NFL Stood by Bad Bunny for Super Bowl Halftime Show Amid Trump Criticism

Person speaking wearing suit with American flag pin

(NationalFreedomPress.com) – The NFL just proved it will brush off conservative concerns—and even the Trump administration’s objections—when global branding collides with America’s biggest stage.

Story Snapshot

The NFL announced Bad Bunny as the Super Bowl LX halftime headliner, triggering pushback tied to his past political comments and immigration-related rhetoric.
Trump administration officials and prominent conservatives publicly criticized the choice, arguing the Super Bowl is a family event watched by kids.
Commissioner Roger Goodell and league executives defended the booking as a business decision aimed at international and Latino audience growth.
On game day, reporting indicates Bad Bunny largely avoided politics, delivering an entertainment-focused set mostly in Spanish with high-profile guests.

NFL’s Booking Decision Collides With a Politicized Celebrity Culture

In late September 2025, the NFL announced Puerto Rican star Bad Bunny as the Super Bowl LX halftime performer for February 8, 2026, in Santa Clara, California. The selection sparked immediate controversy because his past comments included public critiques tied to U.S. politics and immigration-related fears. The dispute wasn’t about whether the performer is popular; it was about whether the league should elevate a figure who previously waded into hot-button issues on a broadcast built around families and tradition.

In early October 2025, Trump administration figures and conservative voices escalated objections. Reporting described Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem criticizing the decision within days, while Speaker Mike Johnson labeled it a “terrible” choice. Critics also pointed to statements attributed to Bad Bunny about performing in Spanish and telling American fans they had time to learn. The basic concern was straightforward: a halftime show reaches millions, and a performer’s public posture can become part of the message—even when the league insists it’s “just entertainment.”

Goodell’s Defense: Global Reach and Revenue First

Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL executives defended the selection as intentional and “carefully thought through,” describing Bad Bunny as one of the world’s most popular entertainers. The business logic cited in reporting centered on international expansion and deeper penetration into Latino audiences. The NFL has been increasing international games in recent years, and executives reportedly viewed a Spanish-language global star as aligned with that strategy. In other words, the league treated the halftime show less as a cultural institution and more as a growth lever.

That framing matters for viewers who remember earlier controversies where the NFL appeared to drift into culture-war messaging, then struggled to regain trust. This time, the league’s public line was not that politics belonged in football, but that politics wasn’t the point at all—reach was. The practical result was the same: millions of Americans watched a corporate decision that many felt dismissed their concerns about unity, shared language norms, and the tone set for young viewers. The NFL’s posture signaled it would absorb backlash rather than change course.

What Actually Happened at Halftime: “Party, Not Politics”

On February 8, 2026, Bad Bunny performed the Super Bowl LX halftime show. Coverage described a fast medley of about a dozen songs performed almost entirely in Spanish, with guest appearances by Lady Gaga and Ricky Martin. Importantly for the political firestorm leading up to the event, reporting said he “paused the political commentary” during the title game. That outcome undercut predictions of a televised political statement, even though it didn’t resolve the underlying question: who gets chosen, and what values the league signals by choosing them.

Why Conservatives Still See a Warning Sign in the NFL’s Approach

The controversy didn’t hinge solely on whether the halftime set included overt political talk. It hinged on whether the NFL uses a uniquely American event to showcase performers who previously criticized U.S. leadership and law enforcement priorities, including immigration enforcement concerns. Supporters framed the selection as a historic representation moment. Conservatives, meanwhile, focused on the pattern: institutions leaning into globalism and identity-based marketing while expecting traditional viewers to stay loyal. The available reporting confirms both the backlash and the league’s refusal to reconsider.

For viewers trying to separate hype from reality, the key fact pattern is simple: the NFL anticipated controversy, took public heat from top Republicans, and proceeded anyway because executives believed the upside outweighed the backlash. The performance itself appears to have avoided political remarks, which likely helped tamp down immediate outrage. Still, the episode leaves a lingering question for fans: when corporate sports leaders decide what belongs on the biggest stage, are they prioritizing the American audience that built the product—or the global brand ambitions that increasingly drive it?