Comedians and podcasters Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang have addressed the reaction to their recent comments about Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett and her U.S. Senate campaign.

The controversy began on an episode of their podcast Las Culturistas, where Rogers said he believed people should not donate to Crockett’s campaign, arguing that her profile made her unlikely to win a statewide race in Texas.

Yang agreed with the assessment, framing the conversation as a strategic opinion rather than a critique of Crockett personally.

The remarks quickly circulated beyond the podcast’s core audience, drawing criticism from listeners who felt it was inappropriate for entertainers to discourage financial support for a real political candidate — particularly one running in a difficult and high-stakes race.

Their response

In response, Rogers and Yang clarified that they were expressing a personal political opinion, not issuing instructions or attempting to suppress civic engagement. According to Out, Rogers emphasized that he was speaking from his own perspective on how political donations are best used, and that listeners should ultimately make their own decisions.

Both hosts pushed back on the idea that they were telling people not to participate in politics, saying they support progressive causes broadly even when they disagree about strategy or tactics.

Why it struck a nerve

The reaction highlights a recurring tension around public figures who occupy cultural rather than political roles.

Rogers and Yang are best known for comedy and pop-culture commentary, but their large and politically engaged audience means even off-the-cuff remarks can take on added weight when they touch on elections and campaigns.

For some listeners, the issue wasn’t disagreement with their analysis, but discomfort with the idea of entertainers discouraging donations — especially at a moment when many progressives argue that long-shot races still matter for building visibility and infrastructure.

Queer voices and political expectations

The episode also speaks to expectations placed on high-profile queer figures.

Both Rogers and Yang have previously talked about their own political evolution since 2016, and their audience often looks to them not just for humor, but for cues about values and engagement.

That combination — cultural influence paired with political opinion — can be volatile, particularly when opinions cut against what some listeners see as collective responsibility.

No resolution, just conversation

There is no clear consensus emerging from the exchange.

Some listeners appreciated the clarification and accepted the comments as one viewpoint among many. Others remain uneasy about entertainers weighing in on donation strategy at all.

What the moment ultimately underscores is how blurred the line has become between cultural commentary and political influence — and how quickly that blur can turn a podcast conversation into a broader public debate.

📷 IG: @ mattrogerstho / fayedunaway

Comedians and podcast hosts Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang found themselves trending this week after they told listeners of their popular podcast Las Culturistas that they believed people should *not* donate money to Texas Representative Jasmine Crockett’s U.S. Senate campaign.

The comments came during a recent episode of Las Culturistas, where Rogers argued that Crockett is “too well-defined” as a politician to win a statewide race in conservative-leaning Texas and suggested that contributing money to her campaign would be a “waste.”

Yang agreed with Rogers on the point and the two discussed their own evolving views on political engagement since 2016, when both were younger and less involved in public discourse about civic participation. (Sources: Out; BuzzFeed).

Who is Jasmine Crockett?

Jasmine Crockett, a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas, launched her campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2025 as part of an increasingly competitive race for a seat long held by Republicans. She has drawn both progressive and establishment support, but also criticism from various corners of American political life — including conservative commentators and activists who argue differently about her chances and policy positions.

Rogers and Yang’s comments came not as a detailed political analysis, but as part of their off-the-cuff conversation, and they did not outline specific alternatives or endorse a different candidate. Their stance was framed more as a strategic opinion about how best to influence electoral outcomes than as a personal critique of Crockett’s record.

Social media reaction and political talk from entertainers

The response from fans and followers was swift. Many listeners pushed back, saying it felt unusual or inappropriate for entertainers — particularly queer comedians with large followings — to advise their audience *not* to financially support a real political campaign. Some critics framed the comments as out of step with broader progressive efforts to compete in tough races.

Others defended Rogers and Yang’s right to share a personal view and noted that celebrity figures have always weighed in on politics.

The conversation highlights the broader tension that can arise when performers with large platforms cross from cultural commentary into direct political recommendations.

Why this resonated with queer audiences

For many LGBTQ+ fans, the episode touched on questions about how visibly queer media figures should engage politically: whether political advice from cultural influencers is helpful or distracting, and how representation in entertainment intersects with civic participation.

Rogers and Yang themselves have spoken openly in the past about their own political evolution and the challenges of navigating public voices in an era where audiences increasingly expect entertainers to take stands on issues beyond pop culture. Their podcast, known for mixing comedy with candid personal reflections, is part of that ongoing negotiation about the role of queer voices in public discourse.

A moment of conversation, not consensus

What Rogers and Yang said has clearly struck a nerve, but it has not unified anyone around a clear conclusion. Instead, the exchange has amplified broader questions about the role of entertainers in elections, how different communities choose to support or critique candidates, and how political messaging is received when it comes from unexpected places.

Whether listeners agree with their view or not, the episode reflects a growing trend in which comedians and cultural commentators are not only performing but also participating in political debate — and audiences are judging them for it.

📷 IG: @ mattrogerstho / fayedunaway

Tennis player João Lucas Reis da Silva is set to make history at this year’s Australian Open, becoming the first openly gay man to compete in the tournament’s qualifying draw.

In men’s professional tennis, where openly gay players remain almost entirely absent at the highest levels, that alone makes his appearance significant.

A career still in motion

Reis da Silva came out publicly in late 2024, sharing a photo with his boyfriend Gui Sampaio Ricardo while continuing to compete on the ATP circuit.

Since then, his on-court results have moved in the right direction. Over the past year he has climbed steadily in the rankings and won his first ATP Challenger title, earning the points needed to enter Australian Open qualifying.

For a player still building his career, the decision to be open while competing is not without risk.

Men’s tennis and silence

Despite tennis often being framed as individual and progressive, men’s professional tennis has long been marked by silence around sexuality.

There are no openly gay men competing regularly at the top tier of the sport, a reality shaped less by numbers than by pressure, expectation and the belief that openness could complicate an already precarious career.

Reis da Silva’s presence in a Grand Slam qualifying draw does not solve that problem, but it does puncture it.

Why this matters

This is not a publicity moment, and it has not been treated as one by the player himself.

There has been no campaign, no messaging beyond the simple fact of turning up and competing.

That ordinariness is part of why it matters.

For younger players watching, seeing an openly gay man enter a Grand Slam environment without fanfare quietly expands what feels possible.

What comes next

Australian Open qualifying is unforgiving, with multiple rounds and little room for error.

Whether Reis da Silva reaches the main draw or not, his place in the tournament already marks a small but meaningful shift in men’s tennis.

Sometimes progress arrives loudly.

Sometimes it arrives through one player simply being there.

📷 IG: @ joaolreis