
Why did the Commanders change their name? President Trump urges Washington to switch back
This offseason, Washington inked a deal to return to their old home on the RFK Stadium site and also reimagined their old Super Bowl era uniforms in what some believe could be a precursor to a jersey rebrand.
Plans for the stadium have stalled while Mayor Muriel Bowser battles with the Washington D.C. council to get it approved. The mayor has expressed concern about the deal, while the Commanders may run into a speedbump for future plans.
Now the Commanders face another potential obstacle en route to a stadium deal, this time against the Commander in Chief. On July 20, President Donald Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he could block a deal if the team doesn't bring back their 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," Trump posted on Truth Social.
Here's a look at how we got here, including the origin of the Commanders' name change, whether they can change it back and what the President has said about the issue.
Why did the Commanders change their name?
Washington's NFL franchise introduced the "Commanders" moniker in advance of the 2022 season after two years as the Washington Football Team.
The move was necessitated by the overwhelming pressure that began to mount against the much more controversial namesake.
Originally born into the NFL in 1932 as the Boston Braves, the franchise changed its name after one season to the version considered offensive to Native Americans in 1933. It was a name that remained through the team's relocation to Washington in 1937 and withstood the test of time until the it couldn't anymore ahead of the 2020 season.
Following George Floyd's death in Minnesota, protests broke out across the country in opposition to police brutality and racism. That also put the spotlight on Washington's team, which began feeling the heat from sponsors like FedEx, Nike and PepsiCo.
Adweek reported in 2020 that 87 investment firms worth a collective $620 billion at the time sent a letter to some of the team's biggest sponsors – FedEx, Nike and PepsiCo – asking them to sever ties with the team if they refused the name change.
Previous owner Dan Snyder was adamant for years that the name would never be changed.
"We will never change the name of the team," Snyder told USA TODAY Sports in 2013. "As a lifelong (name) fan, and I think that the (name) fans understand the great tradition and what it's all about and what it means, so we feel pretty fortunate to be just working on next season."
Despite years of lawsuits and pressure from Native American groups, Snyder vowed he would never cave on the issue.
"We'll never change the name," Snyder said at the time. "It's that simple. NEVER – you can use caps."
However, the sponsors threats were more than enough for Snyder to reconsider his position and the old name was removed ahead of the 2020 season, sparking a search for a new one.
"We are announcing we will be retiring the (former) name and logo upon completion of this review," the team said in a statement and that team officials were "working closely to develop a new name and design approach that will enhance the standing of our proud, tradition rich franchise and inspire our sponsors, fans and community for the next 100 years."
What Trump has said about Commanders name change
Trump has been a fixture throughout the Commanders recent rebrands and controversy. The pivot away from the controversial name came during the first Trump administration and now the stadium deal has taken centerstage during the second.
The president has always been opposed to switch, but struck a different chord earlier this month when asked about the team's move back to the RFK site.
'It doesn't have the same ring to me,' he told reporters on July 7. 'But, you know, winning can make everything sound good. So, if they win, all of a sudden, the Commanders sounds good, but I wouldn't have changed it.'
While Trump wasn't in favor of the move, it was a decidedly different tone than the one he took at the time in 2020.
"They name teams out of STRENGTH, not weakness, but now the Washington Redskins & Cleveland Indians, two fabled sports franchises, look like they are going to be changing their names in order to be politically correct," Trump tweeted in response to the initial change.
He renewed that rhetoric on July 20, when he threatened to block the team's new stadium deal in the district, adding they should immediately bring back the 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," Trump later posted.
"The Team would be much more valuable, and the Deal would be more exciting for everyone," he continued, adding that the Cleveland Guardians should also follow suit.
It's unclear what power the president has in this case, considering Congress turned over control of the RFK Stadium land to the city with the passage of the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act in January.
Will the Commanders change their name?
It's unlikely a move back to the old controversial nickname will happen, given recent stance from team brass.
If there was any doubt, team owner Josh Harris seemingly put a return to the old name to bed at a press conference in February.
"Now, in this building, the name Commanders means something," Harris said. "It's about players who love football, are great at football, hit hard, mentally tough, great teammates. It's really meaningful that that name is growing in meaning."
