logo
Trump has nothing better to do than debate an NFL team's name?

Trump has nothing better to do than debate an NFL team's name?

Washington Post21-07-2025
Donald Trump has never been beyond offering unsolicited advice. Here's some, from 2013, back when he was merely a reality show star.
'President should not be telling the Washington Redskins to change their name-our country has far bigger problems!' Trump tweeted, back when Twitter was Twitter and he didn't have a social media platform of his own. 'FOCUS on them,not [sic] nonsense.'
That brings us to this past weekend. It should go without saying that the name of the NFL team that represents Washington but isn't headquartered in Washington and doesn't play in Washington — yet, anyway — should be of little or no concern to the president of the United States. But apparently, we have to say it:
President Trump, this is not your concern. You said it years ago, when someone else was president — when Barack Obama said merely that if he owned the team, he would consider changing the name. Now, Josh Harris owns the Washington Commanders. Harris has said he isn't interested in changing the name, that it now means something inside the team's headquarters. The Washington Commanders are working on a deal for a new stadium with the District government. They can handle that without presidential interference — er, help.
'We're kind of moving forward with the Commanders name,' Harris said on none other than Fox News in April. 'Excited about that — and not looking back.'
Which is where we all should be — president or owner, fan or not.
It can be tiring to be a resident of the District of Columbia. Part of that is not having voting representation in Congress, a real and material aspect of living here that can make you feel like something less than a full American citizen. Part of that is having Congress right here on top of us, lawmakers with no real attachment to or interest in the city so tempted to insert themselves into the District's business.
And it's tiring, in part, when Trump is president or running for the office. The attacks aren't just about the football team's nickname. The attacks can seem personal.
'Washington, D.C., has become a dirty, crime-ridden death trap that must be taken over and properly run,' Trump said in 2023 at a New Hampshire campaign stop. '… Being in real estate, I always kept clean properties. I like clean, clean, well-run, you know, tippy-top. We say, 'Tippy-top. We want 'em to be tippy-top.' Well, our capital is the opposite of tippy-top. It's a s---house. Horrible. It's horrible. It's so horrible. You know, our parks are littered and dirty and disgusting, and many, many homeless are living there.'
D.C. isn't without its problems, like any city. It is not a hellscape. Far from it.
At issue here is Trump's threat, made on his Truth Social media platform Sunday, that he could blow up the District's yet-to-be-completed deal with the Commanders for a new stadium if the team didn't go back to 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,' he wrote. 'The Team would be much more valuable, and the Deal would be more exciting for everyone.'
This should, of course, be seen as ridiculous blathering, in large part because even the president doesn't have the authority to unilaterally undo the District's deal — passed by Congress in December — to take control of the land around RFK Stadium. But we live in an era in which ridiculous blathering can somehow morph into reality, so Trump's unserious posts have to be taken seriously.
The two people in awkward spots because of this: Harris and D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D). Start with Harris, who visited the Oval Office to help Trump celebrate Washington landing the 2027 draft (quite an accomplishment for a 's---house,' by the way).
'You are the ultimate Commander,' Harris told Trump as he presented him with a team jersey.
Oy. Harris's concerns should be with the D.C. Council, which has yet to schedule a vote on the funding package Harris is counting on for infrastructure and parking around the new stadium he would build. (Side note: Fight on, Council members. Make sure you get some money from parking and rent — at least — before agreeing to any deal.)
Bowser has made bringing the NFL team back to the District a significant part of her legacy — so much so that she celebrated the stadium deal before it was done, so much so that she softened her previous anti-Redskins stance on Monday, saying at a news conference that the old name wouldn't overshadow her desire to have the team in her town. Ugh.
I wrote in 2020 that the old name should be changed, and while that moment in society and politics has passed, I don't want the name back. When Harris said in February that the name Commanders 'is growing in meaning,' it felt like the issue was dead. Finally.
But Trump's online diatribe Sunday was less about the name than about the District and who runs it. We don't have voting members of Congress to whom we can turn. And too frequently, members of Congress elected by people in other parts of the country show interest in our affairs. Take that land around RFK Stadium, which is owned by the federal government but now leased to the District.
'The federal government transferred administrative control of this valuable property with the clear expectation that the D.C. Council would act decisively to maximize its potential,' James Comer (R-Kentucky), the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, wrote last week in a letter to D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D). 'The Committee was disappointed to see the Council's vote on the stadium deal delayed, particularly given the significant economic benefits at stake and the clear mandate provided by federal legislation.'
Was the clear mandate to rush to a deal without consideration of what's best for the District's 700,000 residents?
In the end, the Commanders name shouldn't change unless Harris wants it and Harris vets it. The Commanders stadium shouldn't land in the District unless the District's leaders find a deal that works for the District's citizens. And the president should know our country has far bigger problems. FOCUS on them, not nonsense.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US Senate Confirms Susan Monarez as Director of the CDC
US Senate Confirms Susan Monarez as Director of the CDC

