The Boycott That Could Break the Games: How the 2028 Olympics in LA Became a Global Reckoning with America—And Harming the U.S. Economy in the Process
Other reasons why one cannot celebrate NO KINGS DAY
By Ethan S. Burger
Once envisioned as a triumphant return to global camaraderie on U.S. soil, the 2026 Winter Olympics now teeter on the edge of becoming a referendum—not on sport, but on America itself. The erosion of diplomatic goodwill, exacerbated by domestic policies that alienate allies and rivals alike, has transformed the upcoming games into a historic flashpoint for defiance.
With each new executive order, travel restriction, or humanitarian rollback, the foundation of Olympic cooperation fractures further. What the United States had hoped would be a unifying spectacle now threatens to become an unprecedented global rebuke.
Humanitarian Retraction and Its Human Cost
The Trump administration’s retrenchment from global humanitarian engagement has drawn intense scrutiny. USAID, once a pillar of American soft power, has been gutted. Key health, nutrition, and emergency response programs—justified under the banner of “America First”—have been slashed, creating cascading consequences in vulnerable regions.
According to projections from the Global Health Council, over 530,000 preventable deaths could occur globally between 2024 and 2027 due to these cuts, affecting maternal and child health, vaccine distribution, HIV/AIDS prevention, and post-disaster relief. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health further warns of likely resurgent measles outbreaks, higher infant mortality, and worsening food insecurity where U.S. aid had sustained supply chains.
The global press has been unequivocal in its condemnation. Le Monde called the cuts “an abandonment of moral leadership.” The Sydney Morning Herald reported medicine shortages in Papua New Guinea and starvation spikes in South Sudan. The Daily Maverick in South Africa ran a searing editorial under the headline: “America’s Aid Exit Is a Death Sentence for Thousands.”
A diplomat from a Pacific island nation, speaking to Der Spiegel on condition of anonymity, captured the growing indignation: > “The United States left us to drown—literally and figuratively. And now they want us to cheer at their games?”
Immigration, Identity, and the Politics of Exclusion
The Olympic Charter enshrines a spirit of global inclusion—values starkly at odds with the United States’ current immigration posture. Expanded travel bans, mass deportations, and the dismantling of long-standing refugee protections have made the U.S. an increasingly unwelcoming venue.
Athletes from Muslim-majority nations, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia have voiced apprehension. A Tunisian middle-distance runner told The Guardian that she was interrogated for hours during a U.S. training visit. A Kenyan boxing coach confided to The Globe and Mail that his team might simply not attend: > “Why should we put our athletes through humiliation?”
Even dual-national athletes hesitate. Visa denials for journalists, coaches, and family members have created logistical headaches that border on outright exclusion. Entire Olympic delegations may withdraw—not as an act of protest, but out of necessity.
Diplomatic Retaliation and the Fragile Coalition of Allies
Behind closed doors, multiple G7 and EU officials are reevaluating their participation in the 2026 Games. France’s president has floated the prospect of a coordinated rebuke, hinting in Le Figaro at a possible joint statement condemning U.S. backsliding on democratic and humanitarian commitments. German MPs have proposed a parliamentary resolution making Olympic attendance conditional on visa guarantees and aid restoration.
Even close allies like Canada are reconsidering. The Toronto Star reports several Canadian MPs questioning whether sending a full delegation makes sense, given America’s ongoing retaliatory tariffs and recent immigration sweeps that have affected Canadian citizens.
Economic and Reputational Risks
Beyond symbolism, a boycott would come with severe financial ramifications. Estimates from Deloitte and the Peterson Institute suggest that the U.S. could face $40 billion to $65 billion in direct economic losses, including sponsorship cancellations, lost tourism, and reduced media revenue.
The employment fallout could exceed 175,000 lost jobs, concentrated in hospitality, construction, and entertainment. Cities like Salt Lake City, which have invested heavily in Olympic infrastructure, now risk stranded assets.
Major sponsors—including Adidas, Toyota, and Samsung—are reportedly conducting internal reviews on whether to downscale or withdraw Olympic marketing tied to the U.S.-hosted games.
Meanwhile, global media sentiment continues to deteriorate. Euronews, NHK Japan, BBC World, and Al Jazeera English have all run critical segments titled some variation of “Can the U.S. Still Host the World?” The prevailing tone? Skepticism, concern, and conditional hope.
A Path to Repair: Recommitment, Not Rebranding
Avoiding catastrophe requires more than superficial assurances or patriotic appeals—it demands substantive policy shifts. Immediate steps should include:
Restoring USAID programs with multilateral oversight and external audits;
Creating an Olympic visa track to guarantee timely, respectful entry for all athletes and delegations;
Ending retaliatory tariffs that undermine allied participation;
Hosting a pre-Olympics diplomatic summit to reestablish trust with international sporting bodies;
Consulting former diplomats and legal experts to certify compliance with Olympic Charter principles.
These measures would not resolve every concern, but they would signal that the United States understands its responsibility as host.
Conclusion: What the Olympics Stand For—And Who They Are For
Boycotts are blunt instruments. They disrupt dreams, deny athletes their stage, and may generate more noise than tangible results. Yet, they also clarify our values. They force us to ask: What do we accept? What do we reject? What world do we choose to build?
If the 2026 Olympics are to proceed as a celebration of unity, they cannot do so in the shadow of diplomatic exclusion and humanitarian retreat. The world does not owe the United States a gathering. And the global community must decide whether its presence affirms values—or undermines them.
The Trump administration has set the conditions. The world may decide it has better places to be.