Skip to content

What Do We Think of the New Semiquincentennial Logo?

America’s semiquincentennial — the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence’s ratification — will arrive on July 4, 2026. That’s still two and a half years away, but the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission — the group established by Congress to promote the national milestone — isn’t waiting until the last minute. Earlier this week they released the semiquincentennial’s official logo (which, thankfully, avoids the clunky word “semiquincentennial”).

The new logo, which is shown above, was created by the design studio Chermayeff & Geismar & Haviv — the same firm that created the logo for the 1976 bicentennial celebration. I was born in 1964, so I was in grade school when that bicentennial logo was released. It looks as good to me now as it did then — a really nice piece of design:

The new “America 250” logo, by comparison, does not work for me at all. The flow of the red/white/blue striping feels clunky and almost amateurish. Also, I don’t understand why the typography left-aligns with the striping but doesn’t quite right-align:

I’m astonished that this is what they’ve chosen to go with. Wish we could see some of the other designs that were considered. You can learn more about the development of the logo design here.

The 1976 logo was worn as a patch in Super Bowl X, which took place in January of 1976. The Steelers wore it on the chest and the Cowboys wore it on the left sleeve:

While plenty of teams in other other sports wore various patches to commemorate the bicentennial, I’m not aware of any other teams that wore the official star-shaped logo. Are there some examples I’m not remembering?

Meanwhile, will the new logo show up as a patch throughout the uni-verse? Would it be better for teams and leagues to come up with their own approaches to marking the semiquincentennial on their unifiorms? Should they ignore the anniversary altogether?

What do you think?

(My thanks to our own Scott M.X. Turner for bringing this logo’s release to my attention.)

Comments (71)

    Apparently the Commission nixed the flaming red, white, and blue tire fire logo that was initially submitted.

    Shoulda just fiddled with the colors of the 1976 logo and called it a day.

    But I’m not sure the quality of the logo really matters all that much, since the real problem is the word “semiquincentennial.” To the extent any logo could solve for that, its first mission would be to make the digits 250 maximally prominent, so maybe the ribbon will work despite the inevitable ubiquitous visceral reaction against it?

    As for the text and ribbon not quite aligning on the right, that doesn’t look off at all to me. I mean, I hate it, but I have a weird mental thing about symmetry and matching alignment. I see the phenomenon of text aligning exactly along the straight edge of a graphic or differently styled text but having the curved bit of one element extend past otherwise aligned text all the time. There’s probably a word for it, but it’s a very common phenomenon once you start looking for it, or once you develop an unhealthy neurosis around symmetry and vertical alignment.

    Not a fan at all: a fluttering ribbon with weird angles. I prefer the 1976 version with the star. Also: just the word America. I need at least something like: Established 1776. Or: Since 1776. America 250 looks like a road race from a B-movie or a very dangerous super-tarry cigarette from the 60s.

    If we’re lucky, maybe this design is celebrating our 250th ordinal and they’ll come out with a much better one for our 250th anniversary.

    Why not call it the quarter-millenium?

    Or maybe just say “The USA: 250 years in the same location.”

    I was thinking the same thing; “semiquincentennial”, as in “half of 500 years”, sounds totally ridiculous. The number 250 isn’t significant because it’s half of five; it’s because it’s a quarter of a thousand. I don’t trust myself to conjugate the Latin perfectly, but something with “quatra” or “quadrans” before “millennial”, as in “a quarter of a millennium” would be a much better name.

    That’s kinda disappointing. Hard to believe the same firm came up with both of those. Not a big fan.

    Maybe it’s because my generation is the target market for the 250 logo, but it looks so much better to me than the bicentennial one.

    Is there really a target market for this logo? I can’t decide if this is intended to appeal to everyone or no one.

    I think the whole point of this type of logo is that it’s not generationally targeted. It’s for *everyone.*

    That said, it’s interesting to hear that you prefer this one to the 1976 design. Care to explain why? I’d love to hear more!

    I would have preferred Brandiose been in charge of creating the design. It would have included a scowling, cartoonish-looking George Washington with the American flag in one hand and exploding fireworks being released from the other.

