COLUMN: When the World Boos Trump’s America in Milan

A few seconds that speak volumes

Let’s go back to that specific moment at San Siro Stadium. The giant screen displays the faces of JD Vance and his wife, Usha. The music is loud, the atmosphere festive. And then, suddenly, boos erupt. Whistles, shouts—a cacophony of disapproval that almost drowns out the music. Commentators for the Canadian network CBC captured the moment with disarming candor: “Oops, that’s not… uh… that’s a lot of booing for him. Whistles, boos, a few claps.” A few claps, yes. But drowned out by a sea of rejection. The Guardian, which was on the scene, confirmed the booing. So did USA Today. Even U.S. officials present in the stadium, such as Juliette Kayyem, a former official in the Department of Homeland Security under Obama, noted the striking contrast: “It was brief but noticeable. But I want to point out that the crowd was loud and cheering for Team USA as they entered. It was beautiful to hear. And what a juxtaposition.”

NBC and the Censorship of Dissent

But this is where the story gets even more troubling. American viewers watching the ceremony on NBC heard none of this. Nothing. The boos were cut from the U.S. broadcast feed. NBC commentators simply said “JD Vance” without mentioning the crowd’s reaction. As if nothing had happened. The White House even released a clip of Vance applauding, taken from the NBC broadcast, with no trace of the boos. Outright censorship. This isn’t the first time. Last September, during the U.S. Open, tournament organizers asked broadcasters not to show the crowd’s reaction to Donald Trump’s presence. An explicit directive to mask dissent. To create an alternative reality where everything is fine, where the president and his vice president are loved and respected.

This censorship makes my blood run cold. Because it reveals something fundamental about this administration: it cannot stand dissent. It does not tolerate disagreement. It prefers to rewrite reality rather than face it. And that is terrifying. Because a democracy that hides the truth from its citizens is no longer truly a democracy. It is something else. Something darker.

A Surreal Presidential Reaction

On board Air Force One, Donald Trump was asked about the boos directed at his vice president. His response? “That’s surprising. Is that true? It’s surprising because people like him. I mean, he’s in a foreign country, to be fair. He doesn’t get booed in this country.” Except he does. JD Vance has been booed on multiple occasions in the United States. In August 2024, at a firefighters’ convention in Boston, he was loudly booed after claiming that he and Trump were “the most pro-worker Republican ticket in history.” In March 2026, he was met with deafening boos during a symphony performance at the Kennedy Center. In August of that same year, he, Stephen Miller, and Pete Hegseth were booed and jeered at Union Station in Washington, D.C., as they were heading to meet with National Guard troops. The facts are there, documented, verifiable. But Trump denies them. He is rewriting history in real time.

Lying as a Political Strategy

This denial is not trivial. It is part of a broader strategy to manipulate reality. If the president says that Vance isn’t being booed in the United States, then for his supporters, that is the truth. It doesn’t matter what the videos, eyewitness accounts, or news articles say. The president’s word becomes the sole source of truth. It’s a tried-and-true tactic used by authoritarian regimes throughout history: creating a parallel reality where facts no longer matter, where only the ruling power’s narrative counts. And it works. Because a significant portion of the American public takes Trump at his word, without verifying, without questioning. This is how democracy erodes, little by little, lie after lie.

I’m tired of these lies. Really. Tired of having to fact-check every statement, of having to prove what should be obvious. Tired of living in a world where the truth has become optional. Where a president can say anything and get away with it. Because his supporters will believe him no matter what. It’s exhausting. And terrifying.

Calls for fair play that fall on deaf ears

The day after the ceremony, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) held a press conference. Spokesperson Mark Adams tried to downplay the incident, while calling for “fair play.” “From the IOC’s perspective, the next Games are coming to Los Angeles. We are very pleased that the U.S. government is so committed to the Games. This is a great thing for the Olympic movement. I was in the stadium last night, and seeing the U.S. team cheered on as it was by the crowd—that was a great example of fair play—it was fantastic.” Adams also mentioned that Vance had met with IOC President Kirsty Coventry and that the meeting had “gone incredibly well.” An obvious attempt to smooth things over and downplay the controversy. The IOC also stated that it does not like to see “booing, no matter which countries the athletes come from.” A noble stance in theory, but one that completely ignores the explosive political context.

