When Advocacy Becomes Avoidance
There’s a difference between advocacy and acquiescence. Increasingly, it’s a line that institutions operating at the intersection of business and public policy seem reluctant to walk.
A recent statement from the U.S. Travel Association condemning civil rights organizations for raising concerns about the United States as a host destination for global events illustrates this tension in stark terms. Framed as a defense of the nation’s readiness to welcome the world, the statement instead reads as something more fragile: a reflexive dismissal of criticism that confuses message control with leadership.
This matters, because perception is not a secondary concern for the travel industry. In practical terms, it is the product.
Recent data from the Pew Research Center shows a meaningful decline in global favorability toward the United States since the Trump administration assumed office. It’s a material shift in a very short period of time. Gallup data reinforces the point. A majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the country’s position in the world, and most believe the U.S. is viewed unfavorably abroad. That alone should get the industry’s attention.
Against that backdrop, the instinct to discredit organizations voicing concern is not just unpersuasive. It is counterproductive.
To be clear, I get it that trade groups like U.S. Travel operate within constraints. They advocate. They lobby. They maintain relationships with government stakeholders whose cooperation is essential to the industry’s success. But there is a meaningful distinction between not opposing and actively condemning.
When an industry body characterizes criticism, particularly from civil rights organizations, as something to be undermined, it is worth pausing on who those organizations are. They are not neutral observers. But neither is U.S. Travel.
Civil rights groups are advocacy organizations too. Their mandate is to speak up on issues of access, fairness and freedom. In that sense, they are doing exactly what a trade association does. They are representing a constituency and advancing a point of view.
The irony is hard to miss. One advocacy group is condemning another for advocating. Taking that approach is not apolitical. It is, in effect, partisan – not in the narrow electoral sense, but in deciding which voices are treated as legitimate.
The Limits of Message Management
The instinct behind the U.S. Travel statement is familiar. Protect the brand. Reinforce the message. Push back on anything that could create doubt in the minds of international travelers. That is understandable. It is also insufficient.
At the core of the statement is a flawed argument. It treats criticism as contributing to reputational damage rather than providing a signal of it. Civil rights organizations are raising concerns based on their view of current conditions in the United States. You can agree or disagree with those views. That is a legitimate debate. But to frame those concerns as an effort to “undermine” travel crosses a line. It shifts the focus away from the substance of the criticism and onto the act of speaking itself. And it does nothing to address the underlying issue.
We in the travel industry should be able to hold two thoughts at once. We can promote the United States as a welcoming destination. We can also acknowledge that not everyone sees it that way right now.
Dismissing criticism does not make it go away. It just signals that the industry would rather control the narrative rather than engage with it. Credibility erodes when institutions appear unwilling to engage honestly with difficult issues. Selective outrage, or outright silence, is noticed. At a certain point, this approach stops looking like neutrality and starts looking like alignment.
The travel industry does not need to defend an idealized version of America. It needs to help rebuild trust in the real one. And that work starts by acknowledging where we stand, not condemning those who point it out.