While the owner acknowledged that the team will honor its past, he pointed out that the name is here to stay.
"I think it's now being embraced by our team, by our culture, by our coaching staff. And so we're going with that," Harris said.
Not only have the Commanders shown no interest in reverting to their name, but NFL rules dictate that it might not be a possibility at this time either.
As any name change would also be likely be accompanied with new jerseys, the NFL's uniform rules come into focus. As detailed in 2002 Resolution G-3 under Article 19 of the NFL's constitution, a team cannot change its jerseys more than once every five years.
Given that the team just unveiled new jerseys ahead of the 2022 season, they cannot make a switch again until 2027.
There is a clause for "extenuating circumstances" built in that would allow for a faster rebrand. It is determined by the commissioner, but relocation and ownership change are considered extenuating.
Any name change would likely need the approval of the league, as was the case in 2020 when Washington first changed its team nickname to the Commanders.
What Trump has said about the Cleveland Guardians
The Commanders aren't the only team that faced controversy surrounding their team name. MLB's Cleveland Guardians also drew the ire of Trump, who suggested they should also bring back their old name.
Cleveland didn't make the move until ahead of the 2022 MLB season, three years after they dropped the "Chief Wahoo" mascot and logo.
Trump said that it was cancel culture in a 2020 tweet, indicating he was no fan of that decision.
The Guardians arrived at the conclusion to change their name after team owner Paul Dolan changed his stance on the matter, citing a changing world in the aftermath of the social unrest in 2020.
All the NFL news on and off the field. Sign up for USA TODAY's 4th and Monday newsletter.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stephen Colbert Addresses ‘The Late Show's Financial Losses With Another Dig At Paramount's $16M Trump Settlement
Stephen Colbert is not shying away from the fact that The Late Show was canceled. Kicking off Monday's show with a joke about Trump wanting to change the name of the Washington Commanders NFL team (the 'Washington Epsteins', Colbert suggested), he walked into the Ed Sullivan theater to loud cheers and said 'This is going to be fun'. It certainly was. More from Deadline 'The Daily Show's Jon Stewart Torches Paramount Over Colbert Axing: "Go F*ck Yourself" Stephen Colbert Tells Donald Trump To "Go F*ck Yourself" After 'The Late Show' Axing 'The Late Show With Stephen Colbert' Attracts Protesters; More Planned This Week 'Cancel culture has gone too far,' he joked. 'Last week we learned that The Late Show will be ending in May. I want to thank everybody who reached out to me over the weekend, including one text from an unknown number, offering a high paying IT work-from-home job for only two to three hours a day. Yes, I am very interested and I will be sending you my routing number in May. Daddy needs a job.' He added that the news sunk in over the weekend that CBS was 'killing' his show. 'But they made one mistake. They left me alive. Now for the next 10 months, the gloves are off. I can finally speak unvarnished truth to power and say what I really think about Donald Trump. I don't care for him. Doesn't have the skillset to be President,' he joked. Colbert noted that people have been 'speculating' about the timing of the decision, coming days after he called CBS' settlement of its lawsuit with President Trump a 'big fat bribe'. 'People have been speculating about the timing of this decision from Paramount, and they're pointing out the last Monday, just two days before my cancelation, I delivered a blistering monologue in which I showed the courage to have a mustache. When obviously CBS saw my upper lip and boom, canceled. Coincidence? Oh, I think not. This is worse than fascism. This is stashism.' He kidded that CBS may turn the Ed Sullivan Theater into a self-storage facility ('Put your old records where the Beatles performed'). He reiterated that CBS have 'always been great partners' and thanked them for the 'very nice things' it said in the press release announcing the axing. 'They clarified that the cancelation was purely a financial decision. But how could it purely be a financial decision if the Late Show is number one in ratings. A lot of folks are asking that question, mainly my staff's parents and spouses,' he added. But he had a few stern words by suggesting that CBS leaked the fact that The Late Show loses between $40M-$50M a year. 'Over the weekend, somebody at CBS followed up their gracious press release with a gracious anonymous leak saying they pulled the plug on our show because of losses pegged between $40M and $50M a year. $40M is a big number. I could see us losing $24 million but where would Paramount have possibly spent the other 16 million? Oh, yeah,' he added, alluding to the settlement. Best of Deadline Everything We Know About 'The Devil Wears Prada 2' 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery


CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Gabbard's Russian interference claims directly contradict what other Trump officials have said