When Sports Can No Longer Ignore Politics

The IOC likes to repeat that the Olympic Games are above politics. That sport unites people and transcends divisions. It’s a beautiful idea. But it’s also an illusion. The Games have always been political—from Jesse Owens in Berlin in 1936 to the Black Power salutes in Mexico City in 1968, and from the boycott of Moscow in 1980 to that of Los Angeles in 1984. Sport does not exist in a vacuum; it reflects the tensions, conflicts, hopes, and fears of its time. And in 2026, these tensions are palpable. Israeli athletes were also booed during the opening ceremony—a painful reminder of the conflict in the Middle East. The IOC may well call for respect and fair play, but it cannot erase the political reality surrounding these Games.

Sport as an apolitical refuge? That’s a myth. A beautiful myth, certainly, but a myth nonetheless. Because sports are us. They are our societies, our values, our conflicts. We cannot separate the two. And frankly, I’m not sure we should even try. Because sometimes, sports are the only place where we can express our disagreement. Where we can say no. And that is precious.

Representing a Country Whose Values You Don’t Share

For the American athletes in Milan, the situation is particularly delicate. They carry their country’s flag, but that country pursues policies they don’t necessarily endorse. Freestyle skier Hunter Hess expressed this dilemma with refreshing honesty: “There are obviously a lot of things going on that I’m not the biggest fan of. Just because I’m carrying the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s happening in the United States.” A courageous statement, especially in a climate where dissent is increasingly frowned upon. Hess is probably not the only one who feels this way. How many other American athletes share his feelings but choose to remain silent for fear of reprisals? How many feel torn between their pride in representing their country and their shame at some of its actions?

Patriotism Redefined

What Hess and other athletes remind us is that patriotism isn’t blind allegiance. It isn’t accepting everything your government does without question. True patriotism is loving your country enough to want it to be better. It’s having the courage to say, “No, that’s not who we are; that shouldn’t be who we are.” It means refusing to let the flag we carry be associated with policies we find unjust or cruel. Athletes who dare to voice their disagreement are not unpatriotic. On the contrary, they embody the best of America: freedom of expression, the courage of one’s convictions, and the willingness to fight for a higher ideal.

I admire these athletes. Truly. Because it takes immense courage to publicly say that you disagree with your own government. Especially when you’re representing your country on the world stage. It’s risky. It can cost you sponsors, opportunities, even a career. But they do it anyway. Because they know that some things are more important than comfort or security. And that is heroic.

A Widening Divide

The boos in Milan are not an isolated incident. They reflect a broader rejection of the Trump administration in Europe. Since Trump returned to power, transatlantic relations have deteriorated significantly. Aggressive immigration policies, the withdrawal from certain international agreements, and nationalist—and at times xenophobic—rhetoric have deeply shocked Europeans. The events in Minneapolis, with the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, resonate particularly strongly in Europe, where human rights are taken very seriously. The idea that American citizens could be killed by their own government during immigration operations is incomprehensible to many Europeans. It runs counter to everything Europe has built since World War II: a system of values based on human dignity, the rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights.

Milan as a Symbol of a Break

On February 6, 2026, Milan became the symbol of this rupture. An Olympic stadium transformed into a political platform. A crowd that refuses to be silenced, that refuses to pretend that everything is fine. The morning protests, the evening boos: all of this sends a clear message to Washington. Europe does not condone this. Europe will not be silenced. Europe will not let this slide. This is a historic moment, even if it may seem insignificant at first glance. Because it marks a turning point in transatlantic relations. A moment when Europe collectively says, “No, we will not follow you down this path.”

I feel a certain pride as I write these lines. Pride in seeing Europe stand up, say no, and refuse to condone the unacceptable. Because for a long time, Europe followed America almost blindly. But now, something has changed. Europe has found its voice again. And that’s important. Because the world needs counterbalances. Voices that say, “Stop, enough is enough.” Milan has reminded us that those voices still exist.

NBC and the Manipulation of Information

Let’s revisit this instance of censorship by NBC. Because it deserves our attention. By cutting the boos from its broadcast, NBC didn’t simply omit a detail. It fabricated an alternative reality. It created a version of events in which Vance is received normally, without hostility. For the millions of Americans who watched the ceremony on NBC, the boos never happened. They didn’t happen. This is manipulation, plain and simple. And it’s not the first time. The American media, particularly those close to power, have a long history of pandering to the administrations in office. But this takes it to a whole new level. We’re no longer talking about pandering, but about active censorship. About rewriting reality in real time.

