As the World Cup captivates millions across the globe, one notable absence has raised eyebrows in Whitehall: the President of the United States. Donald Trump has again chosen to skip the sporting showpiece, provoking quiet but pointed questions from UK ministers about the depth of US commitment to international co-operation. For a nation that co-hosts the 2026 tournament, staying away now sends a troubling signal about the value Washington places on cultural diplomacy.
Whitehall sources say the decision has not gone unnoticed. One minister, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said: 'It is not about the football. It is about showing up. The World Cup is one of the few events that brings the world together. When the leader of the free world does not appear, it sends a message that America is disengaging from the very institutions it helped build.'
That sentiment chimes with broader concerns across the Atlantic about the Trump administration’s approach to multilateralism. From pulling out of the Paris climate accord to trade wars with allies, the current occupant of the Oval Office has made a virtue of keeping his distance. Now, critics argue, he is even staying home from a tournament that will feature teams from 32 nations, many of them key US allies.
The absence is especially jarring given that the United States will co-host the next men’s World Cup in 2026, alongside Canada and Mexico. The tournament, which will be the largest in history with 48 teams, is seen by organisers as a chance to showcase America's ability to host a global event. But if the sitting president cannot be bothered to attend a World Cup now, sceptics wonder whether he will attend the one on his own soil.
Labour’s sports spokesperson, Clive Efford, said: 'This is a man who seems to have no interest in building bridges with other countries. The World Cup is not just a football tournament. It is a diplomatic opportunity. By not attending, the President is signalling that America’s place in the world is less important than his own convenience.'
Even within the United States, the absence has drawn comment. The New York Times noted this week that Trump is the first president since the 1970s to skip consecutive World Cups, breaking a tradition upheld by both Republican and Democratic predecessors. Ronald Reagan attended the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles; George W. Bush appeared at the 2002 Winter Olympics; Barack Obama was a regular at global sporting events. Trump’s no-show breaks that pattern.
Of course, the President has cited scheduling conflicts and security concerns. But critics say that excuse wears thin when other world leaders routinely manage to attend. The German Chancellor, the French President, the Japanese Prime Minister and the UK’s own Culture Secretary have been seen in the stands. Their presence is not just about enjoying the game. It is about nodding to the idea that sport can be a force for unity.
For British ministers, the contrast is uncomfortable. The UK has long used events like the World Cup and the Olympics to project soft power. The London 2012 Games were a showcase of British openness and creativity. The absence of the US president from the World Cup raises a serious question: if the United States retreats from global sport, what does that mean for other forms of international co-operation?
Some argue that Trump’s no-show is a symptom of a deeper cultural divide. The president has often expressed disdain for 'globalist' ventures and has made no secret of his preference for bilateral deals over multilateral gatherings. The World Cup, by its very nature, is a celebration of the kind of internationalism Trump despises. So perhaps his absence should not surprise anyone.
But the timing matters. The next World Cup will be largely on American soil, and the nations of the world will be watching. If the host nation’s leader cannot be bothered to attend a preview event, what message does that send to the hundreds of thousands of fans expected to descend on the US in 2026? It suggests a lack of interest, a lack of commitment, and a lack of understanding of what sport can achieve.
For now, the question 'Why is Trump not at the World Cup?' remains unanswered in any satisfactory way. UK ministers are left shaking their heads, wondering if the special relationship extends to the pitch. And for ordinary fans, the empty seat at the stadium is a reminder that politics, even at its highest level, can often miss the point completely.
