Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return
Trump put the pressure on the Commanders, and the Cleveland Guardians, on Sunday – calling both organizations out in two posts made on Truth Social.
"My statement on the Washington Redskins has totally blown up, but only in a very positive way," Trump wrote in a second Truth Social post. "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. The Team would be much more valuable, and the Deal would be more exciting for everyone."
The president added that the Guardians should follow suit.
"Cleveland should do the same with the Cleveland Indians. 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," Trump added. "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)!"
Paul Dolan is the team owner. Matt Dolan holds a minority stake in the organization.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Commanders for comment.
Trump made the original demand for the teams to change their names earlier on Sunday.
"The Washington 'Whatever's' should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team. There is a big clamoring for this," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday. "Likewise, the Cleveland Indians, one of the six original baseball teams, with a storied past.
"Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen. Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them. Times are different now than they were three or four years ago. We are a Country of passion and common sense. OWNERS, GET IT DONE!!!"
Guardians president Chris Antonetti responded to Trump's pressure in the middle of the afternoon. He said it wasn't actually something the organization had on its mind.
"But I would say generally, I understand that there are very different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago," he said, via Cleveland.com. "Obviously it's a decision we've made and we've gotten the opportunity to build the brand as the Guardians over the last four years and are excited about the future."
The Guardians had no additional comment on Trump's posts.
Commanders team owner Josh Harris joined Trump, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in the Oval Office when the deal for the RFK Stadium site was announced.
Congressional lawmakers supported Harris going back to the old stadium site on the condition that the team and NFL would honor the old Redskins logo. Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., said in November he would support the organization going forward with its plan after "good faith negotiations" with both entities.
"We were calling out leaders in case of really, woke gone wrong," Daines said at the time. "The irony that they were canceling Native American culture as the DEI movement went way too far. This is honoring a Blackfeet chief who was born in Montana. He is highly esteemed. The Blackfeet tribe of Montana, their current chairman and tribal council signed a letter in strong support to bring the logo back. It honors Indian Country.
"We have good discussions with the NFL and with the Commanders. There's good faith in negotiations going forward that's going to allow this logo to be used again. Perhaps revenues going to a foundation that could help Native Americans in sports and so forth. We're making good progress and, based on the good faith negotiations, I made a decision to support this bill yesterday in the committee."
But Harris made clear in an interview on Fox News Channel's "Special Report" that there were no plans to bring back the Redskins name.
"The Commanders' name actually has taken on an amazing kind of element in our building," Harris responded to Bret Baier's question about the Redskins name coming back as part of this new stadium deal. "So, the people that certain types of players that are tough, that love football, are delegated Commanders and Jayden [Daniels], for example, is a Commander, and they're ranked.
"And, you know, the business staff has gotten into it, and obviously, we're in a military city here. There's more military personnel than anywhere else, so we're kind of moving forward with the Commanders name, excited about that, and not looking back."
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Brazil chooses local relief over retaliation for US tariffs, sources say
By Marcela Ayres, Bernardo Caram and Lisandra Paraguassu BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazil's government has set aside for now plans for direct retaliation against steep U.S. tariffs taking effect this week, focusing instead on a relief package for industries hit hardest by the levies, sources familiar with the strategy said. Wide-ranging exemptions granted in U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order last week spared some of the most vulnerable sectors of Latin America's largest economy, to the relief of many investors and business leaders. That has left Brasilia cautious about responding to Trump with reciprocal tariffs or other retaliation that could escalate tensions, said government officials, who requested anonymity to discuss confidential deliberations. Talks with Washington are likely to be slow and complex, said one of the sources, so Brazil's government is prioritizing immediate relief for exporters, such as through public credit lines and other support for export finance. Another official said the government is studying potential responses to the tariffs that would affect U.S. companies, but sees them as a last resort if negotiations fail. Those potential countermeasures, now under review, could include suspension of royalty payments for pharmaceutical patents and media copyrights, two sources said. The government had also signaled last year that it was preparing a new tax that could affect big U.S. tech companies, but shelved the plan this year to avoid antagonizing Trump ahead of his April tariff announcement. At the time, Brazil was saddled with a 10% tariff, among the lowest in the world, which many credited to a longstanding U.S. trade surplus with Brazil. Trump then tied a steeper 50% tariff in July to what he called a political "witch hunt" against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing ally on trial for an alleged coup plot to overturn his 2022 election loss. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva initially said he would respond under the country's Economic Reciprocity Law, passed by Congress to provide legal grounds for countermeasures against trade sanctions, fueling speculation about retaliation. Talk of reciprocal action has since faded, even as Lula criticizes Trump's rationale for the tariff hike, defending the independence of Brazil's judiciary and insisting any negotiations should remain strictly focused on trade. U.S. tariff exemptions granted last week for Brazil's aviation, energy and mining industries were taken in Brasilia as evidence that patient diplomacy and lobbying by affected U.S. companies seeking relief was the best way to get results in Washington. Brazil also said it plans to file a formal complaint at the World Trade Organization over the tariffs, even though that dispute settlement system has been stalled since the first Trump administration. "You still need to go through the available channels," one Brazilian official said, while acknowledging that a resolution is unlikely under the current state of the WTO. More immediately, the government is fine-tuning measures to shield sectors most hurt by the U.S. tariffs set to take effect on Wednesday, extending financial relief to companies already facing canceled contracts. Officials have said the package will likely include credit lines and possible tweaks to the export credit insurance and export financing mechanisms, according to one of the sources. Finance Minister Fernando Haddad, who said relief measures could begin rolling out this week, on Friday said the government was never committed to retaliating against Washington. "We never used that verb to characterize the actions the Brazilian government will take," he said. "These are actions to protect sovereignty, to protect our industry, our agribusiness, our agriculture," he told reporters. "That word (retaliation) was not present in the president's speech, nor in any minister's." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Slaps Tariffs, Modi Fires Back -- Is India Breaking Away from the US?
