President Donald Trump is stirring the pot again, this time targeting the Washington Commanders’ stadium dreams. On July 20, 2025, he took to Truth Social, demanding the team ditch its current name and revive the old Redskins moniker. His threat? Block the team’s new stadium deal in Washington, D.C., unless they comply.
Fox News reported that Trump’s posts also called out the Cleveland Guardians, urging a return to their former name, the Cleveland Indians. He claimed reverting to Redskins would boost the Commanders’ value and make their stadium deal “more exciting.”
The team owners, however, aren’t budging, standing firm on their current identities. Josh Harris, the Commanders’ owner, has embraced the team’s newer name, tying it to D.C.’s military community and players like Jayden Daniels.
On Fox News Channel’s “Special Report,” Harris dismissed any plans to revert, saying the Commanders’ name has “taken on an amazing element.” This defiance suggests Trump’s bluster might be more noise than substance.
Trump’s Truth Social tirade on July 20 wasn’t just a one-off jab. He doubled down, insisting both the Commanders and Guardians restore their old names to honor “heritage and prestige.” His claim that “massive numbers” of Native Americans want this change lacks evidence and smells like political posturing.
The Cleveland Guardians, led by president Chris Antonetti, swiftly rejected Trump’s demand. Antonetti emphasized building the Guardians’ brand, shrugging off the call to revert to the Indians name. It’s a polite but firm middle finger to Trump’s unsolicited advice.
Trump didn’t stop at the Commanders, targeting Guardians minority owner Matt Dolan with a bizarre political jab. He claimed Dolan’s alleged election losses stemmed from the Guardians’ name change. The Commanders’ stadium saga centers on the RFK Stadium site, a plan backed by congressional lawmakers.
Announced on April 28, 2025, with Harris, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in the Oval Office, the deal hinges on honoring the old Redskins logo. Trump’s threat to derail it adds a layer of political theater to an already complex negotiation.
Sen. Steve Daines, a Montana Republican, has championed the RFK deal since November 2024, citing “good faith negotiations” with the NFL and Commanders.
He noted the Blackfeet tribe’s support for reviving the Redskins logo to honor a Blackfeet chief. This angle complicates the narrative, blending cultural respect with political maneuvering.
Daines suggested revenues from the logo could fund Native American sports initiatives, a proposal that sounds noble but raises questions about execution. Who decides how the money’s spent? It’s a detail conveniently glossed over in the senator’s enthusiastic pitch.
Harris, unfazed by Trump’s threats, has doubled down on the Commanders’ identity. He highlighted the name’s resonance with D.C.’s military community, calling it a source of pride for fans and players alike. It’s a savvy move, framing the name as a tribute rather than a compromise.
Antonetti’s response for the Guardians was equally resolute, focusing on the team’s future rather than its past. “We’ve gotten the opportunity to build the brand as the Guardians,” he said, signaling no interest in revisiting the Indians name. Both owners seem more interested in their teams’ futures than Trump’s nostalgia trip.
Trump’s claim that reverting to Redskins would boost the Commanders’ value is pure speculation. No data supports his assertion, and Harris’s focus on the team’s current trajectory suggests the opposite. It’s classic Trump—big promises, thin evidence.
The debate over team names isn’t new, but Trump’s intervention reeks of opportunism. His call to “make Indians great again” feels like a recycled MAGA slogan, not a genuine plea for cultural sensitivity. It’s hard to see this as anything but a wedge to rally his base.
The Blackfeet tribe’s support, as cited by Daines, adds a wrinkle but doesn’t erase the broader context of why these names changed.
The Commanders and Guardians moved away from Redskins and Indians to distance themselves from outdated, controversial terms. Reverting now risks reigniting old wounds for little gain beyond political points.