Bloomberg

time2 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

US Senate Confirms Susan Monarez as Director of the CDC

The US Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday, as the federal agency adjusts to widespread layoffs and cancellations of public health programs. Susan Monarez will take the helm as director of the Atlanta-based CDC following a 51 to 47 vote, after Republicans rallied behind the president's pick. She was the acting director when Dave Weldon, Trump's original choice, was abruptly pulled after members expressed concerns over his vaccine views.

U.S.-China AI Competition In The Spotlight
U.S.-China AI Competition In The Spotlight

Forbes

time32 minutes ago

  • Forbes

U.S.-China AI Competition In The Spotlight

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 23: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the "Winning the AI Race" summit ... More hosted by All‑In Podcast and Hill & Valley Forum at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on July 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump signed executive orders related to his Artificial Intelligence Action Plan during the event. (Photo by) Recently both the United States and China have announced national policies for promoting the development of artificial intelligence. The Trump Administration's U.S. AI Action Plan features a deregulatory approach to driving innovation and building an American AI infrastructure that can be exported overseas. The Chinese Government AI plan instead proposes a global consensus-building organization that would seek a balance between AI development and security. The competition between these 2 contrasting approaches may be expected to have major implications for the adoption of AI around the world, and, thus, for the future of the global economy. A consistent deregulatory emphasis might be a winning American strategy. America's AI Action Plan 'America's AI Action Plan,' released by the White House on July 23, 2025, states that 'America must have the most powerful AI systems in the world,' and 'must also lead the world in creative and transformative application of these systems. Achieving these goals requires the Federal government to create the conditions where private-sector-led innovation can flourish.' The Action Plan features 3 pillars: (1) accelerate AI innovation; (2) build American AI infrastructure; and (3) lead in international AI diplomacy and security. The first pillar merits particular attention. The AI Innovation pillar includes a variety of specific initiatives designed to support the rapid adoption of and application of AI by government, businesses, and workers. Reducing regulatory burdens is the key policy that underpins the overall Trump AI innovation strategy. Most significantly, 'all Federal agencies . . . identify, revise, or repeal regulations, rules, memoranda, administrative orders, guidance documents, policy statements, and interagency agreements that unnecessarily hinder AI development or deployment.' The clear aim is to eliminate excessive federal AI regulation, to the extent legally possible. Biden-era Federal Trade Commission enforcement actions that 'advance theories of liability that unduly burden AI innovation' are to be set aside. State AI regulation is actively discouraged, to the extent allowed by law. The AI plan also takes aim at state AI regulations that interfere with the Federal Communications Commission's ability to carry out its statutory responsibilities. Furthermore, the Plan seeks to discourage excessive state-level AI regulation by steering AI-related discretionary federal funding away from states whose 'regulatory regimes may hinder the effectiveness of that funding or award.' The AI Action Plan's deregulatory tilt reflects continued support for the U.S. policy of 'permissionless innovation,' which drove the development of the internet from its beginnings in the 1990s. Permissionless innovation means 'that anyone should be able to innovate without having to seek permission from a government or other authority.' That policy allowed the internet to grow freely without U.S. Government regulatory authorization and oversight placed over the firms that developed it. The direct result was unprecedented innovation and huge economic dividends generated by U.S. firms, benefiting the American and global economies. Permissionless innovation does not mean freedom from legal requirements that protect health, safety, and business on the merits. AI innovators, like the internet pioneers that came before them, remain fully subject to the full range of U.S. civil and criminal laws, including national security, antitrust, consumer rights, environmental protection, and civil rights, to name just a few. By reducing the expected weight of regulatory burdens, the AI Plan may be expected to incentivize additional investments in and the faster implementation of AI systems. In turn, these effects could