Huda Kattan was never just a beauty influencer. She is a case study in how lashes, lipstick and entrepreneurial instinct can be transformed into a multibillion-dollar beauty empire. From early makeup tutorials on YouTube to opinion-driven content on TikTok, the founder of Huda Beauty has long known how to command attention and build a powerful personal brand. Recently, however, that influence has stretched beyond beauty - and into political controversy.

Kattan has consistently expressed her political and humanitarian views, particularly her open support for the Palestinian cause, using her vast platforms to comment on what she sees as global injustices. But a recent post thrust her back into the spotlight for a different reason, igniting a wave of sharp criticism, especially from Iranians inside and outside the country.

The controversy erupted after Kattan reposted a video said to show demonstrators aligned with the Iranian regime burning images of Reza Pahlavi, son of Iran’s late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, alongside a picture of U.S. President Donald Trump. Presented as a protest scene, the clip prompted many Iranian users to accuse her of amplifying content that echoes the Iranian regime’s narrative - a regime widely criticized for systemic human rights violations.

Many Iranians reacted with anger, arguing that sharing the video distorts the reality of the popular movement inside Iran and marginalizes the voices of opposition figures who pay with their lives for demanding freedom.

Critics said the footage resembled official propaganda rather than reflecting the suffering of ordinary Iranians or their core demands.

The backlash quickly spread across social media platforms, with Kattan facing accusations of supporting the Iranian regime and calls for a boycott of her brand. Several influencers posted videos of themselves discarding or publicly denouncing Huda Beauty products.

Voices from the heart of the objection
In one of the most widely shared responses, Iranian model Mahlagha Jaberi wrote on her Instagram Stories: “While everyone has the right to their own opinion, standing by humanity is non-negotiable. What Huda Beauty did is unjustifiable. By allowing regime propaganda on your platform, you blindly support the killing of over 35,000 innocent Iranians, many of whom were likely your clients. This is about human lives. I urge my Arab and Persian friends to stand together in solidarity with humanity.”

An apology that did not end the controversy
As criticism intensified, Kattan issued an apology, saying she does not believe she has the right to express opinions on internal Iranian affairs. She described the reposted content as an opinion formed with limited understanding, acknowledged her lack of insight into the country’s internal complexities and apologized if her post had been misunderstood.

The apology, however, failed to satisfy many critics. They argued that sharing content widely viewed as regime propaganda - then citing ignorance - was insufficient, and reflected a disregard for the responsibility that comes with a global platform. One commenter wrote: “If you weren’t aware, you shouldn’t have promoted this content. Proudly, I have never bought your products.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Niusha Vahedi (@niushavhd)

Influence under scrutiny
Activists also held Kattan, along with major retailers such as Sephora, accountable for offering global visibility to content accused of legitimizing a regime blamed for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iranians. They stressed that Iranians inside the country continue to risk - and lose - their lives for freedoms often taken for granted elsewhere.

In the end, Huda Kattan remains synonymous with success, boldness and influence. Yet this episode has revived a fundamental question about where political activism intersects with mass influence. In an era when every image is scrutinized and every word archived, good intentions alone are no longer enough. When influence crosses borders and reaches millions, knowledge, accuracy and responsibility become obligations - not options.