The selection of global music superstar Bad Bunny to headline the Super Bowl halftime show has ignited a passionate national conversation, touching upon language, culture, and political viewpoints. While intended to honor one of the world’s most popular artists, this decision quickly became a focal point for conservative critique, with Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene advocating for a bill to make English the official language of the United States.
The contentious remarks began after Bad Bunny, known in ordinary life as Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio, made a guest appearance on “Saturday Night Live.” During his monologue, he playfully challenged audiences, stating, “If you didn’t understand what I just said, you have four months to learn,” after speaking a few phrases in Spanish. This seemingly lighthearted jest quickly drew a sharp response from Representative Greene, among other conservative voices, who viewed it as a provocation requiring a legislative countermeasure before the highly anticipated Super Bowl performance.
This incident transcends a mere celebrity performance, becoming a concentrated reflection of ongoing cultural discussions in the United States. It highlights differing perspectives on national identity, linguistic diversity, and the role of entertainment as a platform for social commentary. As the countdown to the Super Bowl continues, the controversy around Bad Bunny’s appearance and the calls for an English-only law underscore the complex interplay between popular culture and political discourse in contemporary America.
1.Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., publicly urged Congress on October 6th to adopt English as the official language of the United States. This call to action was directly inspired by comments made by Bad Bunny, who encouraged Americans to learn Spanish in anticipation of his performance at Super Bowl 60 in 2026. Greene conveyed her demand for legislative action via a post on the social media platform X.
In her post, Greene stated, “Bad Bunny says America has four months to learn Spanish before his perverse, unwanted performance at the Super Bowl halftime.” She then continued, “It would be a good time to pass my bill to make English the official language of America.” This statement clearly connected the artist’s remarks to her legislative agenda, framing the Super Bowl performance as a catalyst for her proposed language policy.
Greene further broadened her criticism in the same post, asserting that “the NFL needs to stop having demonic ual performances during its halftime shows.” This additional comment suggests a wider dissatisfaction with the content and nature of past and present Super Bowl halftime entertainment, positioning Bad Bunny’s selection within a perceived pattern of objectionable performances by the NFL. Her remarks reflect a comprehensive critique extending beyond language to include moral and cultural concerns regarding the event.
2. **Bad Bunny’s “Four Months to Learn Spanish” Remark**The origin of Representative Greene’s criticism stemmed from a guest appearance by Puerto Rican musician Bad Bunny on “Saturday Night Live.” During his monologue, Bad Bunny, whose real name is Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio, spoke a few phrases in Spanish. Following these remarks, he directly addressed the audience with a playful challenge.
Bad Bunny stated in English, “If you didn’t understand what I just said, you have four months to learn.” This comment was made in jest, directly preceding his scheduled Super Bowl halftime show performance. The artist is known for speaking both English and Spanish but famously adheres to Spanish in his music and public appearances, a practice he has maintained throughout his career.
Bad Bunny’s remarks were part of a “Saturday Night Live” segment on October 4th, where he also expressed his enthusiasm for the Super Bowl, playfully telling potential critics in Spanish, “four months to learn,” before repeating it in English, hinting that they had ample time to pick up the language.
3. **The English Language Unity Act of 2025 (Greene’s Bill)**The call by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene to make English the official language of the United States is tied to a specific legislative proposal she introduced in March. This bill, known as the English Language Unity Act of 2025, aims to formally designate English as the nation’s official language. Its introduction predates the recent controversy surrounding Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl performance.
The proposed legislation extends beyond merely declaring English as the official language. It includes a specific requirement for individuals seeking naturalized citizenship. Under Greene’s bill, anyone wishing to become a naturalized citizen would be compelled to “read and understand” the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in English. This provision underscores the bill’s intent to integrate English proficiency into the pathway to American citizenship.
As of October, Greene’s bill remains in the initial stages of the legislative process. It is currently a proposed measure and has not yet advanced to become law. This status indicates that while the bill has been introduced, it still requires significant legislative action and debate to move forward. Legal experts have also noted that such a measure might have limited impact, even if passed.
