Washington Commanders shouldn't let Trump bully them in nickname battle
WE ARE THE COMMANDERS.
Go ahead, Josh Harris. C'mon, Roger Goodell. With a new NFL season kicking off as training camps open – and even more notably, with the Commander-in-Chief wrapping his roll back the clock nonsense with a threat to thwart efforts to build a new stadium for Washington's cherished football team – it's a perfect time to double down on values.
So, Donald Trump wants the NFL franchise to reinstate the racial slur as its name?
Somebody – and especially Harris, the franchise's owner, and Goodell, the league's commissioner – needs to set the record straight. Publicly. Again. Just because.
More: DC locals on Trump's attempt to force Commanders' name change: Stay in your 'own lane'
If you're proud to be called the Washington Commanders and dedicated to moving forward with the name that was instituted in 2022, just say so.
Instead, as of Monday afternoon, the NFL and Commanders have given us crickets.
What a shame.
When contacted on Monday by USA TODAY Sports, the Commanders had no comment or statement regarding the remarks Trump posted on social media. The NFL did not respond to a request for a response.
Trump also suggested that the Cleveland Guardians go back to their former name and quite nobly, the team had a quick response and reiterated how excited it is to continue building its brand as the Guardians. No confusion there.
By contrast, the Commanders (and the NFL) have dropped the ball by hiding in silence.
Sure, the issue has played out over decades and Harris, who purchased the franchise from Dan Snyder in 2023 for a record price of $6.05 billion, has repeatedly stated that the old name – the 'R-word' – isn't coming back.
And no, every time an individual or group demands that they revert back, there's no need to respond.
This, however, is a different circumstance that begs for a statement from a franchise that has reinvigorated its fan base with the promise of quality football on top of a new generation of leadership. The don't-dignify-the-insult-with-a-response option doesn't cut it here, given the grandstand that reignited the topic.
Never mind that it's highly questionable, if not doubtful, that Trump could block efforts by the team and D.C. City Council to seal the deal for the proposed $4 billion stadium on the grounds of RFK Stadium.
He declared, 'I may put a restriction on them if they don't change the name back.'
Perception: You've been punked by the playground bully.
Given the journey of the Commanders and the NFL to change from the previous name and previous ownership regime to restore the value of a signature franchise, there's something to be said for standing their ground on principle.
In other words, letting it slide looks rather weak.
More: Commanders, Guardians name changes were years in the making: Timeline of key events
The team deserves for the preseason buzz to focus on expectations attached to the second NFL season with phenomenal quarterback Jayden Daniels, not on whether Trump will try to muck up a deal for a new stadium based on an issue that has come and gone.
Oh, the stench of politics. The Commanders and the NFL are better off with Trump in their corner, with the league's tentpole draft coming to D.C. in 2027 fueling momentum for a new stadium that projects for a 2030 completion.
By not responding publicly to Trump on the name-change issue, though, the Commanders and NFL have seemingly chosen to try not ticking off the bully who has chosen to scream in your face. Sad.
Then again, this line-in-the-sand stuff from Trump was destined to happen at some point for the NFL. During his last term, Trump disparaged the league – including its owners and players – over the national anthem protests. His venom appealed to his base, predictably, yet also forced the NFL to react.
This doesn't compare to the anthem protests, but some of the same racial insensitivity exists. And it's no surprise that in targeting the NFL again, Trump is stooping so low to dangle the bait.
Which is exactly why, as a matter of principle. the Commanders and the NFL need to double down on their convictions.
Follow Jarrett Bell on social media: On X: @JarrettBell
On Bluesky: jarrettbell.bsky.social
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tennessee Titans' Cam Ward on Treylon Burks: 'He's going to be one of our best targets'
One of the things that happened Wednesday, on the first day of Tennessee Titans training camp, that flew under the radar was the return of Treylon Burks to full practice. Burks, who is returning from a torn ACL, has had an amazing recovery and, in many ways, is ahead of schedule. After participating in a limited fashion during OTAs and minicamp, Burks is settling in and preparing to battle a group of young receivers for his spot on the roster. After practice, Burks spoke with a reporter about his offseason and how it felt to be back on the field. The veteran receiver appears to be embracing the dynamics of the rebuilt receiver room as he works his way back to 100 percent. "It was a different type of offseason for me. Learn how to run, learn how to jump. Get back stronger, get back in shape, and catch up with where I left off to be out here," he said. Cam Ward also noticed Burks during team drills and singled him out during his first training camp media scrum. "He's going to be one of our best targets this year. Not a lot of guys at his size can move like him," he said. These comments were interesting and could have some legs. But there is still a long way to go in the camp, and nothing is set in stone. Ward has always had a reputation for being a great teammate and leader, and he could be using his platform to further motivate Burks. No matter what happens in training camp, Burks has worked his way into an opportunity. Now it is up to him to seize his moment and potentially live up to his draft pedigree. This article originally appeared on Titans Wire: Cam Ward on Treylon Burks: 'He's going to be one of our best targets'
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's new model to support Ukraine is a win-win
