When the President of the United States Calls His Own Olympic Athletes “Losers”

In recent days, several U.S. athletes competing at the Milano–Cortina Winter Olympics have spoken candidly about their mixed emotions about representing the United States on the global stage, saying that wearing the flag does not necessarily mean they feel aligned with everything happening in the country right now. Their comments—critical, personal, or political in nature—sparked debate, as athlete statements often do. One statement, however—that of freestyle skier Hunter Hess—drew particular ire from President Donald Trump.

Posting on his social media platform, Trump dismissed the athletes with the following post: “U.S. Olympic Skier, Hunter Hess, a real Loser, says he doesn’t represent his Country in the current Winter Olympics. If that’s the case, he shouldn’t have tried out for the Team, and it’s too bad he’s on it. Very hard to root for someone like this. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

While we can nitpick at the facts—Hess did not actually say that he doesn’t represent the country, he said “just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.”—the one thing that stood out to me was the use of the word  “loser.”

The moment deserves scrutiny, not because athletes are beyond criticism, but because of who delivered it. This is not a question of whether Olympic athletes should speak out, nor whether their views are correct, misguided, or divisive. The more pressing issue is what it says about a political leader—particularly one holding the nation’s highest office—to publicly deride Olympic representatives of the United States.

Olympians are not casual or accidental celebrities. They are athletes selected to represent their country on the world’s largest sporting stage, often after years or decades of sacrifice, injury, and financial uncertainty. May I point out that U.S. Olympians are not supported by tax dollars in any shape or form but rather have to rely on donations and sponsorship deals to fund their training, travel, and equipment, Nevertheless, they compete under the U.S. flag, not as private individuals but as national representatives despite receiving no national funding. To label them “losers” is not simply an insult aimed at individuals; it is a dismissal of the very idea of national representation when it does not align politically.

Criticism from elected officials is not inherently inappropriate. Presidents have long disagreed with athletes, artists, and activists. What stands out here is tone and delivery. Resorting to mockery—especially language historically used to demean opponents rather than engage them—signals something more personal than political disagreement. It reframes civic discourse as a contest of dominance rather than leadership.

Presidents, current or former, set norms whether they intend to or not. Their words ripple outward, shaping how citizens talk to one another and how disagreement is expressed. When a president encourages ridicule rather than debate, it legitimizes contempt as a political tool. When that contempt is directed at Olympic athletes, it sends a message that service, excellence, and representation are conditional—valued only when they are silent or compliant.

This moment is not about silencing athletes, nor about shielding them from criticism. It is about standards. The Olympic Games themselves are rooted in ideals of peace, unity, and mutual respect—seemingly values that escape the current president of the United States. A president is not a pundit, nor a heckler in the crowd. The office carries with it an expectation of restraint, dignity, and an understanding of the weight words carry when spoken from a position of power. Publicly humiliating a citizen for disagreeing or being uncomfortable about recent events in the U.S.—aka exercising the basic constitutional right of free speech—as the president is not a sign of leadership but the abuse of power and a deliberate attempt to intimidate dissent.

Calling Olympians “losers” may resonate with a certain audience. But it also raises a broader question for the everyone watching: what kind of leader speaks that way—and what does it say about the kind of leadership he offers?