Millionaires call on the working class to join them in donating at the 2025 Grammy Awards

by MEAGHAN VAN DYKE

Staff Writer

Beyond the sea of musicians in glamorous dresses coveting equally glamorous awards, the 2025 Grammys, hosted on Feb. 2, also called for aid from members of the Los Angeles community in the midst of devastating fires. In between performances and awards, host Trevor Noah addressed audiences in the room and at home directly, asking for donations for small businesses and individuals who lost their homes in the tragedy of the January wildfires. 

The Grammys website referred to the event as “A Telecast With a Cause.” While some criticized the Grammys for becoming a telethon, its effectiveness is undeniable. Using awards shows as a platform to pressure wealthy celebrities into donating and showing their support for a climate issue with global implications could raise awareness for other issues and may influence those in power who have the ability to make a long lasting change to contribute, as well. 

Among the organizations that the 2025 Grammys promoted is the MusiCares Foundation for wildfire relief. Celebrities and corporations were given the chance to donate to provide aid to the millions displaced by the wildfires. QR codes were displayed on television screens that brought viewers at home to resources to donate themselves throughout the show. According to the LA Times, damages from the wildfire are expected to exceed $250 billion. In a single night, the Grammy’s reportedly raised $7 million dollars towards wildfire relief. 

In a room full of celebrities with individual net worths exceeding millions of dollars each, many people have criticized the Grammys for focusing their donation requests primarily to viewers at home. With 13.5%of the country struggling with food insecurity and over 10,000 homes lost in the fires, a host whose net-worth is approximately $100 million asking for donations in a room full of millionaires felt almost dystopian. 

Completely discarding the telethon method is not the answer, however. Rather the focus of requests for donations should be shifted onto the celebrities. 

This year’s Grammys is not the first time an awards show was used as a platform for social or political change. In 2024, celebrities such as Billie Eilish and Ramy Youssef wore red pins on the Oscars red carpet in support of the Artists4Ceasefire organization, which calls on world leaders for an immediate ceasefire in Palestine. In 1973, after winning an Oscar for his role in The Godfather, Marlon Brando sent President of the National Native American Affirmative Image Committee Sacheen Littlefeather to refuse the Oscar in his place to bring awareness to protests at Wounded Knee and the mistreatment of Native Americans in the entertainment industry. 

These moments, though seemingly only small acts littered throughout the history of major awards shows, became prominent topics of conversation and debate in the following days due to their occurrences at events as widely broadcasted and viewed as awards shows. Celebrities’ reactions are noted. In the 90 minute Grammys timeslot, a unique opportunity is presented to make artists with the power to help aid in floundering causes they may otherwise not garner as much attention without the mainstream device of the Grammys.

As Noah continued to ask the audience for contributions to MusiCares, he did something particularly interesting. He read off the list of each individual donor’s name as they donated. This meant that celebrities were held publicly accountable for their contributions or lack thereof. 

Music is not the only thing artists owe people. Their art, of course, can be transformative in shaping culture. Movements have been created and reputations have been ruined. One of the most popular signs at concerts read something along the lines of “your music saved my life.” This contribution cannot be understated. Giving artists such an influential role in shaping society allows more people to feel understood. In our current society, however, the ability for musicians to make a difference does not have to end there. In fact, with how massively iconic celebrities have become in our culture, celebrity influence is nearly limitless, if not entirely. That influence should be used to enact actual long-lasting change in our society. 

Using award shows as an opportunity to bring causes, local and international, to light while focusing more of the requests for donations onto the celebrities themselves could put a healthy amount of pressure on celebrities to use their platform for good.

Many Mary Washington students shared the same discomfort around the “telethon” structure of the Grammys.

“I think that it’s a good idea,” sophomore English and creative writing major Hannah Holstrom said. “But targeting the people that were there would be better instead of the viewers because the celebrities have more money, especially with the companies.”

Sophomore history major Caty Taylor echoed Holstrom’s sentiments around the strangeness of the situation.

“It doesn’t necessarily negate my contribution to the cause, but it just made me feel weird,” she said in regards to requests for viewers at home to contribute.

While the contribution of viewers should not be ignored or negated because of a donation from a celebrity, the use of telethons to pressure companies and celebrities in the room is a more effective way to aid in crises and other causes.The 2025 Grammys, for better or worse, was an unforgettable one. In the wake of devastating circumstances in the Los Angeles area, the contributions from celebrities were life-changing, and achieved in a single night. If this method is kept up for all future award shows, innumerable lives could be changed forever.