Danica Patrick Slams NFL Over Bad Bunny Super Bowl Halftime Selection
Los Angeles, CA — The announcement that Bad Bunny would headline the 2026 Super Bowl halftime show has ignited yet another cultural flashpoint, this time drawing sharp criticism from an unexpected quarter: former NASCAR driver Danica Patrick. Known for her outspoken political views and high-profile support for conservative causes, Patrick took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice her disapproval, sparking a storm of online debate over the intersection of entertainment, politics, and national tradition.
Patrick, 43, commented on a post discussing the Puerto Rican rapper, whose real name is Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, and immediately made her stance clear. “Oh fun,” she wrote. “No songs in English should not be allowed at one of America’s highest-rated television events of the year … not just for sports.” Her critique was both pointed and provocative, targeting the NFL’s decision to feature an international artist with outspoken progressive leanings on the nation’s largest televised stage.
The former racing champion did not stop there. She also re-posted a more incendiary claim, labeling Bad Bunny a “demonic Marxist” and questioning the wisdom of giving him a platform during one of America’s most-watched television events. Patrick, who campaigned for President Donald Trump in the 2024 election despite not having voted previously, has long been unafraid to express her political beliefs publicly, and her comments on the halftime show are consistent with her vocal advocacy on social and cultural issues.
Patrick’s commentary comes amid broader discussions about the NFL’s strategy for the halftime stage. Initially, the league was rumored to be pursuing Taylor Swift for the slot, but the pop star ultimately did not sign on, leaving the door open for Bad Bunny, whose global influence and dynamic performances make him one of the most streamed artists in the world. The NFL, for its part, has defended its decision, emphasizing both the entertainment value and cultural significance of the choice.
In a statement, NFL executive Jon Barker framed the selection as a natural fit for the league’s marquee event. “Bad Bunny represents the global energy and cultural vibrancy that define today’s music scene,” Barker said. “As one of the most influential and streamed artists in the world, his unique ability to bridge genres, languages, and audiences makes him an exciting and natural choice to take the Super Bowl halftime stage. We know his dynamic performances, creative vision, and deep connection with fans will deliver the kind of unforgettable experience we’ve come to expect from this iconic cultural moment.”
Bad Bunny himself addressed the announcement with characteristic pride and confidence. “This is for my people, my culture, and our history,” he declared, underscoring both his artistic vision and his connection to a global fanbase. The rapper, who previously canceled tour dates in the United States over concerns that his shows could be infiltrated by ICE agents, has consistently used his platform to engage with social and political issues, adding fuel to the ongoing debate over whether his inclusion politicizes an event that many view as a unifying national spectacle.
The controversy highlights the polarized reception of high-profile cultural moments in America. Progressive and younger audiences have largely embraced the selection, viewing it as an opportunity to showcase Latin music and global talent on a platform traditionally dominated by mainstream pop and rock acts. Conservative viewers, including Patrick and her supporters, interpret the move as a departure from what they consider traditional Americana and a politically charged choice. Hashtags such as #BoycottNFL, #BadBunnyPuppet, and #CultureWarBowl have already begun trending online, illustrating the intensity of reactions across political and social lines.
Patrick’s criticism taps into a broader narrative about the Super Bowl halftime show as a cultural touchstone. Historically, the event has been a stage not only for music but for cultural messaging, whether explicit or implicit. Beyoncé’s politically infused 2016 performance drew scrutiny for perceived references to the Black Panthers. JLo and Shakira’s 2020 halftime show was both praised for diversity and criticized for political overtones. Even Eminem sparked debate in 2022 with a controversial kneeling gesture during his set. While the halftime show has never been free from political commentary, Patrick and others argue that Bad Bunny’s progressive activism transforms the performance into overt ideology rather than neutral entertainment.
Yet defenders of Bad Bunny’s selection emphasize his universal appeal and artistic versatility. Critics who accuse the rapper of political propaganda overlook the fact that the Super Bowl has always been a platform for cultural milestones. From hip-hop to pop to country, performers have historically brought diverse voices to the halftime stage, often generating debate along the way. Music industry analysts note that Bad Bunny’s global influence, bilingual lyrics, and genre-crossing style provide a rare opportunity to engage audiences who may feel underrepresented in mainstream American culture.
The NFL’s decision also carries business implications. The league relies heavily on viewership for advertising revenue, and a polarized halftime selection can affect both ratings and sponsor confidence. By choosing Bad Bunny, the NFL is betting on a younger, more diverse audience segment while accepting the risk of backlash from traditional viewers. Patrick’s public condemnation underscores the pressures the league faces in balancing cultural relevance with audience expectations.
Social media response to Patrick’s comments has been as intense as her statements themselves. Conservative commentators echoed her warnings, framing the selection as an affront to tradition. Meanwhile, fans of Bad Bunny flooded platforms with praise, emphasizing the importance of representation and artistic expression. The clash demonstrates how the Super Bowl halftime show now functions as more than a musical performance; it has become a lightning rod for cultural and political discourse in real time.
Industry insiders suggest the debate over Bad Bunny’s performance is unlikely to die down before kickoff. Analysts predict that the league will continue to navigate the delicate balance between artistic freedom, audience reaction, and corporate sponsorship. Early social media trends indicate strong engagement on both sides, signaling that the conversation will remain a defining narrative for the 2026 Super Bowl.
For Danica Patrick, her comments are consistent with her history of outspoken political advocacy and public engagement on social issues. Her criticism amplifies the ongoing debate about whether major entertainment platforms, particularly ones with national reach like the Super Bowl, should remain neutral or embrace artists whose personal politics are inherently visible.
As the NFL prepares for the halftime show, one thing is clear: the selection of Bad Bunny has elevated a performance into a national cultural flashpoint. Patrick’s remarks, alongside viral commentary from both supporters and critics, ensure that the conversation surrounding representation, politics, and music will dominate headlines for weeks. The league, the artist, and the viewing public are now enmeshed in a debate about identity, values, and the power of entertainment in American society.
Whether viewed as a deliberate cultural statement or simply a musical choice, Bad Bunny’s inclusion has reaffirmed that the Super Bowl halftime show is no longer just about spectacle. It is a stage where music, culture, and politics collide, and where public figures like Danica Patrick can shape the narrative as much as the performers themselves.