From the start, Ukraine's defense against Russia's full-scale invasion has been underpinned by a robust commitment from its Western partners. The Biden administration's pledge to support Ukraine 'as long as it takes' promised a sustained flow of military and financial aid directly from Washington. This 'direct donor' model was key to Ukraine's initial resilience, providing essential weaponry from U.S. stockpiles. Biden's approach primarily involved direct transfers from U.S. weapons inventories, prioritizing speed and ensuring that Ukraine received vital equipment quickly to counter Russian aggression. The American government provided extensive amounts of equipment, from air-defense missiles to artillery rounds and armored vehicles, directly to Kyiv. Now, under President Trump, the paradigm is shifting. The U.S. is transitioning from a direct donor to a 'strategic supplier,' where European allies purchase American weapons for Ukraine at their own expense. While this reorientation marks a significant change, it is far from the worst-case scenario for Ukraine. Instead, it represents a pragmatic and potentially more sustainable evolution of transatlantic burden-sharing, securing critical capabilities for Ukraine while invigorating the U.S. defense industrial base and recalibrating the nature of allied support. Support is still 'as long as it takes' but also 'at the others' expense.' This marks a departure from the traditional post-World War II donor-recipient model, particularly within the NATO alliance, towards a more transactional 'America First' approach. Future U.S. engagement in global security will likely be contingent upon tangible economic benefits and direct cost-sharing from allies. Such a shift could lead to a more predictable, albeit less altruistic, framework for security cooperation, where allies are compelled to demonstrate their commitment through direct financial contributions. This policy reorientation accelerates European strategic autonomy. While the immediate effect is Europe paying for U.S. weapons, the long-term implication is a forced impetus for greater European defense integration and self-sufficiency. European nations have already been increasing their defense spending and proactively planning for a future with less guaranteed U.S. aid. This new model, by making U.S. weapons available for purchase, encourages Europe to develop its own robust procurement mechanisms and potentially expand its own defense industrial base. Ukraine's most pressing and enduring need remains robust air defense against Russia's escalating missile and drone attacks. The U.S.-made Patriot air-defense system is critical, as it is one of the few systems capable of intercepting high-speed ballistic missiles. These systems are vital for protecting civilian infrastructure and population centers, which have been subjected to relentless Russian bombardment. A critical strategic reality for Ukraine is that not all American weapons are equally replaceable by European alternatives. While Europe is ramping up its own artillery production, the Patriot system's unique counter-ballistic missile capability makes it a requirement that only the U.S. can provide at scale. Europe, at the same time, has demonstrated a clear willingness and increasing capacity to shoulder a greater share of the burden. The European Union has already provided €165 billion in financial assistance and has launched an €800 billion Defense Readiness Plan. Frozen Russian sovereign assets may be used to finance what Ukraine needs. The shift to a foreign military sales model is explicitly intended to invigorate the U.S. defense industrial base. By integrating 'exportability features' into defense systems during the design phase, the U.S. seeks to advance its competitiveness abroad and potentially lower unit costs for both America and its allies. While the foreign military sales process has historically been slow and plagued by delivery backlogs, the new model offers a potential solution. Consistent, large-scale orders from European allies could provide the long-term contract certainty that the U.S. defense industry requires to invest significantly in surge capacity and overcome challenges. This transforms what was previously a 'drain' on American stockpiles, requiring replenishment at taxpayer expense, into a sustained stimulus for U.S. manufacturing, aligning with 'America First' economic principles. This shift is not merely about burden-sharing; it is about recapitalizing and modernizing the U.S. defense industrial base. While immediate fixes for current shortages remain challenging, this strategic reorientation creates a more sustainable industrial ecosystem. Trump's recent rhetoric marks a notable change from his earlier stance, which often appeared conciliatory toward Vladimir Putin. He has recognized that Russia, not Ukraine, is the core problem in negotiations, even threatening tariffs and sanctions on Russia and its trading partners if a peace deal is not reached within 50 days. The reality that Putin is not amenable to a quick 'deal' is now clear. There is now a crucial political opening for continued support to Ukraine, even if the funding mechanism changes. The narrative that Trump desires Ukraine's fall has been refuted. Instead, Trump is committed to ending the war on terms that align with his administration's interests. This represents a significant psychological advantage for Ukraine, as it lessens the fear of a complete U.S. abandonment.
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Columbia to pay $221M to restore funding cut by Trump administration
Columbia University said Wednesday it has agreed to pay the Trump administration $221 million to restore federal funding that was stripped following a probe into antisemitism on the campus. The school, according to the settlement, will pay a $200 million settlement to the federal government over a three-year period and $21 million to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 'This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty,' Acting University President Claire Shipman said in a statement. 'The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track,' she added. The interim president said the Trump administration deal will allow the school to maintain its academic independence after losing $400 million in grant funding earlier this year. In June, a judge dismissed a lawsuit led by Columbia's faculty, ruling that only the school had grounds to sue the government for revoking its funds. 'Columbia's longstanding research partnership with the federal government is vital to advancing our nation's progress in key areas of science, technology, and medicine,' Board of Trustees Co-Chairs David Greenwald and Jeh Johnson said in a statement on the matter. 'We are proud of the role we play in advancing this public service and preparing the next generations of students to meet complex challenges around the world,' they added. President Trump announced the agreement on Tuesday night in a Truth Social post celebrating the win for his administration. 'It's a great honor to have been involved, and I want to thank and congratulate Secretary Linda McMahon, and all those who worked with us on this important deal,' he wrote. 'I also want to thank and commend Columbia University for agreeing to do what is right. I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!' He warned earlier in the post that other schools could face similar measures to motivate the erasure of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which the administration has deemed discriminatory. 'Columbia has also committed to ending their ridiculous DEI policies, admitting students based ONLY on MERIT, and protecting the Civil Liberties of their students on campus,' he wrote in the post. 'Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming,' the president added.