stimulate American competition in AI-related sectors and speed innovation, providing economic growth dividends and benefits to American businesses and consumers. American international competitiveness in AI and AI-related markets would benefit. Nine separate proposals are aimed at creating a robust American AI Infrastructure. These include deregulatory streamlined permitting for AI-supported infrastructure, promoting an AI-supportive electric grid, developing a skilled workforce for AI infrastructure, and ensuring cybersecurity. This pillar emphasizes exporting American AI to allies and partners; strengthening AI-related export controls, national security protections, and risk assessments; and countering Chinese influence in international governance bodies. The Action Plan notes that international organizations that are proposing AI governance frameworks and development strategies too often have advocated for burdensome regulations, vague 'codes of conduct' that promote cultural agendas that do not align with American values, or have been influenced by Chinese companies attempting to shape standards for facial recognition and surveillance. In response, the Action Plan recommends 'leverage[ing] the U.S. position in international diplomatic and standard-setting bodies to vigorously advocate for international AI governance approaches that promote innovation, reflect American values, and counter authoritarian influence.' Chinese Government Global Plan for AI Chinese Premier Li Qiang proposed a global organization to oversee the development of AI in a July 26 speech, just 3 days after the release of the American AI Action Plan. According to the Chinese Government, Li 'call[ed] for the early formation of a global framework and rules that have broad consensus to guide the development and use of AI.' Li noted the need 'to strike a balance between development and security.' He added that China is willing 'to offer more Chinese solutions.' In particular, 'China stands ready to undertake joint technical research with other countries, and will be more open in sharing open-source technology and products.' China's support for a new global AI authority (though cloaked in 'consensus-building' language) stands in sharp contrast to the Trump Administration's deregulatory, competition-driven American AI model, which the U.S. would seek to promote through economic diplomacy focused on existing international bodies and friendly nations. The Big Competition The 2 recent government announcements provide a preview of the coming global competition between contrasting American and Chinese AI models. China and the U.S. are widely regarded as the 2 major global players in AI. China China is a formidable force in AI development. China's 2017 New Generation AI Development Plan revealed its intention to become the global leader in AI by 2030. China's Government has worked closely with its tech giants to make them AI leaders, and has encouraged the collection of data to build AI models. Chinese agencies and businesses have introduced AI at all levels. China has aggressively sought to have Chinese AI systems adopted in Asia, Africa, and South America. Moreover, with government support, Chinese firms are opening offices and entering partnerships in the Middle East, Europe, and the U.S. China is also investing heavily in AI education and in AI military applications. The U.S. The U.S. still leads 'leads the world in large-scale AI development, driven in part by its leading talent and innovation ecosystem, but also by its access to cutting-edge 'compute' – the specialized chips, data centers, and infrastructure needed to train and deploy the most capable AI systems.' The U.S. Government is not emulating China's heavy government control over AI development. The AI Action Plan's provisions dealing with labor and infrastructure reflect a 'light touch' approach. They primarily feature encouragement through easing burdens on the private sector, rather than detailed industrial policy directives. Most significantly, the AI Action Plan has an overarching deregulatory focus. It leaves it to entrepreneurs to produce new AI innovations, free from government micromanagement. The Bottom Line Competition on the merits among competing AI systems, like competition in general, should tend to benefit society. It can be a 'win' for economic welfare worldwide, yielding an optimal array of products and services. The extent of direct Chinese Government involvement in developing and promoting its vision of AI is, however, a complicating factor. The U.S. Government may be expected to resist Chinese policies that would generate anticompetitive market distortions in AI markets. A consistent U.S. Government approach of deregulation and 'permissionless invitation' just might be the 'secret sauce' needed to achieve global success for American AI, assuming geopolitical obstacles are surmounted.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store