The Role of Independent Media

Fortunately, other media outlets did their job. The Guardian, USA Today, Mother Jones, and many others reported on the boos. Social media circulated the videos. The truth eventually came to light, despite attempts to censor it. This is a crucial reminder of the role of independent media in a democracy. Without them—without these journalists who refuse to bow to pressure from those in power—we would be at the mercy of official propaganda. We wouldn’t know what’s really going on. We’d be living in a carefully constructed bubble of illusions. Independent media are our last line of defense against manipulation. And they’re increasingly under threat, increasingly under attack, increasingly marginalized. It’s terrifying.

I’m a journalist. Or rather, a columnist. And I deeply believe in the power of information—its ability to change things, to enlighten people’s minds, and to hold those in power accountable. But I also see how that power is under attack, day after day. How independent media are labeled “enemies of the people.” How truth itself has become a matter of opinion. And that scares me. Because without a shared truth, without common facts, debate is no longer possible. All that’s left are entrenched camps, each with its own reality. And that is the death of democracy.

Concerns Are Growing

The next Summer Olympics will take place in Los Angeles in 2028—just two years from now. And already, concerns are mounting. How will these Games unfold in an America that is increasingly divided and polarized? How will international athletes be welcomed in a country with such aggressive immigration policies? How will spectators from around the world react? The boos in Milan may be just a taste of what lies ahead for America in 2028. The IOC may well be delighted by the U.S. administration’s “commitment,” but that commitment could very well backfire on the Games themselves. Because the Olympic Games are supposed to be a celebration of unity, diversity, and peace—not a platform for controversial and divisive policies.

Is a boycott a possibility?

Some are already beginning to raise the possibility of a boycott. Voices are being heard calling on countries not to send their athletes to Los Angeles in 2028 if current policies continue. It is an extreme prospect, to be sure, but not entirely unrealistic. Olympic history is littered with boycotts. And if the situation continues to deteriorate, if more people are killed, if tensions continue to rise, a boycott could become a serious option for some countries. It would be a disaster for the Olympic movement. But it would also send a powerful political message—one that says, “We do not condone this. We will not participate. We will not be complicit.”

I hope it doesn’t come to that. I really do. Because the Olympic Games, despite all their flaws, remain a unique moment. A moment when the world comes together, when differences fade away, when our shared humanity takes precedence. But I also understand those who are considering a boycott. Because sometimes, you have to know how to say no. We must be willing to refuse to participate in something that goes against our fundamental values. It’s a difficult choice. Heart-wrenching, even. But perhaps necessary.

Milan as a Turning Point

What happened in Milan on February 6, 2026, will be remembered. Not as a mere diplomatic incident, not as an Olympic anecdote. But as a moment of truth. A moment when the world made its feelings about the Trump administration crystal clear. A moment when dissent was voiced, loud and clear, despite attempts to censor it. The boos that greeted JD Vance were not just boos. They were cries of anger, frustration, and defiance. They were the voices of those who do not want a world where human life matters less than political goals. Of those who refuse to remain silent in the face of injustice. Of those who still believe that words have power, that actions have meaning, and that resistance is possible.

The future remains to be written

We are at a turning point. The next two years will be crucial. They will determine whether the 2028 Los Angeles Games will be a celebration or a battlefield. Whether transatlantic relations can be repaired or whether the rift is permanent. Whether America can regain its place in the community of nations or whether it will continue to isolate itself. Much will depend on the choices made by American leaders. But much will also depend on us. On our ability not to remain silent. Not to accept the unacceptable. To keep booing when we need to boo, to keep protesting when we need to protest, to keep speaking the truth when others try to hide it. Milan has shown us that it’s possible. That the world won’t take this lying down. That resistance still exists.

I end this column with a strange feeling—a mixture of hope and despair. Hope because I saw the world rise up in Milan. Because I heard those boos that said, “No, we don’t agree.” Because I saw athletes have the courage of their convictions. But also despair because I know the road ahead will be long. Because the forces we’re fighting are powerful. Because the truth is becoming increasingly difficult to defend. But I refuse to give up. We refuse to give up. Because that’s all we have left. Our voice. Our ability to say no. And as long as we have that, there will be hope.

Signed, Jacques Provost