By John Q. Hosedrinker 
At the Milan Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics, several American athletes have found themselves at odds with their government, drawing criticism for voicing their opinions on U.S. policies. Freestyle skier Hunter Hess expressed mixed emotions about representing the U.S., leading to a strong rebuke from President Trump. Similarly, curler Rich Ruohonen criticized federal law enforcement actions, and snowboarder Chloe Kim defended her teammates’ right to express themselves, highlighting the complex intersection of sports and politics. This has ignited a debate about national representation and whether athletes should remain apolitical or use their platform to address social issues, with conservative figures like Megyn Kelly and Vice President Vance calling for athletes to focus solely on competition. The article argues that sports have historically been intertwined with politics, citing examples from Peter O’Connor’s protest in 1906 to Tommie Smith and John Carlos’s raised fists in 1968, demonstrating that athletes have long used the Olympic stage to make statements about national and international issues. The piece emphasizes that American Olympians, particularly those with immigrant backgrounds, carry the responsibility of confronting the disconnect between the nation’s ideals and its reality, making their participation more than just an athletic endeavor but a symbolic representation of the country.
Read the original article here
It’s undeniably correct and moral for individuals, including athletes, to use platforms like the Olympics to speak out about political injustices and wrongdoing. The notion that sports and politics are separate realms is a myth; they have always been intertwined. Governments themselves often leverage the Olympic Games for soft power and to project a specific national image. Therefore, it’s disingenuous to argue that athletes, who are participants on this global stage, should be silenced when they wish to express their views. The common refrain to “stick to sports” is, in essence, a thinly veiled attempt to censor dissenting opinions. Politics are an intrinsic part of human life, and advocating for their exclusion from public discourse is not only insidious but also actively hinders the development of a mature society capable of engaging with diverse viewpoints.
When individuals advocate for silence on political matters, particularly in the context of sports, it often signals a desire to suppress speech they find inconvenient. True dialogue and the open exchange of ideas are cornerstones of a healthy democracy, and those who seek to stifle this discourse, whether through censorship, cancellation, or by deeming such discussions inappropriate, do not champion the principles of a democratic society. It’s notable how often the same voices that decry politics in sports, specifically when criticizing current political administrations, readily celebrate historical figures like Jesse Owens who used their athletic achievements to stand against oppressive regimes. This selective application of principles highlights a fundamental hypocrisy.
This contradiction is particularly evident when considering how certain political factions express outrage over athletes speaking out against their own government, framing it as treasonous, while simultaneously supporting the condemnation of authoritarian regimes abroad. Politicians, themselves, frequently inject politics into sports discussions. To suggest that athletes are unqualified to speak on political matters is to dismiss their voices and experiences, effectively silencing them based on a predetermined role. This argument often stems from a desire to control the narrative and prevent the public from realizing the extent to which influential figures may disagree with certain political ideologies. The reality is that politics are deeply personal, and the personal is invariably political; there are few better stages than the Olympics to acknowledge this interconnectedness.
Indeed, the idea that athletes should remain silent is often exposed when comparing reactions. Many who criticized American athletes for speaking out against domestic policies would likely champion Chinese athletes if they were to voice concerns about human rights abuses in their own country. This reveals a preference for critique that aligns with one’s own geopolitical biases rather than a genuine commitment to free speech. It’s not just correct and moral; it’s imperative for those with a voice to speak out against injustice. The core purpose of the Olympic movement, as stated, is to build a peaceful and better world through sport, fostering mutual understanding and fair play. How can this goal be achieved without addressing the impediments to it, such as human rights violations?
Defining “politics” is crucial here. While the Olympic spirit should transcend divisive political ideologies that trample fundamental human rights – universal rights inherent to all individuals, regardless of their background – it should embrace politics that actively support and uphold these rights. When discussing the Olympics, it’s important to recognize that the movement itself has goals that require political engagement to be realized. The goal of building a peaceful world cannot be achieved by ignoring the political realities that obstruct it. Thus, the question arises: perhaps politicians themselves should refrain from interfering in sports, allowing athletes to engage with these critical issues.
If athletes possess a platform and a voice, it becomes an obligation to use that power to denounce injustice wherever it may be found. This means consistently advocating for what is right, never ceasing to speak out, protest, and fight for justice. Evil, in its various forms, is a present reality that must be confronted, and allowing it to take root or spread is a failure to uphold fundamental moral principles. The historical parallels are striking; the embrace of the Olympics as a platform to oppose fascism in 1936 stands in stark contrast to the modern calls for silence from certain segments of the political spectrum.
The right to free speech is a fundamental tenet, enshrined in principles like the First Amendment. To suggest that athletes should have their medals stripped for expressing political views is to misunderstand the very nature of free expression, which does not selectively apply based on agreement with the message. Athletes who dedicate years to achieving Olympic status earn not only the right to compete but also the right to speak and express themselves. Their voices, amplified by their achievements, carry significant weight. To possess such a platform and remain silent on matters of importance would be a disservice to oneself and to the principles that the Olympics are ostensibly meant to represent.
Furthermore, the argument that athletes should not speak out because it is not their “role” is a form of censorship. The world stage of the Olympics, where global attention is focused, is precisely the kind of platform where speaking truth to power can have a profound impact. The idea that athletes should remain silent so as not to inconvenience certain political viewpoints or to prevent the “plebes” from realizing that many global figures hold opposing views is patronizing and undemocratic. It is not uncommon for politicians and public figures to engage in sports-related discourse; therefore, the reverse should also be true.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) itself professes goals that require engagement with political realities. To suggest that athletes’ voices should be stifled in the name of purity ignores the very objectives the IOC purports to uphold. When specific actions, like honoring fallen athletes, are labeled as toxic because they offend representatives of a nation responsible for their deaths, it highlights the political nature of the games. The Olympics should be a space where impediments to building a peaceful world are addressed, not ignored.
The argument that athletes from certain nations, such as the United States, speaking out about domestic issues is trivial compared to the abuses in authoritarian states, while having some validity in terms of perspective, still misses the point. The ability of American athletes to speak freely, even about perceived failings of their own government, is itself a demonstration of democratic freedoms. Conversely, the potential consequences for athletes from oppressive regimes who speak out underscore the importance of defending free expression wherever it exists. The notion that this might not be the message intended by American athletes does not negate the inherent value of their right to speak. Ultimately, freedom of speech and opinion are not forfeited upon reaching Olympic status.