Latine immigrant TV representation falls to 25% in 62 scripted series, July 2023-June 2025

Latine immigrant representation on scripted TV has fallen to 25%, according to a new report from Define American, conducted in partnership with USC’s Norman Lear Center. The “Change the Narrative, Change the World” report looked at 201 immigrant characters across 80 episodes of 62 scripted series, with all of the series airing between July 2023 and June 2025.

That 25% figure matters because it is based on a wide slice of mainstream scripted programming, not a narrow genre corner. When a share that low shows up across dozens of series and multiple broadcast cycles, it stops being a diversity talking point and starts reading like a structural pipeline issue: fewer Latine immigrant characters getting written, cast, greenlit, and kept on-screen long enough to become visible.

So what did the report actually measure? Define American’s methodology, as described in the coverage, tracked “immigrant characters” across a defined set of scripted series episodes. The key details are the scale and the time window: 201 immigrant characters, 80 episodes, 62 scripted series, all within July 2023 through June 2025. That framing matters for executives because it reduces the temptation to dismiss the findings as anecdotal or limited to a few shows with unusually high or low representation. If representation drops in aggregate, you have to ask where in the workflow that drop is being introduced.

Why would this happen at the industry level? Scripted TV is built on a long chain: development teams submit concepts, showrunners translate those concepts into writers’ rooms, casting locks in who gets recurring screen time, and executives decide what storylines get enough runway to matter. Each step has its own incentives. Writers rooms often chase what has worked before with audiences and advertisers. Casting decisions reflect both talent availability and perceived market demand. Network or studio executives, meanwhile, live under performance pressure and risk management. Even when intention is present, the default outcome can still skew toward the characters that are easiest to place in existing formats.

The report’s framing also gestures at a larger cultural and economic dynamic. “Change the Narrative, Change the World” is not just branding. It implies a feedback loop: when narratives consistently center certain groups and marginalize others, it shapes what audiences see as normal, and what creators assume will be accepted. From a decision-maker perspective, that loop can become expensive. Representation gaps can reduce audience trust, limit new fan acquisition, and put networks and streamers in a defensive posture when diversity metrics get scrutinized.

There is also a governance angle, especially for boards and senior leadership. When the media landscape shifts, compensation and accountability structures follow. Many companies now track talent and audience outcomes across teams, because reputational and regulatory attention can turn quickly into operational demands. Even when there is no specific rule attached to a given representation metric, public reporting and industry studies can change what stakeholders consider “material.” In that environment, a report that says representation has hit “a new low” in aggregate can function like an early warning system. It tells executives to look beyond isolated initiatives, and to examine whether the content slate itself is producing the intended mix.

Second-order implications show up in scheduling and slate planning. If Latine immigrant characters represent 25% across the studied sample, then the shortfall is baked into the average show, not only the outliers. That means a single renewal of a breakthrough program will not solve the underlying distribution problem. Executives who are thinking about cultural strategy should recognize the math: you need a repeatable pipeline that sustains representation across multiple series, writers rooms, and development cycles. Otherwise, representation will move like a mood, not a metric.

For peers making programming decisions, the stakes are practical. Define American and USC’s Norman Lear Center assessed 62 scripted series and 80 episodes within a defined two-year window, and found a representation low point. If you are an executive overseeing content, the question is not whether one show did something right or wrong. The question is whether your slate planning and development system produces a representative range consistently enough to prevent the next “new low.”