&w=3840&q=100)
Trump threatens to hold up stadium deal if Washington Commanders don't switch back to Redskins
President Donald Trump is threatening to hold up a new stadium deal for Washington's NFL team if it does not restore its old name of the Redskins, which was considered offensive to Native Americans.
Trump also said Sunday that he wants Cleveland's baseball team to revert to its former name, the Indians, saying there was a 'big clamoring for this' as well.
The Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians have had their current names since the 2022 seasons and both have said they have no plans to change them back.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Trump said the Washington football team would be 'much more valuable' if it restored its old name.
'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 a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington,' Trump said on his social media site.
Also Read | Trump's Approval Ratings Plunge Amid Epstein Fiasco
National debate ensues
His latest interest in changing the name reflects his broader effort to roll back changes that followed a national debate on cultural sensitivity and racial justice. The team announced it would drop the Redskins name and the Indian head logo in 2020 during a broader reckoning with systemic racism and police brutality.
The Commanders and the District of Columbia government announced a deal earlier this year to build a new home for the football team at the site the old RFK Stadium, the place the franchise called home for more than three decades.
Trump's ability to hold up the deal remains to be seen. President Joe Biden signed a bill in January that transferred the land from the federal government to the District of Columbia.
The provision was part of a short-term spending bill passed by Congress in December. While D.C. residents elect a mayor, a city council and commissioners to run day-to-day operations, Congress maintains control of the city's budget.
Josh Harris, whose group bought the Commanders from former owner Dan Snyder in 2023, said earlier this year the name was here to stay. Not long after taking over, Harris quieted speculation about going back to Redskins, saying that would not happen. The team did not immediately respond to a request for comment following Trump's statement.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Washington team started in Boston as the Redskins in 1933 before moving to the nation's capital four years later.
The Cleveland Guardians' president of baseball operations, Chris Antonetti, indicated before Sunday's game against the Athletics that there weren't any plans to revisit the name change.
'We understand there are different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago, but obviously it's a decision we made. We've got the opportunity to build a brand as the Guardians over the last four years and are excited about the future that's in front of us,' he said.
Cleveland announced in December 2020 it would drop Indians. It announced the switch to Guardians in July 2021. In 2018, the team phased out 'Chief Wahoo' as its primary logo.
The name changes had their share of supporters and critics as part of the national discussions about logos and names considered racist.
Trump posted Sunday afternoon that 'The Owner of the Cleveland Baseball Team, Matt Dolan, who is very political, has lost three Elections in a row because of that ridiculous name change. What he doesn't understand is that if he changed the name back to the Cleveland Indians, he might actually win an Election. Indians are being treated very unfairly. MAKE INDIANS GREAT AGAIN (MIGA)!'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Matt Dolan, the son of the late Larry Dolan, no longer has a role with the Guardians. He ran the team's charity endeavors until 2016.
Matt Dolan was a candidate in the Ohio U.S. Senate elections in 2022 and '24, but lost.
Washington and Cleveland share another thing in common. David Blitzer is a member of Harris' ownership group with the Commanders and holds a minority stake in the Guardians.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
14 minutes ago
- India.com
Will Team India Boycott Pakistan In World Cup After WCL Snub? Salman Butt Dares BCCI
In a dramatic turn of events, the India vs Pakistan clash in the World Championship of Legends (WCL) was called off after several Indian players, led by Yuvraj Singh, withdrew from the high-voltage encounter. The move, which came amid rising nationalist sentiment and backlash over geopolitical tensions, has ignited a fiery debate over the future of Indo-Pak cricket—stretching even to global platforms like the ICC World Cup and the Olympics. What was expected to be a nostalgic face-off between cricketing legends turned into a diplomatic flashpoint. The game, slated for Sunday in Birmingham, was scrapped just hours before the toss, prompting accusations, finger-pointing, and some stinging commentary from the Pakistani camp. Salman Butt's Explosive Reaction: "Now Don't Play in World Cup or Olympics Either" Leading the charge was former Pakistan captain Salman Butt, who lambasted the Indian contingent for their decision to pull out. In a hard-hitting video on his YouTube channel, Butt accused India of politicizing sport and challenged them to maintain the same stance across all major events—including ICC tournaments and even the Olympics. 'Make this a promise now,' Butt declared. 'If you're boycotting here because of politics, don't face us at the World Cup, don't compete in the Olympics. Let the world see how consistent your nationalism really is.' Butt's comments have since gone viral across social media, fueling widespread discussion about the limits of sporting diplomacy and whether political decisions should dictate team participation in international fixtures. The Fallout: Pressure, Patriotism, and Public Sentiment The Indian players' decision to back out reportedly stemmed from the public backlash following the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam, which triggered a strong military response from India via Operation Sindoor. Key figures including Shikhar Dhawan, Suresh Raina, Harbhajan Singh, Irfan Pathan, and Yusuf Pathan are said to have withdrawn in solidarity, unwilling to be seen sharing a field with their Pakistani counterparts. While WCL organisers issued an apology, stating they had 'unintentionally caused discomfort' to Indian players, the damage was already done. What was meant to be a celebration of cricketing nostalgia quickly escalated into a diplomatic drama. Expert Take: National Identity vs Global Sporting Spirit From a broader lens, this episode raises critical questions: Should political tensions override sporting commitments? Can India-Pakistan matches exist in a vacuum, untouched by the historical baggage they carry? Analysts believe this controversy is just the tip of the iceberg. With major tournaments like the Asia Cup, ICC T20 World Cup 2026, and even the Champions Trophy 2025 on the horizon, calls for an official stance from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) are growing louder. 'Consistency is key,' said one cricket analyst. 'If India refuses to play Pakistan at one level, they'll face mounting pressure to do the same at all levels. But that also risks isolating cricket from global diplomacy, where such matches often act as soft-power engagement tools.'
New Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
A Rebel within
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: It was V S Achuthanandan's wont to see divides everywhere. Where none existed, he would create one. He would position himself on one side and wage a battle. He has won some; lost some, and transformed himself in the process. His political longevity has surprised and irked many, for he was the archetypal voice of opposition – in his party and the larger society. As CPM state secretary (1980-1992), he ruled with an iron fist. Later on, however, he transformed himself into a critical insider, waging pitched battles against power concentrated in the hands of one-time party proteges. He was a hawk, who wouldn't budge from his notions of doctrinal purity, no matter what. That essentially meant he had to swim against the organisational tide. Though he was one of the 32 founding leaders of CPM in 1964, his deviation from the party line began the very next year. In 1964-65, almost the entire CPM leadership was accused of being Chinese spies and jailed during the India-China war. As a prisoner at the Poojappura Central Prison, VS organised prisoners and exhorted them to donate blood for Indian soldiers. The party prison committee rejected his proposal saying it went against Marxist-Leninist principles.
Scroll.in
14 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Quads, triads and India's South Asia paranoia
Let us not be coy. The limited war between Pakistan and India this past May, not long after the end-April terror attack near Pahalgam in Kashmir, has unlimited consequences for South Asia. As we know, avionics, strike and defensive systems got a massive workout. Vulnerabilities and strengths were duly exploited. And, duly noted – including artfully minimised losses in aircraft, equipment, facilities, and personnel – by both countries, their defense suppliers and strategic partners, and the world at large. Drone warfare truly joined the destructive drone of warfare by 'social' media, manned by keyboard warriors of South Asia. Ceasefire has now lapsed into uneasy détente. Leaders of India and Pakistan have moved on from claiming victory for their domestic audiences – while the leader of the United States as typically claimed the victory as his. We in South Asia are urged to take a deep breath and carry on. That is where the consequences enter, now brought to sharp relief by this on-again off-again conflict seemingly without end. If we were to telescope to India's security perspective – the perspective of a country that, significantly, shares borders with both China and all South Asian countries except Sri Lanka and the Maldives – the steady-state tandem enmity of Pakistan and China is joined by Bangladesh. This is being disseminated as an unholy triad, if you will, that carries both potential and demonstrable ill-will towards India. Indeed, India's newly voluble Chief of Defense Staff General Anil Chauhan indicated as much on July 8 at an event at a major establishment-oriented New Delhi think-tank. 'There is a possible convergence of interest we can talk about between China, Pakistan and Bangladesh,' said Gen Chauhan during an address at Observer Research Foundation, 'that may have implications for India's stability and security dynamics'. There are reasons for this and all of them, to India's mind, are collectively a clear and present – and future – danger. A dominant narrative in India is predicated on the South Asian ring of fire that its neighbours would be naïve to discount. Equally, India needs to accept that, while its regional strategic flex remains, its presumptuous South Asian zamindari, driven by sheer size and the geographic reality that no other South Asian country shares a land border with any other South Asian country but India, is over. Let us pan this out. Repeated calls for 'destroying' Pakistan – mainly by India's establishment-fed media and ruling party bots – is akin to Fool's Gold. This goes beyond the silliness of Indian government officials claiming that turning off the tap of the Indus will bring Pakistan to its knees. A fractured Pakistan will be a nightmare for India even though there are those among establishment hawks who see in such an eventuality the reclamation of all Kashmir. Add nuclear capability to that fracture and the future becomes a full-blown catastrophe that India's ultra-Right ecosystem nurtured with disinformation, delusion, and social media strategy masquerading as security imperatives can scarcely comprehend. Visualise generals as warlords. Visualise any number of fractious ethnic and religious groups in Pakistan which would sooner see any attack against India as a mark of faith and fulfilment. Visualise a future post-Pakistan's poverty-stricken millions sloshing about in a fractured land; and consider if any border security in the world is robust enough to withstand a flight of such dismantled people. The upshot: India will have to get its governance and hearts-and-minds act together in Kashmir, the same as Pakistan in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, if either is to withstand the other's rhetorical and actual onslaughts. (Besides, Pakistan needs to get its act together in its massively restive and deliberately under-developed Balochistan province, among other regions.) Over at the eastern arc, India's goodwill had already begun to take a hit in Bangladesh, as public opinion saw India as standing with