Born and raised in San Francisco, California, professional skier Eileen Gu competed in the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing at age 18. In her Olympic debut, she won two gold medals and a silver in big air, halfpipe and slopestyle. This past month, she’s done much the same at the 2026 Milano-Cortina Olympic Winter Games, earning silver in both big air and slopestyle, with the halfpipe final scheduled for Feb. 21.
A skier raised in the Bay Area and enrolled at Stanford University, her upbringing likely does not deviate much from that of other Gen-Z Asian American athletes who trained in the United States.
That similarity is precisely what triggered the first set of online debates over which nation Gu should represent in the Olympics.
Ahead of the Beijing Olympics, Gu announced her decision to represent the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Ski Association. Along with her statement, she said she hoped to “inspire millions” in her mother’s home country.
However, her prodigious success has consistently been followed by criticism from the American audience — they claim she has an obligation to represent the country that provided the background to her upbringing, arguing that not doing so would be considered an act of betrayal.
Alongside those criticisms are claims that she must first discuss the political incompetencies of the People’s Republic of China, and defend representing them despite documented human rights abuses.
Such discourse continues to escalate today.
Conservative human rights activist and ex-NBA player Enes Kanter Freedom was one of the more prominent voices to speak up, alleging that athletes are quick to protest against human rights issues around the world, until it comes to China’s violations.
Eventually, even Vice President JD Vance joined in to question Gu’s allegiance to the United States.
“I certainly think that somebody who grew up in the United States of America, who benefited from our education system, from the freedoms and liberties that make this country a great place, I would hope that they want to compete with the United States of America,” Vance told Fox News.
The conservative case against Gu’s participation in China’s ski team fills me with frustration, for a couple of reasons.
For starters, Gu’s transition is rare, but not unheard of. In fact, there is an Asian American skier, Zoe Atkin, competing in the same events as Gu, representing Great Britain and in serious contention for a medal.
Despite being born in Boston, Massachusetts, and raised in Utah, Atkin inherited her father’s British citizenship, thereby qualifying her for representation.
Overly aggressive attempts to vilify Gu as a traitor, while Atkin receives little media coverage despite being the No. 4-ranked skier in the world and sitting in first place for the halfpipe final happening this weekend, reveal clear discrepancies in public outcry.
How do two Stanford-attending, American-born and half-Asian skiers representing different countries receive such different reactions from the press?
The answer is honestly quite simple. Gu represents China, and Atkin represents the United Kingdom.
Gu’s decision makes sense. She is a Chinese citizen, is fluent in Mandarin and visited Beijing every summer growing up. She understands the magnitude of Asian American racism and even pledged that she wanted to “forge friendships between nations.”
Additionally, she embodies the American dream. She was raised in a family of first-generation Chinese immigrants and was admitted to the top-ranked university in the US. She was the fourth-highest-paid athlete in 2025, earning $23.1 million. In fact, much of that was through the highs of US-embraced free-market capitalism, which allowed her to add multi-million-dollar endorsements to her $100k base salary.
In all respects, this would be a story praised by even the most conservative critics. Self-made wealth and merit-based success are how Asian Americans have been regarded for generations under the guise of the model minority myth, and Gu is no exception.
However, those accolades matter little to our leaders in a world of new-era Cold War politics, where a war is being fought on the Other. In discussions like this, it is crucial to acknowledge China’s involvement in documented human rights abuses and undemocratic acts of repression.
Condemning the Chinese government’s actions is reasonable. However, that discussion about China often crosses the line into legitimate Sinophobia rather than just criticism, including rhetoric that clearly links the current government with the Chinese people, who are portrayed as violent and closely tied to espionage.
However, when critics cast athletes as government spokespeople, it’s easy to subconsciously transfer the government’s negative associations to its individuals, and in this case, Gu. In that sense, we must condemn efforts to label Gu’s choice as politically charged, where writers have attempted to frame her departure as the start of a “superpower rivalry.”
“It is undoubtedly clear that contempt comes from orientalist psychologies, not one of genuine concern for said victims of repression.”
Gu’s role in furthering the mission for equitable access and her undeniable stature in women’s sports are overlooked, whereas conservatives bite on every opportunity to call her an “asset of the Chinese Communist Party.” It is undoubtedly clear that contempt comes from orientalist psychologies, not one of genuine concern for said victims of repression.
Can fans express discomfort in Gu’s unwillingness to speak up politically about anything, including the CCP? Absolutely. But that criticism must also come with an uncomfortable reflection on whether Americans and the British, too, should require such an intensive political vetting before representing their respective flags at the Olympics.
There are clearly moral ambiguities in Gu’s decision to remain silent on the crimes committed by the Chinese government. On that note, I also urge American athletes to address such moral ambiguities during a time of political turmoil, especially since Human Rights Watch flagged both China and the United States for denying the right to freedom over the past decade, since Trump took office.
Until such double standards are removed, however, we must live with Gu’s decision and deny attempts to enforce an allegiance to an American empire built on the subjugation of the Asian identity.
Facebook Comments