4. **President Trump’s Executive Order on Official English**Parallel to Representative Greene’s legislative efforts, former President Donald Trump also took action regarding the official language of the United States. In March, Trump signed an executive order that formally designated English as the official language of the United States at the federal level. This occurred in the same month that Greene introduced her English Language Unity Act.
While an executive order carries presidential authority, its legal force and long-term implications are often subject to interpretation and challenge. The context information indicates that it remains “unclear how much legal force that has.” This highlights a distinction between an executive directive and a congressional law, which typically carries more enduring statutory power.
The executive order’s timing, in March, places it within a period of concerted effort by Trump officials and allies to affirm English’s status. It reflects a political stance on national language policy that aligns with the sentiments expressed by Greene and other conservatives, emphasizing the role of English in American life and governance.
5. **Conservative Outcry: “Perverse,” “Unwanted,” “Demonic” Performances**Marjorie Taylor Greene’s criticisms of Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl selection extended beyond language policy to include sharp judgments of the performance itself. In her post on X, she explicitly called Bad Bunny’s selection “perverse” and “unwanted.” These terms convey a strong disapproval of the artist’s presence on such a prominent national stage.
Her critique further escalated with an accusation against the NFL for staging what she described as “demonic ual performances” during its halftime shows. This statement indicates a broader dissatisfaction with the nature of halftime entertainment, suggesting that Bad Bunny’s performance is anticipated to fall into a category she deems inappropriate or morally objectionable. This echoes previous conservative reactions to other halftime shows.
Greene’s remarks were part of a wave of fierce criticism from some conservatives following the NFL’s announcement. The selection of Bad Bunny, one of the world’s most popular artists, drew outrage from segments of the political spectrum who viewed the choice as contentious. This highlights the Super Bowl halftime show’s capacity to become a focal point for cultural and political contention.
6. **Kristi Noem’s Vow: ICE Agents at the Super Bowl**The conservative backlash against Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl performance extended to strong statements from within the Trump administration and its allies. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, for instance, vowed to station ICE agents at the Super Bowl. Her stated purpose was “to catch anyone who is not a ‘law-abiding American who love[s] this country’.”
Noem’s comments conveyed a defiant stance against the NFL’s choice. She publicly stated, “They suck, and we’ll win, and God will bless us, and we’ll stand and be proud of ourselves at the end of the day, and they won’t be able to sleep at night, because they don’t know what they believe, and they’re so weak, we’ll fix it.” These aggressive remarks underline the depth of the administration’s displeasure.
Furthermore, Noem explicitly warned, “You shouldn’t be coming to the Super Bowl unless you are a law-abiding American citizen.” The Trump administration subsequently confirmed that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents would indeed be present at the game at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California. This created a palpable sense of concern regarding immigration enforcement at the event.
7. **Bad Bunny’s Puerto Rican Heritage and U.S. Citizenship**Amidst the controversy, a key factual point regarding Bad Bunny’s identity is his birthplace and citizenship status. Bad Bunny, whose real name is Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, was born in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, which means that individuals born there automatically receive U.S. citizenship.
This detail directly contradicts claims made by critics like Fox News host Tomi Lahren, who inaccurately stated that Bad Bunny is “not an American artist.” As a U.S. citizen hailing from a U.S. territory, Bad Bunny’s American identity is undeniable, regardless of his primary use of Spanish in his music and public appearances.
His strong ties to Puerto Rico are fundamental to his artistic expression; he has described his latest album as his “most Puerto Rican album” yet. Bad Bunny has even noted that his frequent use of Puerto Rican slang means “even many Latinos who speak Spanish miss a lot” from his lyrics, underscoring why he is reluctant to perform exclusively in English.
8. **Bad Bunny’s Artistic Identity and Commitment to Spanish**Bad Bunny’s artistic choices and his staunch commitment to his native Spanish language are central to understanding his global appeal and the recent controversy. Known for his adherence to Spanish in both his music and public appearances, the artist’s use of language is deeply intertwined with his cultural identity and message. This commitment has remained consistent throughout his career, positioning him as a significant voice for Puerto Rican culture on the international stage, challenging conventional expectations for artists achieving global superstardom.