an increasingly corrupt, electorally wayward, and essentially dictatorial Awami League government led by former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, especially during the past decade. India massively depleted its goodwill in a post-Hasina Bangladesh by standing with a belligerent Sheikh Hasina throughout the political upheaval over July and August 2024. And then, by presenting to outraged Bangladeshi citizenry the diplomatic horror of having India's national security advisor welcome an ejected Hasina at Hindon air force base near Delhi on August 5 – on live television. It was an optics disaster of epic proportion in both the mind's eye of Bangladeshi citizenry and to the emotionally charged and mission-oriented housecleaners of Bangladesh's interim government. It's a disaster from which India is yet to fully recover. It has made India's strategic and economic interests in Bangladesh, transhipment to its entire northeastern region, and India's strategic Siliguri Corridor deeply vulnerable to Bangladeshi policy squeeze. The risk of a squeeze by proxy makes matters worse for India: that slim corridor, the so-called Chicken's Neck, is a short hop for a China nestled in the hotly contested Doklam region just to the north. And for all of Bangladesh's justified moral lament for the democratic dislocation of the Hasina years and the atrocities perpetrated against students and innocent citizens over July-August 2024 – which this columnist observed first-hand – its interim government isn't blameless in adding to the tension. For his part, the head of the interim government of Bangladesh, no slouch when it comes to a networking opportunity polished by a lifetime of limelight, put several words out of place during an official visit to China this past March. Among other things, he publicly marketed Bangladesh to Chinese officials and businesses as being China's entrepôt for a 'landlocked' northeastern India. That too was an optics disaster – an observation which several senior South Asian diplomats have shared with me. With India's ongoing border spat with China, and repeated announcements by various Bangladesh entities to offer Chinese interests a deal to develop the Teesta River basin in northern Bangladesh – close to the strategic hotspot of the Siliguri Corridor – it was akin to waving a red flag to a bull in a China shop. This came in addition to the visible thaw in Bangladesh-Pakistan relations in the post-Hasina era, another huge red flag for India, among several other factors, including the release from jail of several people India views as inimical to its security. Bangladesh's interim government walked back the China-in-Northeastern India talk, but the damage was done. I've heard career-officials gripe about how the interim government should realise its interim nature, scale back knee-jerk pronouncements and Goebbelsian spin, and permit regime-agnostic professionals to go about their business in Bangladesh's national interest. In a tit-for-tat response that one could term Pakistanesque – or Indiaesque, depending on the lens – India has begun to squeeze Bangladesh by withdrawing some trading and transhipment benefits. Citing quite legitimate security reasons India has also refrained from expanding visa issuance for Bangladeshi visitors to the peak-Hasina level of a staggering 1.6 million visas a year – the figure for 2023. There are other indications of this avoidable freeze. With its heightened threat perception and what it perceives as necessary maritime deterrence, enhanced Indian naval and security activity in both the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea has become the new constant. There is the west-to-east arc of Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Myanmar – where China has displayed deft management to secure its energy, mineral, and territorial interests. From a regional-and-maritime perspective, Sri Lanka is of course another competitive geography for India and China and which, much like its southern co-location with neighbouring Maldives, completes the ring of encirclement for India. There are several instances of the China and India's push-and-shove in Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal, Myanmar, and, increasingly, Bangladesh, that this column has variously discussed over the past three years. But just how acute regional threat perception has become is indicated by a churlish incident from early this year – predating the India-Pakistan fracas in May. A Bangladeshi naval vessel was to visit Colombo port for a courtesy call, en route Karachi for a naval exercise – Bangladeshi navy ships had earlier participated in previous editions of the exercise. From available indications, India pressured Sri Lanka to deny the vessel entry. It was touch and go for a while, but the Bangladesh-Sri Lanka 'bilateral' prevailed. Or, from India's freshly jaundiced eye, the Pakistan-Bangladesh-Sri Lanka 'trilateral'. Or to be a bit more provocative, perhaps the China-Pakistan-Bangladesh-Sri Lanka 'quadrilateral' – that would, ironically, run counter to the Quad or Quadrilateral Security Dialogue between India, Japan, Australia, and the United States that is commonly perceived as a strategy to contain China in the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region. But for all that, there is monumental work to be done to mend the India-Bangladesh bilateral, a rent in which could – with or without China – ruin Eastern South Asia.