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi isn't backing down. Days after President Donald Trump slapped a surprise 25% tariff on Indian exports and warned of more action over India's oil ties with Russia, Modi doubled down on his buy local message. He urged citizens to prioritize Indian-made goods, while sources familiar with the matter told Bloomberg that New Delhi hasn't ordered refiners to stop buying Russian crude. Instead, refinersboth public and privateare still choosing suppliers based on commercial logic. The backdrop: Trump is ramping up pressure on India for its energy and diplomatic relationship with Moscow, just as global markets remain uneasy over war financing and shifting trade alliances. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 9 Warning Signs with GS. The rhetoric is heating up fast. Trump's team has accused India of cheating the US on trade and immigration, and signaled that all options are on the table to respond to its Russian oil purchases. But while the public messaging may sound tough, India isn't giving up much. Officials said US trade talks are still on, but they won't open up politically sensitive sectors like agriculture and dairy. And recent dealslike the one India just signed with the UKsuggest that Modi's government is moving at its own pace, carefully protecting domestic interests even while staying at the negotiating table. The pushback highlights how India, now the world's fastest-growing large economy, is becoming less willing to compromise under outside pressure. Despite the rising tension, markets aren't panicking. Indian equities climbed on Monday, while the rupee and government bonds also strengthened. The boost came after oil prices dropped sharplythanks to OPEC+ signaling it could raise output in Septemberwhich is a major win for India, a net fuel importer. While Indian refiners are preparing fallback plans in case Russian crude becomes unavailable, there's no sign of a near-term disruption. India is signaling it may not easily yield to pressure, even from a key partner. For global investors watching this unfoldincluding those with exposure to geopolitical-sensitive names like Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA)India's balancing act between Washington and Moscow could become a defining theme for emerging market strategy in the months ahead. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Redistricting battles in Texas and elsewhere: Will courts play a role?: ANALYSIS
As Democrats search for ways to delay, if not defeat, Republican efforts to redraw election maps for political gain ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, they say, they may not find much help from federal courts. A landmark 2019 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Rucho v. Common Cause -- removed federal judges almost entirely from the business of mediating disputes over partisan gerrymandering. "Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling effectively shut the courthouse door on legal challenges to creatively-drawn electoral maps that dilute the influence of certain voters based on party affiliation. MORE: How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections "Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions," Roberts concluded in the opinion. Race, however, is a different matter -- and one that the Supreme Court has recognized a limited role for judges in examining under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 2 of the Act prohibits the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race, which has historically been interpreted to include the drawing of congressional districts that "crack" or "pack" communities of color in order to limit their influence. As recently as 2023, the high court said lower courts could intervene in "instances of intensive racial politics where the excessive role [of race] in the electoral process ... den[ies] minority voters equal opportunity to participate." MORE: Abbott threatens to oust Democrats who fled Texas over redistricting Some Democrats have begun alleging that the Texas GOP effort (and those in other states) is racially motivated. "They're coming in and cracking up parts of Austin voters and then merging my district with [Democratic] Congressman [Lloyd] Doggett's district, all with the intended effect of making it so that voters of color have less of a say in their elections, and so that Donald Trump gets his preferred member of Congress," Texas Democratic Rep. Greg Casar told ABC's Selina Wang on Sunday. Former Obama attorney general turned voting rights advocate Eric Holder told ABC News "This Week" co-anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday he is contemplating the possibility of new litigation under the Voting Rights Act. "This really exacerbates that which they've already done and strengthens the case that we have brought," Holder said of Texas' Republicans' redistricting efforts. A race-based challenge to any new Texas congressional map would get through the courthouse door, but it could ultimately face a skeptical Supreme Court, which has increasingly looked to eliminate any racial considerations under the Constitution. The justices are already considering a case from Louisiana involving the competing interests of the Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights Act when it comes to race. Plaintiffs allege race was impermissibly used to create a discriminatory districts under Section 2; opponents argue that requiring a creation of new map that explicitly accounts for race is itself a violation of colorblind equal protection. When the court hears arguments this fall, there are signs several of the justices could seek to have Section 2 strictly limited or struck down entirely. "For over three decades, I have called for a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in June. "I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore." Ultimately, despite widespread public complaints about gerrymandering and the challenges it creates, the most likely and lasting solution may lie in legislatures and Congress. "The avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Rucho. Proposals for fair districting criteria and independent commissions have circulated in statehouses and Congress for years. On Monday, one Republican lawmaker — Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — introduced a bill to ban mid-decade redrawing of congressional maps nationwide. Such a proposal could halt the state redistricting "arms race" now underway if it was adopted, though that looks highly unlikely.
