Which other political leaders have been booed at recent Olympics opening ceremonies, and how did organizers respond?
Executive summary
The Milano Cortina 2026 opening ceremony saw audible boos directed at U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and at Israel’s Olympic team, moments that echoed earlier instances of crowd hostility at global Games and were framed by local protests and diplomatic friction [1] [2]. Organizers and the International Olympic Committee responded with public appeals for respect and quiet, restraint rather than forceful intervention, while national and political actors amplified the incident through social media and competing narratives [3] [4].
1. Who was booed: two high‑profile targets at Milan
When the stadium cameras cut to Vice President J.D. Vance and his wife waving flags, the San Siro crowd erupted in jeers and whistles audible on international broadcasts, and Israel’s delegation was met with a “smattering” of boos as it marched — both reactions were recorded across major outlets and live feeds [5] [2]. Coverage consistently distinguishes the reception of Team USA’s athletes, who received applause, from the reaction to the U.S. political figure on the jumbotron, making clear the crowd’s hostility was aimed at the siting of political guests and certain national delegations rather than the athletes themselves [5] [6].
2. How organizers and the IOC publicly responded
Ahead of the ceremony, Olympic officials and IOC president Kirsty Coventry issued public appeals urging spectators to be “respectful,” an instruction repeated in coverage after the boos — the official posture was one of exhortation and prevention rather than on‑the‑spot crackdown [3] [5]. Reporting shows organizers “quietly expressed hope” the event would proceed without demonstrations and then reinforced that messaging when boos were heard, but there is no reporting in these sources of large‑scale ejections or security interventions aimed at silencing the crowd [4] [3].
3. The immediate operational choices: calm, not confrontation
Rather than attempting visible crowd control to stamp out jeers, organizers allowed the spectacle to continue — cameras shifted back to athletes and the program pressed on, a management choice that prioritized the ceremony’s flow over theatrically disciplining spectators, as noted by multiple outlets that observed the boos were brief and the parade resumed with cheers for competitors [7] [1]. A U.S. Olympic official also publicly clarified that ICE agents were not part of the delegation — a factual line offered to defuse one of the protest triggers, though it did not prevent demonstrations earlier in the day [8].
4. Why the crowd reacted: political context and local protests
Multiple reports tie the boos to anger in Milan about U.S. immigration enforcement decisions — hundreds protested the presence of U.S. ICE agents in the city and Italian political leaders had publicly criticized that policy, creating a charged atmosphere that set the stage for the stadium reaction [4] [1]. Journalistic accounts and broadcasters framed the boos as a rebuke of U.S. policies and, separately, as part of lingering hostility toward Israel that has surfaced at recent ceremonies, reflecting how global geopolitics frequently spill into Olympic pageantry [9] [2].
5. Media and political amplification of the moment
Political teams and media amplified the episode: the campaign account tied to former Vice President Kamala Harris reposted clips of the reception, and local and international outlets highlighted the split between applause for athletes and jeers for political figures, signaling that the reaction became both news and a political talking point rather than a mere stadium noise [4] [5]. That amplification fed competing narratives — some commentators stressed the appropriateness of protest at a global stage, while IOC messaging emphasized the Games as a space for sport and mutual respect [4] [3].
6. What reporting does not show and why it matters
The sources document the boos, the IOC’s appeals, and the local protests, but they do not report any decisive enforcement action by organizers to remove spectators or to otherwise alter stadium protocol in real time, leaving open questions about whether different operational choices might have changed the optics or security calculus [4] [3]. Without on‑the‑ground security logs or official incident reports in the cited coverage, attribution of the boos’ scale, coordination, or the exact mix of local versus visiting spectators remains inferential rather than fully documented [1] [2].