Debate Surrounding Billie Eilish’s Grammy Comments and Land Ownership
The Native American tribe whose historical land includes Billie Eilish’s home has responded to her remarks during her acceptance speech at the recent Grammy Awards, where she spoke about “stolen land.” Her comments have ignited discussions about the conflict between her activism and her ownership of a multi-million dollar property.
This controversy began when Eilish, alongside her brother Finneas O’Connell, received the Song of the Year award for “WILDFLOWER,” a track from her album “Hit Me Hard and Soft.” During their speech, they wore “ICE OUT” pins, protesting against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
“As grateful as I feel, I don’t really feel the need to say much, but no one is illegal on stolen land,” Eilish stated, which drew applause. “It’s tough to know exactly what to do and say right now. But I’m hopeful in this space, and we just need to keep fighting and speaking up. Our voices matter, and people matter, and… f*** ICE is really all I want to say, sorry.”
This display of activism prompted feedback from Tongva tribal leaders, who noted the contradictions in her message. They pointed out that her criticism of “stolen land” conflicts with her ownership of a $3 million house on land that belongs to them.
A spokesperson for the Gabrieleno Tongva tribe reminded the public through the Daily Mail that Eilish’s residence is on their ancestral territory and emphasized that the tribe deserves acknowledgment.
“We appreciate the chance to clarify Billie Eilish’s recent comments,” the spokesperson stated, referring to the tribe as the “First Angelenos.”
“Eilish has not reached out to our tribe concerning her property,” they added. “We hope that future discussions explicitly mention our tribe to clarify that the Greater Los Angeles area remains Gabrieleno Tongva territory.”
A local attorney, Avi Sinai, offered a tongue-in-cheek offer to represent the tribe in evicting Eilish from her mansion, suggesting his services would be pro bono to facilitate the “return” of the land she described as stolen.
“Sinai Law Firm is offering to evict Billie Eilish from her home on a pro bono basis on behalf of the Tongva Tribe,” he posted on social media. “We’re the top eviction firm in the area.”
He further remarked that Eilish’s recognition of her residence as being on stolen land gives the tribe grounds for reclamation, claiming he already had a notice ready to go.
Sinai later explained his post aimed to draw attention to the real implications of the “stolen land” discussion, noting that while such acknowledgments are common in council meetings, they rarely lead to actual land returns.
In addition to Sinai’s comments, many social media users condemned Eilish’s remarks, calling her activism “performative.” Critics pointed out that her stance against border enforcement seemed disingenuous given her luxurious lifestyle.
“Oh, here we go again with the ‘stolen land’ rhetoric. Maybe she should just give up her mansion if that’s the case,” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis wrote.
“Anyone making a public acknowledgment of ‘stolen land’ should immediately return their land to Native Americans. If not, it doesn’t mean anything,” remarked Senator Mike Lee.
“A reminder that Billie Eilish, worth $50 million, hasn’t donated anything to the original inhabitants of this so-called ‘stolen land,’” independent journalist Manny Marotta added.
Overall, the situation highlights the complex dynamics between celebrity activism and personal ownership, raising questions about authenticity and accountability in advocacy.
