By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The 2026 World Cup, hosted in the US, Canada, and Mexico, poses significant safety risks for international visitors due to the Trump administration’s policies. Statements from President Trump and Vice President Vance, interpreted as veiled threats, suggest increased crackdowns on immigrants and potential harassment of visitors. Numerous countries have issued travel warnings, and a boycott movement, “Boycott USA 2026,” has formed due to concerns over the potential for human rights violations. Therefore, attending the World Cup in Canada or Mexico is strongly advised over the United States.
Read the original article here
Trump’s World Cup will endanger foreign guests. A boycott is the only responsible course of action. The sheer hostility towards immigrants and foreigners under a Trump administration makes a visit to the United States for the World Cup a gamble no one should take. Stories of people being turned away at the border for expressing political views or simply facing arbitrary detention are becoming increasingly common. This isn’t the welcoming atmosphere typically associated with international sporting events; this is a climate of fear and uncertainty.
The potential for harassment and detention by ICE agents, operating both overtly and covertly, looms large. The risk isn’t merely inconvenience; it’s the potential for lengthy detention, deportation, and the violation of basic human rights. Reports of athletes and other visitors having their ESTA applications revoked or facing unexplained denials highlight the unpredictable and potentially devastating consequences of traveling to the US under this administration.
Think about the financial investment involved in traveling to the World Cup. The cost of flights, accommodation, and tickets is substantial. To risk such a significant expenditure for a chance at harassment, detention, or even deportation is simply reckless. The potential rewards are significantly outweighed by the potential for catastrophic consequences. Staying away and boycotting the events held in the United States is the far safer, and more ethically sound, approach.
Furthermore, the potential for abuse isn’t limited to those who express anti-Trump sentiments. There are reports of arbitrary detentions and invasive searches, suggesting that simply being a foreigner might be enough to trigger the attention of overzealous authorities. Stories of cavity searches based on arbitrary suspicion add to the disturbing picture of an environment where basic human rights are potentially at risk. These accounts paint a picture of a nation that’s actively hostile to visitors, turning a major international event into a potential nightmare.
The prospect of attending a World Cup match in the United States under a Trump presidency is not one of sporting excitement; it’s a gamble with potentially life-altering consequences. The safety and well-being of foreign guests cannot be guaranteed, and the potential for violations of their rights is alarmingly high. A boycott isn’t just a protest; it’s a necessary precaution to protect those who would otherwise be vulnerable to the unpredictable and oppressive actions of the government.
The fact that this event is co-hosted by Canada and Mexico provides a viable alternative. Focusing on the matches held in those countries would avoid the risks associated with traveling to the United States. This not only protects foreign guests but also sends a strong message to the United States government about the unacceptable nature of their policies.
Many express hope that FIFA would relocate games, but their primary concern is profit. The only effective pressure will come from individuals and nations refusing to participate in the US-based events. A mass boycott, therefore, will be the most impactful way to protest the dangerous situation foreign visitors would face and might even lead to a reassessment of the tournament’s location by FIFA. This might be the only way to ensure the safety and security of international attendees.
The concerns expressed are valid and based on documented reports and experiences. The potential for harm is substantial, and the risks significantly overshadow the benefits. Therefore, a boycott of the World Cup matches in the United States is not just a suggestion; it’s a moral imperative. The safety and well-being of foreign guests should be the priority, and a boycott is the most effective means to protect them. The choice is clear: either risk facing the dangers of a hostile environment or enjoy the World Cup in safer, more welcoming locations. The decision should be easy.