His recent album has been described as his “most Puerto Rican album” yet, underscoring his dedication to his roots. When questioned about the album containing no songs solely in English, Bad Bunny acknowledged that listeners might miss significant nuances. He explained that “even many Latinos who speak Spanish miss a lot” from his lyrics due to his extensive use of Puerto Rican slang. This deliberate linguistic choice reflects an unapologetic embrace of his heritage and serves to connect directly with his primary cultural audience.
When pressed on how he felt about potential misunderstandings from his lyrics, Bad Bunny’s response, simply singing, “I doooooon’ttttt caaaaaaaare,” highlighted his artistic resolve. This stance indicates a clear prioritization of authentic cultural expression over accommodating English-speaking audiences, a position he has maintained throughout his rise to international fame.
His memorable statement to the “Saturday Night Live” audience — “If you didn’t understand what I just said, you have four months to learn” — was delivered as a playful yet firm assertion of this artistic and cultural independence. This comment, while lighthearted, simultaneously underscored his unwillingness to compromise his identity or linguistic medium, thereby igniting the very debate about language and national identity that now frames his Super Bowl performance.
9. **Bad Bunny’s Prior Concerns Regarding ICE and Fan Safety**Concerns about immigration enforcement have previously influenced Bad Bunny’s touring decisions and public statements, predating the Super Bowl controversy. The artist had explicitly stated that he would not tour in the continental United States due to worries that his fans could be targeted in immigration raids at his concerts. This indicates a prior awareness and apprehension about the presence and activities of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), revealing a deep-seated concern for his audience’s well-being.
His concern was explicitly articulated in an interview with i-D, where he mentioned, “F—ing ICE could be outside” his concert as a reason for not including the U.S. on his “Debí Tirar Más Fotos” world tour. This statement reflects a broader anxiety within immigrant communities and among artists who cater to diverse fan bases regarding federal enforcement activities. It underscores the chilling effect such operations can have on public gatherings, particularly those attended by individuals from potentially vulnerable populations.
The context of these prior concerns became particularly relevant when the Trump administration, through Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, confirmed that ICE agents would indeed be present at the Super Bowl. This announcement amplified existing anxieties, creating a palpable sense of unease regarding immigration enforcement at what is typically a celebratory national event. Bad Bunny’s earlier remarks thus highlighted a persistent issue for him and his audience, transforming the entertainment spectacle into a platform for immigration-related debate.
This historical reluctance to tour the U.S. due to immigration enforcement concerns directly connects his artistic and personal choices to the broader political landscape, adding a layer of gravity to the current Super Bowl discussion. It positions him not only as a performer but also as a figure acutely aware of and responsive to the sociopolitical climate impacting his fanbase.
10. **John Oliver’s Defense of Bad Bunny and Critique of ICE**In contrast to the conservative backlash, comedian and host John Oliver publicly supported the NFL’s selection of Bad Bunny, while also critically addressing the issue of immigration enforcement. During the latest episode of “Last Week Tonight,” Oliver celebrated the announcement, identifying himself as a “big fan” of the Latin trap superstar. He specifically applauded the NFL for what he described as a “bold choice,” indicating a recognition of the cultural significance and potential controversy of the selection.
Oliver utilized his platform to directly take aim at the political uproar surrounding the Super Bowl Halftime Show pick. He sarcastically noted that “The NFL controversially gave the Super Bowl Halftime show to one of the hottest, most commercially successful people alive,” highlighting the perceived absurdity of the criticism. His comments directly referred to the Department of Homeland Security’s response and the broader wave of conservative backlash that had emerged following the NFL’s announcement.
Furthermore, Oliver extended his commentary to vigorously criticize federal tactics regarding ICE activity, particularly in the context of the Super Bowl. He explicitly encouraged civilian pushback against immigration enforcement, stating, “If ICE can show up and bother some guys at their roofing job, then bystanders should be able to bother ICE at their state-sanctioned kidnapping job. It is only fair.” This strong language underscored his condemnation of what he characterized as aggressive federal practices.
