall to its smart glasses
-
World1 hour agoBoy, 2, pulled alive from rubble six days after Venezuela’s devastating twin earthquakes
-
Politics1 hour agoSocialism goes west as DSA-backed challenger ousts longtime Democrat
-
Health1 hour agoAmericans are giving up multivitamins for a different daily health habit, study finds
-
Sports1 hour ago2026 World Cup Quarterfinal Odds: Which Squads Will Make Final 8?