    Studio Simon pretty much already did this with the Fredericksburg Nationals. Here, from, is George:


    I am glad I was not the project manager who had to sit through rounds of review that led to that design.


    my childhood bedroom was all hand me down Red Sox ephemera and I remembered (incorrectly) from an old framed picture of Yaz that the 1975 Red Sox wore the US Bicentennial patch on their sleeves…while recently unpacking some of my childhood stuff to adorn the bedroom of the soon to arrive next generation of Sox fan, I see that the patch actually said Massachusetts Bicentennial…a handsome patch that used essentially the same design elements as the official USA patch…I wonder if other states had a similar state specific patch as well

    The Minnesota Kicks of the NASL wore the star patch in 1976. Wafflebored created a replica for me complete with the patch I sourced from eBay.



    Can a logo make you feel shame?

    Actually, it does represent the US perfectly: “this is the best we can do”

    Just for the record, let’s remember that this is a very high priced design firm whose primary job was to make a logo that would garner attention…that does not mean they were trying to make a logo that was aesthetically pleasing.

    “Just for the record, let’s remember that this is a very high priced design firm whose primary job was to make a logo that would garner attention…that does not mean they were trying to make a logo that was aesthetically pleasing.”

    That’s Nike’s mission statement too! Just substitute “uniform” for “logo” and boom…

    Talk to Latin and South Americans and see how they feel about the United States claiming “America” (and “American”) all for ourselves… Hint: it’s stupid

    Well considering that their descendants came from Spain and Africa and Europe, just like ours,I don’t see where they would have a problem with it… they have no more “claim”over the name America than we do. I always thought of it as sharing <3

    Jeebus, it’s because the word “America” is in the name of the country. It’s shorthand. No one is claiming anything. Are any other countries in the Western Hemisphere named “XXX of America?”

    True, but Mexico the name of the country, not the continent like America is (North America, Central America, South America).

    The new logo looks fine to me, same level of “fine” as the 1976 logo. Neither fills me with pride or shame for my country.

    I’m in my early 40s, so I don’t have any particular nostalgia for the bicentennial, which I suspect fuels some of the distaste for the new logo within these comments.

    Ultimately, I think it’s often difficult to judge a logo on its own. Where will it be used, how will it be rendered, etc. The bicentennial logo *does* look very nice as a uniform patch in a way that I don’t think the new one would.

    1) the same design firm relied on the same design element in 1976 and 2026: ribbon;
    2) the ’76 logo made use of negative space, which is nearly always clever. Not so 2026;
    3) the “250” begs for a sans-serif font above it. That’s a consensus of everyone I’ve talked to about it;
    4) I get that “semiquincentennial” is a hopeless word for a brand. I was 15 in 1976 and everyone called it “the bicentennial” rather than “our 200th birthday” or some such. So I get relying on 250…;
    5) …except using the numeral focusses too much on the number rather than the country. Also, I attended the University of Richmond while they were celebrating their sesquicentennial, and everyone handled that correctly. “Semi” is vague and “quin” isn’t in most people’s talk box.
    6) agree with JMF about the U.S.A. claiming “America” exclusively;
    7) the ’76 star is a good national-pride device…the stars on the flag, the hopefulness of a star-filled sky, everybody is a star (to quote Sly Stone). It’s bold and has some heft. I fear that a lot of people will see the 250 and think of the ribbons waved during rhythmic gymnastics routines.
    8) as per vexillology standards, the ’76 logo was easy to draw in a notebook margin. The 2026 emblem, not so much. In fact, the design firm prides itself on the 250’s complicated, nearly impossible Mobius strip aspect; and
    9) finally, the design firm insists that their big design challenge was our nation’s current divisions. So apparently they settled for something that tickles them (Mobius strip!) but is really a lowest-common-denominator design. I agree with Paul…I’d like to see the hundreds of rejected concepts.

    We’re stuck with this for a few years. I thought I’d get a head start on my grumpiness.

    It sucks. At least the Bicentennial logo was cool to see on mail boxes and other places the feds ran. This is but fucking ugly. Lazy design.

    I’d be curious to see some actual AI-generated concepts. I have a feeling they’d look like more thought went into them than this logo.

    Since it is also the National League’s Sesquicentennial, they should bring back the pillbox hats for 2026 like they wore in 1976…

    That design would receive an F in any graphic arts course I’ve ever taken…
    … the offset typography is supposed to be Innovative but instead it’s just annoying…there’s no organic flow in the ribbon because they didn’t decide on a font to base it upon.
    And I understand where JMF is coming from… they should have more on this logo than just “America”, we share that name but they could be more specific as to which country were celebrating, again more like the 1976 version

    I think the use of “America” depends on how this logo is intended to be used. Is the expectation that this will be used on products and stamps domestically? If that’s the case, I don’t think there’s an issue.

    If it’s meant to be used on the international stage, that may be a different story – although I wonder to what extent people in South or Central America are bothered by this country identifying itself with the shorthand “America.”

    I would have just made the bicentennial logo the permanent anniversary logo to be re-used forevermore, and the words updated around it each time.

    “While plenty of teams in other other sports wore various patches to commemorate the bicentennial, I’m not aware of any other teams that wore the official star-shaped logo. Are there some examples I’m not remembering?”

    Team USA tripled-up on the logo for the ’76 WHA ASG:


    And while I thought Temple football did too, they went the “various patches” route – fife-and-drum + Betsy Ross flag sleeve patches and Liberty Bell patch ‘side panels’:


    Born in 1982 I only really know the bicentennial logo as part of history, and really specifically from seeing in on uniforms during the old 30 min Superbowl recaps they’d marathon on the morning of the Superbowl each year. And I absolutely loved the bicentennial logo.
    This one feels like they weren’t really sure what to do, they knew they needed to include red, white, and blue, and the number 250, so they landed here.
    I think the way the star was designed in the bicentennial is so remarkable, which make this one just land with a thud.

    I agree, I do not generally like the logo. But I think criticism of the alignment might be unfair. I think it is an application of the typography principle of overshoot.


    One of the best uses of the bicentennial logo was on the Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. They kept it there until 1998, when they finally replaced it with the NASA meatball.


    I like the 250 logo more than the 200 logo. The 200 logo probably loses points for me because I was born after it occurred and I see a variation of that logo much more often on Republic Services garbage trucks ( a circle of Rs forming a star ).
    As much as I do like the 250 logo, I don’t expect this to have anywhere close the indent into our culture. Not only because of the malaise directed toward our nations existence, but also 250 just seems like a non-notable number to celebrate. But I guess I only think birthday celebrations are for kids until they are like 13, then with your adult buddies at 21, and then a 40th to call it a birthday career. Hell, ill throw in one for a person turning 100. But 250? come on, get on with your day, USA.

    Yes, this could be a lot better. The “America” wordmark seems almost to be an afterthought. And I cannot unsee the misalignment now…thanks, Paul!

    That said, I do like the impression the ribbon has a definite beginning at the two and a finite impression beyond the zero.

    The ribbon doesn’t make any sense at the ‘zero’. If you follow the lines, and once you get to the zero it’s not congruent. It’s like the artist f’ed up and no one wanted to correct them.

    Since it’s in celebration of a major anniversary of the country, ‘United States of America’ or, at least, ‘USA’ should be used here.

    I’ve always been bothered by the fact that both the bicentennial and semiquincentennial logos use a shade of blue that’s closer to royal blue than the navy blue of the U.S. flag.

    The logo is aligned optically. When aligning a letter with a rounded edge like a zero if you align to the farthest piece it will look off.

    This looks correct to me. Generally, all the lines drawn on logos showing symmetry are nonsense for a marketing team to use. This is the same reason the floor on the Parthenon is rounded.

    Hoping it’s everywhere by 2025, so we can watch heads explode over “250 years” versus “250th anniversary”.

    I believe one of the main reasons MLB didn’t wear the bicentennial logo in 1976 was that it was already the centennial of the National League, and they already had a patch for that (which was delightful, and featured a mustachioed pitcher wearing a stovepipe cap — now THAT was a good design.)

    The Phillies wore the NL centennial patch *and* a bicentennial patch! But their bicentennial patch wasn’t the official/national one — it was one they came up with on their own.

    You can see both patches in this photo: link

    Cincinnati and Washington wore the official 1976 bicentennial patch in the 1975 Pro Football Hall of Game game on August 2, 1975 in Canton, Ohio.


    Not a fan. As another commenter said “America 250” sounds like a race. United States of America or USA.
    Also, the ribbon design seems dated not in a good retro or vintage way. It reminds me of past Olympic logos with the waving flag stylized S previously used by USA Hockey & USA Baseball

    I think of the 1976 design as emblematic of 70s design- I love it. It feels like the firm wanted to draw a line, or rwb ribbon, between the two. But the semiquincentennial logo does not resonate with me at all. I’m really disappointed.

Comments are closed.