He concluded his segment by emphasizing the importance of meeting such shows of force with “strong pushback each and every time,” advocating for continued resistance against tactics designed to intimidate communities. Oliver’s intervention provided a prominent counter-narrative to the conservative critique, framing the controversy within a broader discussion about civil liberties and government overreach.
11. **Linguistic Diversity and American Identity on the National Stage**The controversy surrounding Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl performance has brought to the forefront the ongoing national conversation about linguistic diversity and its place within American identity. Representative Greene’s demand for an English-only law, directly in response to Bad Bunny’s playful challenge to learn Spanish, crystallizes the tension between proponents of a singular national language and advocates for a multilingual society. This debate extends beyond legislative proposals to touch upon the very cultural fabric of the United States, reflecting deep-seated questions about national belonging.
While English undeniably remains the predominant language in American public life, the nation has never formally designated it as the official language through congressional action. This historical context provides a critical backdrop for the current discussion, highlighting that linguistic pluralism has, to a significant degree, always been a characteristic of American society. The presence of Spanish, particularly as a reflection of Puerto Rican culture, on a platform as prominent as the Super Bowl, challenges monolithic perceptions of American identity and pushes for a more inclusive definition.
Bad Bunny’s powerful statement, “This is for my people, my culture, and our history,” spoken in anticipation of his Super Bowl performance, explicitly frames his appearance as an act of profound cultural affirmation. This perspective positions the halftime show not just as entertainment, but as a moment of heightened visibility and pride for Latino communities across the nation and globally. The broader discussion around his use of Spanish reflects deep-seated questions about inclusivity, national heritage, and the evolving demographics of the United States, particularly concerning its growing Spanish-speaking population.
This dialogue underscores how major national events, like the Super Bowl, serve as dynamic arenas where the complexities of American identity are publicly negotiated. The linguistic choices made on such a stage resonate with millions, sparking reflection on how language shapes cultural understanding and national unity in an increasingly diverse society.
12. **Legal and Practical Challenges of English-Only Legislation**The legislative proposals aiming to formally establish English as the official language of the United States, such as Representative Greene’s English Language Unity Act of 2025, face several significant legal and practical challenges. While introduced in Congress, Greene’s bill remains in the initial stages of the legislative process, signifying that it is currently a proposed measure and has not advanced to become law. This indicates that substantial legislative action, extensive debate, and potential compromise would be required for its ultimate passage, making its future uncertain.
Furthermore, even if such a bill were to eventually pass both houses of Congress and be enacted into law, legal experts have noted that its practical impact might be limited. This assessment suggests that formally designating English as the official language might not fundamentally alter the nation’s linguistic landscape or significantly curb the use of other languages in daily life. The complexities of federal and state governance, alongside existing constitutional protections for free speech and cultural expression, could constrain the far-reaching implementation and effectiveness of such a law.
Similarly, former President Donald Trump’s executive order designating English as the official language at the federal level, signed in March, carries its own set of legal ambiguities and limitations. The context information indicates that it remains “unclear how much legal force that has.” Executive orders, while possessing presidential authority, are often subject to legal interpretation, judicial challenge, and potential reversal by subsequent administrations, fundamentally distinguishing their long-term statutory power from that of congressional laws.
Historically, legislative attempts to establish an official language in the U.S. have frequently met with opposition, raising questions about their actual necessity and effectiveness in such a diverse country. The ongoing debate surrounding these proposals underscores the persistent tension between the symbolic desire for national unity and the practical reality of a population that actively uses multiple languages in daily life, commerce, and cultural expression.
As discussions about Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl performance continue, the conversation has expanded beyond the stage to become a potent reflection of the United States’ complex cultural and political landscape. This event, far from being just a simple entertainment spectacle, has illuminated the ongoing dialogues concerning language, national identity, and the significance of artistic expression in contemporary America. The Super Bowl halftime show, capable of both uniting and dividing audiences, remains a clear indicator of the nation’s shifting cultural trends, reminding us that even highly anticipated cultural moments can become profound arenas for public discourse, influencing how we perceive ourselves and each other in our rapidly evolving world.
