The Olympic games are intended to be a friendly sporting event for elite athletes from around the world—a cordial competition without political expression. But in the most recent Olympics, Milano Cortina 2026, the pressure on athletes was increased immensely, and not just from the actual sporting events. American athletes are beginning to feel an obligation to address the political state of America, and that intensity is spreading to other countries as well. I believe that the Olympics and other international sporting competitions should be a politics-free space, given a normal social climate.
While these high-pressure conditions may seem unprecedented, the infusion of politics in the Olympics is not new. In 1936, many countries threatened to boycott the Summer Olympics in Berlin due to the rise of the Nazi regime. Or the most famous example: the 1968 Mexico City Summer Olympics, when on the podium, Black sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos performed a Black Power salute so as to protest racial injustice in America. While their actions were courageous, the athletes were maligned and suspended from the U.S. team, and not largely recognized in a positive manner until years later.
American politics were put under the spotlight again at the most recent Winter Olympics. America’s diplomatic credibility has plummeted these past few months, as people around the world are no less than horrified at the actions of the Trump administration. Italy, as the host country, has shown particular disapproval of the new American policies. On January 31, hundreds of Italian citizens gathered in a central square in Milan and demanded that ICE agents assisting with security leave Italy. This intense social climate warrants advocacy from athletes, as the autonomies of their fellow community members have been compromised in a way that strays too far from traditional politics. When political events reflect hateful beliefs, such as racism, censorship should definitely not be what the public turns to.
Many athletes representing America have begun to speak out against the nation’s current political state, creating animosity on social media platforms. In response to Trump’s return to power, figure skater Amber Glenn commented: “It’s not just affecting the queer community, but many other communities.” She received so much hate from her post that she took a break from social media as she prepared to compete. Hunter Hess, freestyle skier, remarked: “There’s obviously a lot going on that I’m not the biggest fan of, and I think a lot of people aren’t.” He also stated that he didn’t see himself as representing “everything that’s going on” in America, only “all the things that I believe are good about the U.S.” While these are simple examples of political expression, many people are not happy with athletes’ remarks, demonstrating a level of corruption in the media.
This time, the backlash is not only coming from typical internet users, but also Republican representatives. President Trump quickly responded on social media to Hess’ comments, calling him a “real loser” for expressing such mixed feelings. According to Trump, “if that’s the case, he shouldn’t have tried out for the team.” Vice President JD Vance also expressed discontent with recent messages from athletes, saying that they “should expect some pushback” for speaking out, and “[they’re] not there to pop off about politics.” While the Olympics may not be designated for political activism, this type of executive pushback is borderline authoritarian, and sends a frightening message to anyone with a major platform in the media.
With that being said, what does “political” even mean in this context? Both athletes and Olympic Committee members have faced troubles regarding this question in the 2026 Olympics, highlighting the word’s ambiguity. Ukrainian sled racer Vladyslav Heraskevych was recently disqualified for refusing to compete without his customized helmet, which was decorated in honor of victims of the war between Ukraine and Russia. While he described it as a memorial, the Olympic Committee ruled that it violated a ban of political expression on the field of play. A political issue is something that directly concerns speaking about a specific government or its policies. I would not consider honoring a loved one lost to war “too political.”
Ultimately, in a normal social climate, the Olympics should be politics-free. When the circumstances call for it—when hatred, such as racism or homophobia, is undeniably being spread—athletes should be allowed to speak out against injustices in their countries, and clarify what they do or do not stand for. The Trump administration’s current actions warrant activism efforts from athletes, as his ideals interfere with democracy and his presidency continuously teeters on the edge between peaceful and hateful. This is a case where the Olympics should allow advocacy, yet still uphold that guideline of apoliticism. It is extremely important to refrain from promoting censorship when it comes to political issues, as acknowledging injustice is what leads to change. But, it is also important to respect the privacy of the athletes’ opinions, and to promote the typical friendly competition without alternate external pressures. Beyond representing their country, they are there to play sports.
