The Olympics are – and should be – political

https://www.pexels.com/photo/olympic-rings-against-the-background-of-clear-blue-sky-24286126/

Edited by Emilia Grabowski, Astrid Cheng, Amelia Cantwell, and Owen Andrews.

The 2026 Milano Cortina Winter Olympic Games wrapped up on February 26th after 17 days of intense competition where Team USA won a total of 33 medals, including 12 gold. Stories of triumph and sorrow always make headlines as the games progress, but so do politics. Officially, the Olympic Charter says that the games are to operate with political neutrality. However, the Olympics have consistently been the platform for political activism and discourse. On the international stage and amid ever-increasing media coverage, athletes can make statements that are sure to catch the eye of top political leaders and the general public, possibly to the dismay of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). By looking at the past and present day, the question is not how the IOC should downplay politics, but rather how it should embrace them.

Political activism has been a part of the Olympics for over a century. At the 1906 Olympic Games in Athens, Greece, Peter O’Connor climbed a flagpole during his medal ceremony to replace the Union flag with the Erin Go Bragh flag (Ireland Forever). This protest came after he was forced to compete with the British team despite being Irish. Thirty years later, at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, American sprinter and long jumper Jesse Owens defied the indoctrination and racist propaganda that Hitler was hoping to spread whilst hosting the Olympics. As a Black American and the most successful athlete in those Games, Jesse Owens was concrete evidence that Hitler’s idea of Aryan superiority was not true.

Furthermore, at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, before the games began, over 200 protesters were killed and over 1,000 were injured after the Mexican army opened fire on a crowd protesting the use of government money for the Olympics instead of social programs. This tragic event became known as the Tlatelolco Massacre, and before a single athlete had competed, the games had already become the epicenter for political violence and unrest; this was a stark reminder that the Games do not exist outside of the world around them. At the same Olympics, American sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos protested the racist treatment of Black Americans by taking the podium barefoot, bowing their heads, and raising gloved fists. This moment is immortalized in a now-iconic picture of them on the podium as the national anthem played. The International Olympic Committee insisted that Smith and Carlos leave the games or risk dismissal of the entire American track team. Additionally, their protest drew criticism and even death threats from around the world. Still, their actions are seen as a catalyst for civil rights reform in sports and beyond. In 2008, Smith and Carlos received the Arthur Ashe Courage Award, and in 2016, they became ambassadors to the United States Olympic Committee as inclusivity and diversity initiatives began.

Retrospectively, it is easy to see that political demonstrations do not go unnoticed and have real effects on international and domestic politics. While these are just a few examples among many, they show that political demonstrations at the Olympics have real impacts on domestic and international politics. Far from being apolitical, the Olympics have always been an important stage for activism and protest.

This year, the Milano Cortina Olympic Games also saw political controversies. After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the IOC banned the Russian Olympic Committee in October 2023. Today, Belarusian and Russian athletes compete as “Individual Neutral Athletes.” Ukrainian athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych was disqualified from the games after he insisted on wearing a helmet that honors many Ukrainian victims of the war. Each of these decisions carries undeniable political weight. By deciding who competes, under what flag, and which symbols are permitted, the IOC is deciding which government actions are acceptable and which are not.

For the United States specifically, the Games had their own set of political controversies. After winning gold, Team USA’s men’s hockey team celebrated with President Trump and FBI Director Kash Patel, earning an invite to the White House and the president’s State of the Union address. During a phone call, Trump remarked that if he didn’t invite the women’s hockey team, who also won gold, he would be impeached. The US women’s hockey team declined President Trump's invitation to the State of the Union address. Officially citing scheduling conflicts, their decision has been received as an act of protest against the President and his messaging. Massive media coverage of each of these controversies has once again sparked extensive online discourse, drawing increasing attention to the matter. It appears that the headlines coming out from the Olympics are increasingly as much about politics as about sports, showing how closely interwoven the two have become.

If the Olympics cannot escape politics, why not fully embrace them? It is clear that the IOC wants to shy away from giving athletes a platform to voice their opinions. Both historical and contemporary examples demonstrate that the Games are not politically neutral. In deciding what athletes can and cannot express, the IOC inevitably reveals its own political leanings, becoming an active player in the political conversations it aims to avoid. As long as war, systemic injustice, and inequality plague society, the Olympic Games will be the platform that gives athletes the ability to speak out to the world.

Given the current political climate in the United States, this activism comes at a crucial time. The Trump administration has continued to stretch the fabric of American democracy through its actions that threaten core American ideals. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids have led to major uproar and outrage among many Americans, especially after the killing of multiple US citizens by ICE officials. The Department of Justice’s release of the Epstein files has been met with criticism, particularly because some files related to Trump were withheld. President Trump has put banners across many federal government buildings with his face and key political messages in full display, causing some to compare this behavior to that of dictators such as Hitler and Kim Jong Un.

It is hard to admit, but crucial to realize, that the United States government and President Trump are taking steps similar to those of dictators. Just like Tommie Smith and John Carlos used their podium to speak out against racism in America, modern-day athletes must use their unique platform to speak out against injustice and authoritarianism. As the governing body of the Olympics, the IOC should allow political statements. Trying to hide or discourage political activism only benefits those who threaten democracy and perpetuate injustice. The Olympic Charter says that the games are “competitions between athletes…not between countries.” If that is true, then let athletes speak freely regardless of how their governments may react.

Political activism and controversy have always been part of the Olympic Games. As long as politics exist, athletes will seek ways to express their opinions, and the IOC cannot continue to ignore this fact. For the United States in particular, the threat to democracy has rarely felt more urgent. Athletes should use their platform to draw attention to the path the country may be heading down, and it is time the International Olympic Committee allows athletes to express political opinions.