
Trump's support of Pete Rose influenced Rob Manfred's decision to lift ban
Spelling out more clearly than he has in the past the degree to which he took into consideration President Donald Trump's advice on the Pete Rose case, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said Wednesday that he 'paid attention' to what Trump had to say on the matter.
Manfred shook the baseball world last month by announcing that players on MLB's permanently ineligible list would be reinstated after their deaths, a move that placed Rose into newfound consideration for the Hall of Fame. Rose, who died last year at 83, agreed to a ban from the sport in 1989 after being accused of betting on baseball, a transgression which he long denied before eventually admitting to.
In February, Trump asserted on his Truth Social platform that he planned to grant a 'complete pardon' to the former Cincinnati Reds great, whom the president described as 'a FAR BETTER PLAYER than most of those who made it' into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Manfred, who is in his 11th year as MLB commissioner, then met with Trump in April at the White House. Specifics of their conversation did not initially emerge, but later that month Manfred said that 'one of the topics was Pete Rose,' adding that he was 'not going beyond that.'
Speaking on Wednesday at a news conference during an MLB owners meeting (via the Associated Press), Manfred said that Trump was 'one of a number of voices that was supportive of the idea that this was the right decision.'
'Obviously, I have respect for the office,' the 66-year-old commissioner added, 'and the advice that he gave I paid attention to, but I had a lot of other people that were weighing in on the topic, as well.'
It is unclear whether Rose, MLB's all-time hits leader, will ultimately be granted enshrinement at Cooperstown or even a spot on a ballot. Members of the Hall of Fame's Historical Overview Committee will first have to decide whether to place his name on a list that then would be considered by the organization's Classic Baseball Era Committee (via mlb.com). According to the Hall's process, a vote for induction would not take place until that committee is next scheduled to meet in December 2027, and Rose would need at least 12 of 16 votes.
In a letter to an attorney for Rose who had petitioned for his late client's reinstatement, Manfred wrote, 'I want to emphasize that it is not my authority or responsibility to express any view concerning Mr. Rose's consideration by or possible election to the Hall of Fame.'
'Those who really think about the reasons that I did it think that it is the right decision,' Manfred said Wednesday of Rose, 'and other people I think largely get confused with whether he's going to be in the Hall of Fame or not and maybe don't think that was so good.'
Manfred's ruling last month also gave posthumous eligibility to 16 other figures from baseball's past, including 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson and seven teammates from the 1919 Chicago Black Sox who were accused of throwing that year's World Series. Officials with Hall of Fame, an independent body, instituted a rule in 1991 that any players on MLB's permanently ineligible list would also not be eligible for induction. Jackson, a career .356 hitter who died in 1951, was on the Hall of Fame ballot in 1936 and 1946 but got just two votes each time.
As Manfred noted in his letter last month, he denied a petition from Rose for reinstatement in 2015. The three-time World Series winner had 'not presented credible evidence of a reconfigured life either by an honest acceptance by him of his wrongdoing … or by a rigorous, self-aware and sustained program of avoidance by him of all the circumstances that led to his permanent ineligibility in 1989.
'Obviously,' Manfred wrote last month, 'a person no longer with us cannot represent a threat to the integrity of the game.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Wall Street Journal
17 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Why Would Musk Pick This Fight with Trump?
They were powerful together. But now the clash between the president and the world's richest man threatens to tear their ambitions apart—if they can't find a way to detente.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's business empire was built on government help. How badly could Donald Trump hurt him?
Even for Elon Musk, this is — to use the precise technical term — bonkers. Barely one week after leaving the Trump administration with every semblance of amity, the world's richest person is going scorched earth against the leader of the world's richest nation. Insults and threats. Calls for impeachment. Sinister references to Jeffrey Epstein. Somehow, Kanye West is also involved. It's like the messiest online influencer drama you've ever seen, except the parties are two of the most powerful people on Earth. But when it comes down to brass tacks, what exactly does Musk stand to lose in this titanic celebrity divorce? If Trump were to follow through on all his threats, and use every available weapon against Musk's business empire, how badly could it hurt him? The short answer is: pretty badly. In fact, with some admittedly quick and dirty math, we can put a price tag on some of it. Elon Musk's estimated $388bn fortune — already $26.6bn smaller than it was before this frank exchange of thermonuclear warheads — depends on the success of two companies which are both intertwined with the U.S. political system. One is Tesla, which makes electric vehicles; the other is SpaceX, which builds rockets, spacecraft, and satellites. X, formerly Twitter, can be left aside for now; having bought the social network 2022 for $44bn, Musk is still struggling to recoup his investment and has almost certainly lost money overall. Let's start with Space Exploration Technologies Corp., aka SpaceX. Not many people can afford to rent a rocket, so a lot of its business comes from government contracts, and U.S. government contracts most of all. As of writing, according to federal data, the Texas-based company has been paid or promised just under $21bn by Uncle Sam since 2008. The total potential value of all SpaceX's existing contracts, however, is much higher: $89.2bn. If Trump cancelled every contract tomorrow, that would mean a theoretical maximum of $68bn in lost potential income. For context, that's more than four times SpaceX's entire forecasted revenue for 2025, and nearly 15 times its revenue from 2022. Of course, there's no way to know if those maximum payments would ever actually have been made. So we could also get a rough sense of what SpaceX stands to lose by looking at the actual cash it received from federal coffers every year. In 2022 that was $2.8bn; in 2023, $3.1bn; and in 2024, $3.8bn. On the plus side for Musk, the U.S. government is so dependent on SpaceX that some critics have called it a monopoly in the making. SpaceX ferries our astronauts to