‘Perfect T*tties’: Amy Klobuchar Wants Nothing To Do With Sydney Sweeney Brouhaha

Who could possibly have more to say about Sydney Sweeney? 

Democratic Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, apparently. Klobuchar penned an op-ed for The New York Times (NYT), titled, “What I Didn’t Say About Sydney Sweeney.”

“Finally,” chants the non-existent chorus of Klobuchar-fanatics, “Our middle-aged-plus senator has chimed in on a celebrity controversy rapidly fading in relevance.” (RELATED: Outrage At Sydney Sweeney’s Blonde, Busty Looks Sums Up Why Lefties Are Losing The Culture War)

Klobuchar avoids dissecting the political implications of a blonde woman wearing jeans. Instead, she manages to make the whole dust-up about herself. 

“[A] fake video of me — opining on, of all things, the actress Sydney Sweeney’s jeans — went viral,” Klobuchar writes. That video featured a “deepfake,” a digital avatar closely mimicking Klobuchar’s face and voice.

I never thought I’d opine about Sydney Sweeney’s jeans. And that’s because I didn’t. It was AI.

Deepfakes are getting impossible to detect, especially when companies—and Congress—refuse to act. We need to give Americans control over their own images.https://t.co/QrhAbdoWZX

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) August 20, 2025

“I heard my voice — but certainly not me — spewing a vulgar and absurd critique of an ad campaign for jeans featuring Sydney Sweeney. The A.I. deepfake featured me using the phrase ‘perfect titties’ and lamenting that Democrats were ‘too fat to wear jeans or too ugly to go outside.’” 

Well, Klobuchar? Does Sweeney have “perfect t*tties?” Are Democrats too fat for jeans and too ugly for public consumption? 

We may never get the answers to these questions. Because Klobuchar veers into a sales pitch for her bill, the NO FAKES Act, which targets deep fakes of the sort created of Klobuchar. 

The act would “give people the right to demand that social media companies remove deepfakes of their voice and likeness, while making exceptions for speech protected by the First Amendment,” according to Klobuchar. 

You can watch the Klobuchar video for yourself. You should watch it, because it’s funny. 

“All we’re saying is that we want representation … If Republicans are going to have beautiful girls with perfect t*tties in their ads, we want ads for Democrats, too, you know? We want ugly, fat, b*tches wearing pink wigs and long a** fake nails being loud and twerking on top of a cop car at a Waffle House, because they didn’t get extra ketchup, you know?”

Those sentiments read as obvious parody to me, realism of the video notwithstanding. Klobuchar’s law risks treading on the parody protections secured by the First Amendment. 

Nobody more innovative in the “bad tech bills” space than Sen. Klobuchar https://t.co/VM90DtQjus

— Max Gulker (@maxg_econ) August 20, 2025

Take the video element away. Is an AI-generated video really so different from a laser accurate, human-generated impression? Should we ban really good Biden impersonators from making radio appearances? 

There are objectionable uses of artificial intelligence (AI). Jim Acosta recently “interviewed” a  digital representation of a dead teenager. But Acosta was decidedly not engaging in parody. Not intentionally, anyway. (RELATED: Jim Acosta Somehow Topped Himself, Posts Most Deranged Interview Ever)

Klobuchar questions, “And why are there no consequences for the people who actually make the unauthorized deepfakes and spread the lies?

What consequences does Klobuchar envision? Apology tours? Fines? Jail time?

When you elect a schoolmarm, you get rule by schoolmarm. Those types don’t tend to respond well to mockery.

Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatSandovalDC