'I may put a restriction on them': Donald Trump threatens to block $4 billion Commanders stadium plan
In a fiery twist to the Washington Commanders' search for a new stadium, U.S. President
Donald Trump
has inserted himself into the debate—threatening to block the team's proposed $4 billion stadium deal unless it changes its name back to the "Redskins."
The team rebranded as the Commanders in 2022 following growing criticism over the racially insensitive nature of the previous name.
But Trump is now using his political leverage to demand a reversal.
Donald Trump calls the 'Commanders' name 'ridiculous' and demands return to tradition
Taking to his platform Truth Social, Donald Trump didn't mince words. "I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker 'Washington Commanders,' I won't make deal for them to build a stadium in Washington," he wrote.
This declaration not only brings political pressure into the NFL but also reopens a cultural wound many hoped had started healing. Trump insists that reviving the old name would increase the franchise's value and restore its traditional legacy.
Ties to larger political message: 'MIGA – Make Indians Great Again'
Trump's message was broader than just Washington's NFL team. He also criticized the Cleveland Guardians, formerly the Indians, accusing the Dolan family of erasing cultural identity.
In his post, Trump wrote: 'Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen. Their heritage and prestige are systematically being taken away from them... OWNERS, GET IT DONE!!!' The former president has even launched a campaign dubbed MIGA: Make Indians Great Again.
Commanders' owner stands firm amid rising name-change pressure
Despite increasing noise around the name change, team owner Josh Harris has previously made it clear there are no plans to revert. In February, he said the organization will 'honor the past' but move forward under the Commanders' name.
Trump's threat adds a new layer of controversy, potentially pitting federal influence against social progress. As the stadium negotiations heat up, so does the political firestorm around the Commanders' identity.
Also Read:
Kirk Cousins dragged into viral affair scandal as Netflix shades Astronomer CEO with Coldplay moment
FAQs
1. Why is Donald Trump threatening to block the Commanders' new stadium?
Donald Trump says he won't support the $4B stadium deal unless the team changes its name back to "Redskins."
2. What reason did Donald Trump give for demanding the name change?
He claims the old name honors Native American heritage and would make the team "more valuable."
3. Has the team responded to Donald Trump's demand?
Owner Josh Harris previously stated there are no plans to return to the "Redskins" name.
Catch Rani Rampal's inspiring story on Game On, Episode 4. Watch Here!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
28 minutes ago
- Mint
Even if Harvard wins this court case, the Trump fight won't go away
Harvard's odds to win its Boston court battle look favorable—but the larger war is up in the air. Legal analysts say Harvard has a strong case in arguing that the U.S. government improperly cut $2.2 billion in federal funding from the Ivy League school. The federal district judge presiding over a key hearing Monday appeared skeptical of the government's arguments. But President Trump is already threatening to appeal. He has many ways to inflict damage on the university meanwhile, and Harvard's prospects—should the case end up at the Supreme Court—are less clear. 'Harvard can win in the courtroom but still lose almost everything it's fought for," said Allison Wu, the co-founder of the 1636 Forum, a Harvard alumni community named for the year the university was founded, who supports the university's case. Monday's closely watched court hearing showcased an unprecedented clash between Harvard and the very U.S. government its graduates worked to create in 1776—and have helped shape in the 2½ centuries since. The Trump administration, alleging the nation's oldest university has strayed from its academic mission, fallen victim to 'ideological capture" and tolerated antisemitism, cut off billions in federal research funds after Harvard rejected demands it says amount to a government takeover. In arguments before Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee, Harvard mounted two main arguments. It asserted that the Trump administration imposed unconstitutional conditions on federal funds, requiring it to surrender its First Amendment rights to academic freedom to obtain a public benefit. The university—in an argument that some legal analysts say could be more potent—also contended that the government declared the school in violation of civil-rights laws without affording it due process to address the allegations, or without following the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, which limits arbitrary action by federal agencies. Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School and a former federal circuit judge, said Burroughs has a clear path to granting Harvard's motion for summary judgment—meaning a decision declaring that no trial is necessary, because undisputed facts entitle one side to win. 'By far the most straightforward thing for the court to say is that this claim of antisemitism is a claim under Title VI" of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which sets out procedures to review allegations of discrimination in federally funded programs. The government, McConnell said, doesn't even claim to have followed those procedures before finding Harvard in violation. 'That's not to say that other claims might not kick in at a later stage," he added. Harvard says the government has ignored extensive steps it has taken to combat antisemitism on campus and broaden intellectual diversity in the months following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. Burroughs, the judge, repeatedly pressed a Justice Department lawyer Monday while hearing arguments from both sides on why each deserved a swift victory. 'You can't violate the constitution to terminate a contract," Burroughs said. 'There are limits to what you can terminate and why and how." President Trump indicated in a social-media post that he already expects a loss. 'When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN," Trump said on Truth Social Monday, calling the judge a 'TOTAL DISASTER." Legal analysts anticipate the case will advance beyond the Boston court. 'It's hard to imagine a district court judge in Boston ruling against Harvard, and the First Circuit is chockablock with Harvard grads, so if the administration prevails, that relief is likely to come from the Supreme Court," said John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. Four of the nine Supreme Court justices also hold Harvard degrees, but that proved of scant help in 2023, when the court struck down Harvard's admissions formula, which used an applicant's race as a plus factor to achieve a diverse undergraduate class. The court split 6-3—and its Harvard alumni divided evenly—over the case, which overruled precedents dating from 1978 to find that consideration of race in admissions was unconstitutional. Malcolm, who himself attended Harvard Law School, said that while the specific legal issues differ, the funding case recalls the broader context of the admissions case, where Harvard prevailed at the district and First Circuit courts before reversal by the Supreme Court. Harvard argues in the funding case that the federal government failed to follow the typical administrative processes used for terminating grants or adjudicating a discrimination case. Robert Tsai, a law professor at Boston University, said he thinks Harvard's administrative law arguments are in some ways the easier ones to make, given the unprecedented nature of the government's actions. But the First Amendment arguments still matter, Tsai said, and he's skeptical the government can make it into a contract case as they tried to do Monday in court. 'It would be hard for me to expect the judge to put on such blinders given all the weighty actions," Tsai said. In addition to cutting federal research grants, the Trump administration has tried to block international students from enrolling at Harvard—which is tied up in a separate lawsuit—threatened its tax-exempt status and probed foreign funding donations. Burroughs appeared skeptical Monday about the government's contention that it canceled the funds over antisemitism, asking at one point why they didn't have to go lab by lab to determine where antisemitic actions had taken place. Michael Velchik, an attorney for the Justice Department arguing the government's case, said Harvard has exhibited an indifference to antisemitism that applies to the entire university. Burroughs later called it a 'big stumbling block" that the executive branch could decide what's discriminatory or racist without any procedure. Velchik, who appeared in court alone without other government lawyers, ended his arguments by pushing back on the contention that the government is anti-Harvard. 'I reject that," he said, saying the government wants a Harvard that's the best research institution in the world. 'How can they be the best research university," Burroughs wondered, with the erasure of $2.2 billion in federal funding. Write to Jess Bravin at and Sara Randazzo at
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
28 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump 'caught off guard' by Israeli bombings in Syria, Gaza church last week, says White House
Trump called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after receiving the news of Israeli strikes in Syria and asked him to 'rectify' the matter read more US President Donald Trump sitting with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. File Image / Reuters US President Donald Trump was caught 'off-guard' by Israel's unprecedented air strikes against Syria last week, the White House has said. Trump called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after receiving the news of Israeli strikes in Syria and asked him to 'rectify' the matter. The president was, similarly, surprised by Israel's airstrike on the only Catholic church in Gaza that killed at least three people. The White House said he strongly condemned the attack on the church to Netanyahu and asked the prime minister to release a statement a statement calling the strike a mistake. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The president enjoys a good working relationship with Bibi Netanyahu, and stays in frequent communication with him. He was caught off guard by the bombing in Syria and also the bombing of a Catholic Church in Gaza,' press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Refresh for updates.
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump White House bans Wall Street Journal from Scotland trip press pool over Epstein report
US President Donald Trump's administration has decided to remove Wall Street Journal (WSJ) from one of the coveted press seats from the president's upcoming trip to Scotland as the administration banished one of the WSJ reporters from Air Force One over an article published in the newspaper on deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the changes were made 'due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct.' Leavitt added 'As the appeals court confirmed, the Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces.' The US president has sued WSJ and its owner Rupert Murdoch for $10 billion in a defamation case over the July 17 article, wherein the WSJ had alleged that Trump had sent a letter to Epstein on his 50th birthday in 2003, which included sexually suggestive images. It was Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday, and Ghislaine Maxwell was preparing a special gift to mark the occasion. She turned to Epstein's family and friends. One of them was Donald Trump. Maxwell collected letters from Trump and dozens of Epstein's other associates for a 2003… — The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) July 18, 2025 The Journal's reporter Tarini Parti was supposed to cover President Trump's visit to Scotland but was kicked out of Air Force One after the White House barred the newspaper from the press pool traveling with the president. Parti was not one of the authors of the Epstein article. Trump is headed to Scotland to work on the US-UK trade deals and visit his golf courses in the country. Until February, the press pool assignments were decided by the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) which is an independent group that represents press corps. But White House Press Secretary Leavitt cut the group and took control of the pool, giving the Trump administration a new form of leverage. The administration had initially banned news outlet Associated Press from the Oval Office, Air Force One and other exclusive access after the news agency declined to recognize Trump's new name 'Gulf of America' for 'Gulf of Mexico'.
