ENHYPEN have come under criticism after a recent TikTok featuring members Jungwon and Jay sparked debate across social media.
The video, uploaded on October 29, 2026, followed a popular drink-swapping trend, but its storyline prompted viewers to question whether the concept was appropriate.
The clip quickly attracted attention, with some viewers describing it as insensitive and disturbing.
Critics argued that the video’s humour could be interpreted as making light of drink tampering and its potentially serious consequences.
Others defended the members, insisting that the clip was simply an attempt to participate in a social media trend rather than a statement about a real-world issue.
The disagreement has since divided online audiences, bringing attention to the responsibility artists and entertainment agencies face when creating short-form content.
Jungwon and Jay’s Drink-Swapping TikTok Draws Criticism
The TikTok featured Jungwon and Jay participating in a trend built around swapping drinks.
In the video, something is added to a drink before the two members exchange their beverages.
The scenario ends with Jay appearing to lose consciousness after consuming the swapped drink.
The post carried the Korean caption “눈치싸움,” which can be translated as a battle of wits or a test of who notices what is happening first.
Although the format was presented as a playful interaction between the members, some viewers interpreted its central premise differently.
Several social media users connected the scenario to concerns surrounding drink tampering, arguing that depicting someone becoming unconscious after consuming an altered drink was not an appropriate subject for comedy.
Some critics also referenced a recent incident at Cornell University in the United States while explaining why the video’s concept had unsettled them.
They questioned the decision to use a scenario that could remind viewers of real-world safety concerns.
One user asked whether it was appropriate to make a video involving drink tampering in light of the recent campus incident.
Another expressed concern that portraying such a situation as humour could make light of a serious issue.
Other commenters described the concept as uncomfortable and questioned the judgement behind the post.
Some also argued that content involving a person losing consciousness should not be treated as an entertaining punchline.
Fans Defend ENHYPEN as Online Reactions Remain Divided
While criticism continued to circulate, several fans came forward to defend Jungwon and Jay.
They argued that the members were following an existing TikTok trend and that viewers were interpreting the video without considering its intended context.
One supporter described the clip as a revenge-themed joke between friends, arguing that it had been taken out of context.
The fan also criticised those using the video as another reason to attack the group.
The differing interpretations have created a wider discussion about humour, social media trends and the potential impact of entertainment content.
While supporters believe the video should be viewed as a playful interaction between two members, critics maintain that the underlying scenario makes the joke uncomfortable regardless of its original intention.
As the discussion spread, some viewers also questioned whether entertainment agencies should exercise greater care when approving social media trends for their artists.
Short-form videos can reach audiences far beyond a group’s existing fanbase, meaning that a concept intended as harmless humour may be interpreted differently by people with different experiences.
As of October 30, neither ENHYPEN nor their agency had publicly addressed the criticism, according to the reports.
It also remained unclear whether the group would remove the video or issue any clarification.
The incident highlights the challenges K-pop artists face when participating in viral social media trends.
With online audiences increasingly discussing the social implications of entertainment content, even a short promotional or casual video can generate debate beyond its original purpose.