and from the International Space Station, is heavily involved in Nasa's moon landing program, and manages an increasing share of government satellite communications as well. Still, that does not guarantee safety. Would you really, in all soberness, bet against Donald Trump doing something that hurts the country merely to punish his personal enemies? In fact, as Talking Points Memo editor-in-chief Josh Marshall argues, SpaceX's critical role might actually put it in greater danger, because it leaves the feds with few options except "expropriation or nationalization". Like SpaceX, Tesla has benefited greatly from taxpayer money, mostly in the form of emission trading payments from non-electric carmakers and tax credits or consumers buying electric vehicles. An analysis by The Washington Post put Tesla's total income from emission credits since 2007 at $11.4bn as of this February. Its gain from tax credits, which allow more people to buy its cars at higher prices, has been estimated at $3.4bn. Those emission credit schemes are run by U.S. states, not by the federal government. Nevertheless, Trump and the Republican Party have tried to undermine such schemes by contesting states' ability to set their own emissions rules. The wider impact is difficult to calculate. In contrast to SpaceX, Tesla sells to ordinary people, who tend to have their own opinions independent of government. In reputational terms, splitting noisily with Trump could reverse some of its recent sales losses; on the other hand, it might just make Tesla hated on both sides of politics. The biggest risk may be regulatory. At the time of Trump's second inauguration, Tesla was being investigated by numerous federal agencies including the Justice Department, the National Labor Relations Board, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — which by itself had six pending probes. During his time at DOGE, Democrats feared Musk could use his power to influence or cancel these cases. But Trump's unabashed willingness to wield state power to punish those who displease him while rewarding loyalists cuts both ways. Live by the chainsaw, die by the chainsaw. How much that costs Tesla would depend on how far Trump is willing to go, and on the outcome of any ensuing court battle. But when U.S. stock exchanges closed on Thursday its share price had crashed by nearly 12 percent, wiping $122bn off its market value. So far we've only addressed Elon Musk's finances. Yet there are other, more personal ways that Trump could hurt him if the former reality TV star truly isn't here to make friends. For example, Trump's old advisor Stephen Bannon — who has previously branded Musk a "parasitic illegal immigrant" — urged the administration to investigate Musk's immigration history, and potentially deport him. Unlike some of the feverish allegations that emanate from the extended Trump-o-sphere, this one actually has some substance. An investigation by The Washington Post last year alleged that Musk had worked illegally in the U.S. while launching his Silicon Valley career in the mid-90s. Musk has denied this, and in any case he has been a U.S. citizen since 2002. Still, legal experts have said his citizenship could technically be revoked if he were proven to have lied to immigration authorities. And while those laws have only rarely been enforced in the past 25 years, some Trump aides and allies have said they want that to change. Nor is that anywhere close to the only alleged skeleton in Musk's closet. What is his relationship with ecstasy, Adderall, ketamine, or magic mushrooms? Has he ever been in regular contact with Vladimir Putin? Did his colleagues at DOGE rigorously follow information security laws when extracting sensitive data from federal systems? What happened to all that data after it was obtained? At least we can probably can rule out plain old assassination by government special forces. Although, to be fair, that is literally something that Trump and his lawyers have argued should be protected by presidential immunity. 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

USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
President Trump set to attend UFC 316 in New Jersey this weekend
President Trump set to attend UFC 316 in New Jersey this weekend Show Caption Hide Caption Donald Trump attends UFC 309 at Madison Square Garden President-elect Donald Trump walked into Madison Square Garden alongside UFC CEO Dana White, Elon Musk and Kid Rock for UFC 309. As his feud with tech billionaire and former MAGA darling Elon Musk exploded into public view this week, the White House says President Donald Trump is planning to attend a UFC event in New Jersey this weekend. The event, UFC 316, is slated for Saturday, June 7 at the Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey. The president is scheduled to depart the White House for his golf club in New Jersey Friday afternoon, according to his official schedule, and return to the White House Sunday night. Musk has been high-profile guest for some of Trump's previous visits to the octagon, but the pair had a public falling-out this week after Musk's departure from the Trump administration. 'Siri, play Bad Blood': Internet reacts to Elon Musk and Trump 'breakup' The Trump-Musk fight took off this week when Musk called for Republicans to kill the House-passed tax bill that is a signature part of the second-term president's legislative agenda, calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' Two days later, Trump told reporters at the Oval Office on June 5 that he was 'very disappointed' with Musk and suggested their 'great relationship' was over. In response, Musk took to social media shortly afterward to blast the president, saying Trump wouldn't have won a second term and Republicans would have fared worse in elections in both chambers of the U.S. Congress were it not for his efforts on the 2024 campaign trail, where he poured a quarter of a million dollars into Trump's campaign. The tussle escalated in a back-and-forth between the two men, with Trump suggested going after Musk's companies and their federal contracts, and Musk alleging that Trump's name was in the Justice Department's files related to the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The pair's most recent fight appearance was in April, when Trump and Musk sat ringside at UFC 314 in Miami. The president has long attended UFC events, as CEO Dana White was a prominent supporter of Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign. When is UFC 316? UFC 316, which is headlined by Sean O'Malley vs. Merab Dvalishvili, is set to take place at 10 p.m. ET/7 p.m. PT at the Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey. The main card is available for pay-per-view on ESPN. More: Sean O'Malley vs. Merab Dvalishvili 2 predictions; full card, odds, picks for UFC 316 Contributing: Riley Beggin, Sudiksha Kochi and Cydney Henderson, USA TODAY. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.