julia fox

Julia Fox’s Controversial Jackie Kennedy Halloween Costume Sparks Outrage and Debate

When Julia Fox stepped out for Halloween 2024, few could have predicted that her choice of costume would ignite a cultural firestorm. Dressed as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis in a blood-splattered pink suit, Fox’s homage to one of America’s most iconic first ladies quickly drew both praise and scathing criticism—especially from a direct member of the Kennedy family. The incident has reignited long-standing debates about celebrity culture, historical sensitivity, and the ethics of using tragedy as fashion.

What Actually Happened: The Costume That Shocked a Nation

On Halloween night, Julia Fox posted images of herself on social media wearing a vintage-inspired pink skirt suit, complete with a pillbox hat, pearls, and—most controversially—a liberal application of fake blood across the chest and face. The look was clearly modeled after Jacqueline Kennedy’s appearance on November 22, 1963, the day her husband, President John F. Kennedy, was assassinated in Dallas.

Fox captioned the post with a simple “Jackie O,” but the visual spoke volumes. Within hours, the images went viral. While some fans praised the actress for her boldness and retro aesthetic, others—especially members of the public and political figures—were appalled by what they saw as a tasteless appropriation of national trauma.

The backlash reached its peak when Jack Schlossberg, JFK’s grandson and son of Caroline Kennedy, publicly condemned the costume. In an interview with People, Schlossberg didn’t hold back:

“It’s desperate and disgusting,” Schlossberg said. “Using my grandmother’s grief and our family’s tragedy for clout is not only offensive—it’s exploitative.”

His statement, widely circulated across major outlets including USA Today and Yahoo, shifted the conversation from fashion commentary to a broader discussion about celebrity ethics and historical memory.

Recent Updates: From Social Media to National Headlines

The controversy unfolded rapidly over the course of a few days, with key developments occurring in quick succession:

• October 31, 2024 (Evening): Julia Fox posts her Halloween costume on Instagram and X (formerly Twitter), tagging designers and stylists involved. The post receives over 200,000 likes within two hours.
• November 1, 2024 (Morning): Fashion blogs and pop culture sites begin covering the look. Yahoo publishes a piece titled “Julia Fox Exudes Retro Charm in ‘Bloody’ Halloween Skirt Suit,” praising the “daring” and “artistic” interpretation.
• November 1, 2024 (Afternoon): Conservative commentators and historians begin criticizing the costume on social media, calling it “disrespectful” and “tone-deaf.”
• November 2, 2024: Jack Schlossberg gives his first public response to People magazine, calling the costume “disgusting” and “desperate.” His quote becomes a headline across news platforms.
• November 3, 2024: USA Today publishes a comprehensive article detailing the public reaction, including statements from historians, cultural critics, and social media users. The article notes that Fox has not yet responded to Schlossberg’s comments.
• November 4, 2024: Fox deletes the original post from Instagram but leaves up a follow-up photo showing her in the same outfit without the blood, captioned: “Sometimes art is misunderstood.”

As of this writing, Fox has not issued a formal apology or statement addressing Schlossberg directly. Her representatives have declined to comment, citing “ongoing personal reflection.”

Why Jackie Kennedy? The Cultural Weight Behind the Icon

To understand the intensity of the backlash, it’s essential to grasp just how deeply embedded Jacqueline Kennedy remains in the American cultural psyche.

As first lady from 1961 to 1963, Jackie Kennedy was more than a political spouse—she was a global fashion icon, a symbol of grace under pressure, and a master of image-making. Her televised tour of the White House in 1962 was watched by 80 million Americans, cementing her status as a cultural force. But her legacy is forever tied to the assassination of JFK.

On that fateful day in Dallas, she sat beside her husband in the open limousine, wearing that now-infamous pink Chanel-style suit. When the fatal shot hit, she famously climbed onto the trunk of the car, attempting to retrieve a piece of the president’s skull. Photographs of her blood-stained suit—still worn hours later during Lyndon B. Johnson’s swearing-in on Air Force One—became some of the most haunting images in 20th-century American history.

For decades, that image has been treated with reverence. Museums display replicas of the suit behind glass. Historians analyze her composure during the national mourning period. And for many Americans, the suit represents not just a moment of personal tragedy, but a collective trauma.

“Jackie Kennedy wasn’t just a woman in a pink dress,” said Dr. Elena Martinez, a cultural historian at Columbia University. “She was a symbol of national dignity in the face of unspeakable horror. To turn that into a costume—especially one with fake blood—feels like a violation of that dignity.”

This context explains why Schlossberg’s reaction resonated so strongly. As a direct descendant of both JFK and Jackie, his voice carries emotional and symbolic weight. His criticism wasn’t just personal—it was generational.

The Fine Line Between Art and Exploitation

Julia Fox is no stranger to controversy. Known for her unfiltered social media presence, boundary-pushing fashion choices, and candid interviews, she has built a career on challenging norms. From her breakout role in Uncut Gems to her highly publicized relationship with Kanye West, Fox has consistently positioned herself as an artist who thrives on discomfort.

Her Jackie Kennedy costume fits this pattern. In interviews, Fox has often spoken about using fashion as a form of storytelling and performance. In a 2023 profile with Vogue, she said:

“I don’t dress to be liked. I dress to provoke, to remember, to feel. If someone is uncomfortable, maybe that’s the point.”

But where does provocation end and exploitation begin?

Cultural critics are divided. Some argue that Fox’s costume was a legitimate artistic expression—a way to confront the mythologizing of American icons. “There’s a long tradition in performance art of using historical trauma to make political or social statements,” said Dr. Marcus Lin, a media studies professor at NYU. “Think of how artists have reenacted the Vietnam War or the Civil Rights Movement. Is this really so different?”

Others, however, see a dangerous blurring of lines. “There’s a difference between critiquing history and commodifying grief,” said Dr. Lin. “When you use real human suffering—especially that of a family still alive and affected—as a Halloween costume, it risks trivializing the very real pain behind the image.”

The debate echoes broader conversations about “trauma tourism” in entertainment, where celebrities use real-life tragedies for attention or artistic credibility. In recent years, similar controversies have erupted over costumes based on the 9/11 attacks, school shootings, and the death of Princess Diana.

Who’s Reacting—And Why It Matters

The public response to Fox’s costume has been sharply polarized:

• Supporters (mostly younger social media users and fashion influencers) praise her for “reclaiming” Jackie Kennedy’s image and challenging outdated notions of decorum. Many point out that Fox didn’t invent the idea—Jackie Kennedy has been a popular Halloween costume for decades, often without blood.
• Critics include historians, Kennedy family allies, and older demographics who view the bloodied version as a step too far. Some have called for a boycott of Fox’s upcoming projects.
• Media outlets have taken varied approaches. Yahoo and Harper’s Bazaar focused on the fashion angle, calling the look “bold” and “retro-chic.” In contrast, The New York Times and NPR emphasized the ethical concerns, quoting scholars and family members.

Social media analytics show that the hashtag #JuliaFoxJackie has been used over 150,000 times, with sentiment split roughly 40% positive, 45% negative, and 15% neutral. Notably, engagement spiked after Schlossberg’s comments, suggesting that his intervention gave