In recent years, the United States has once again stood in front of the mirror, not to ask itself what it wants to be, but to decide whether it is willing to defend what it already is. In sports, foreign policy, and internal debate, the country faces a discussion that many prefer to avoid, but which defines concrete results. Belonging matters. So does conviction. And when both are lacking, performance often suffers.
In this regard, during the last Winter Olympics Games, a tension that is not new was on display. Some American athletes chose to use their public spaces to express discomfort with the nation they represented. A freestyle skier spoke of mixed feelings before competing and how difficult it was for him to carry that flag. He finished tenth, and with that, his exposure faded. A figure skater said that the LGBT community was going through a difficult time in the country and that she would use her voice to encourage others. She finished fifth and did not make the podium. The results do not prove anything in themselves, but the contrast did not go unnoticed.
However, that sport did win a medal, thanks to Alysa Liu, who won representing the United States after choosing it over China. Her story is simple and powerful. She and her family found freedom here. There were no speeches of reproach or ambiguities. There was focus, execution, and results.
Hockey completed the circle. The US men’s and women’s teams won gold. There were no speeches of shame or ambiguous statements, there were flags, anthems, and a direct representation of millions of people. No one can prove that patriotism guarantees victory, but in disciplines that are decided in seconds, any advantage counts.
This pattern also appears outside the political arena. Donald Trump’s foreign policy is based on a logic that many describe as uncomfortable, but which responds to defined patriotic objectives, such as this weekend’s attack on Iran. Trump’s international agenda during his first year back in the White House marks an open break with the logic that had governed the global order for decades. The “America First” principle ceased to be an electoral slogan and became concrete decisions that reduced U.S. participation in multilateral agreements and reinforced a policy of direct action. From this perspective, these measures do not represent a capricious shift, but rather the timely execution of the mandate received at the polls.
US foreign policy ceased to be subordinate to international consensus and focused instead on clear domestic objectives, placing national security, economic stability, and the protection of US interests above traditional diplomatic considerations. Under this criterion, Washington acts not to preserve inherited balances, but to secure direct benefits for its own nation. It is no coincidence that political communication accompanies every move. The message points to an idea of a country that does not ask permission to defend its interests.
Sports and politics are not the same thing, but they share one constant. When a country acts with conviction, results tend to follow. Some find this interpretation uncomfortable, while others consider it elementary. The truth is that the United States is once again demonstrating that loyalty, far from being an abstract concept, continues to have real consequences.