When President Donald Trump sided with Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence community on the topic of Russia's interference in the 2016 US election, then-Sen. Marco Rubio sharply rebuked Trump. The Florida Republican said in 2018 that the intelligence community's 'assessment of 2016 is accurate. It's 100% accurate. The Russians interfered in our elections.' He added: 'I think it was not a good moment for the administration, obviously. Hopefully, something like that never happens again.' But seven years later, it just keeps happening — over and over again — as Trump and his most loyal allies seek to sow doubts about that 2016 episode and punish their political enemies. That's now taken the form of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard threatening criminal referrals and even floating allegations of treason for key officials in the Obama administration. Her argument is full of holes, as even critics of the Russia investigation such as the National Review's Andrew McCarthy have noted. (Basically, the whole thing conflates Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election with nonexistent attacks on election infrastructure that changed votes. ) But just as notable is that Gabbard's move to cast doubt on Russia's 2016 interference is wholly at odds with several top Trump administration officials, most especially Rubio, along with a pair of congressional investigations spearheaded by Republicans. To be clear, Gabbard is basically suggesting there was no Russian interference. Her memo last week cited what it cast as false reporting 'that the CIA 'concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened' in the election to help President Trump.' The memo said the assessment 'falsely alleges … that Putin directed an effort to help President Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.' Gabbard in Fox News interviews accused the Obama team of ordering a 'a manufactured piece of intelligence that detailed not if, but how Russia tried to influence the outcome of the United States election.' She cited an intelligence document that purportedly said Russia 'did not attempt to affect the outcome of the election.' In fact, that document — a President's Daily Brief, or his daily intelligence report — merely said Russia hadn't impacted the election results 'by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.' It was referring narrowly to a very specific (and severe) type of potential election interference. The Obama administration never alleged such interference took place or that Russia manipulated actual votes that were cast. This is a kind of sleight of hand we've seen before with Trump allies trying to call Russia's election interference into question. But Gabbard's commentary is especially striking when juxtaposed with those she serves with in the second Trump administration. Rubio didn't just rebuke Trump for siding with Putin's denials back in 2018; he also spearheaded the Senate Intelligence Committee's big, bipartisan Russia report in 2020. The report concluded that Russia had 'engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.' It not only said Russia had interfered, but also that it had done so to benefit Trump. 'The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president,' the report said. 'Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.' The report differed slightly from a similar report from the House Intelligence Committee in 2018. The House report, which was written by Republicans, did not say that Russia aimed to help Trump, but it did say it interfered and that Putin had ordered it. 'In 2015, Russia began engaging in a covert influence campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election,' the Republican-led House report said. 'The Russia government, at the direction of President Vladimir Putin, sought to sow discord in American society and undermine our faith in the democratic process.' Gabbard, who was a Democratic member of Congress until 2021, now suggestively casts all three of these pillars as false: that Russia interfered, that Putin ordered it, and that it was meant to help Trump. And her conclusions also run afoul of other Trump administration members' statements. During his 2020 confirmation hearing to become Trump's director of national intelligence, now-CIA Director John Ratcliffe — who then served on the House Intelligence Committee — made clear Russia interfered. 'Chairman, my views are that Russia meddled in or interfered with active measures in 2016,' Ratcliffe said. 'They interfered in 2018. They will attempt to do so in 2020. They have a goal of sowing discord, and they have been successful in sowing discord.' Even just days before Gabbard launched her effort last week, Ratcliffe issued a report that not only didn't dispute that Russia interfered, but actually praised the initial intelligence assessment's 'analytical rigor.' Mike Waltz, Trump's nominee for United Nations ambassador and his former national security adviser, has also issued strong statements on the topic. He at one point even warned that people were conflating Trump's claims of 'no collusion' with the idea that Russia didn't interfere at all. 'We do have to draw a bright line between 'no collusion' … versus the Russians attacking our constitutional system and attacking our electoral system, which they absolutely are doing,' Waltz, then a Florida congressman, told CNN's Jake Tapper in 2019. He added: 'We have to stay focused on that, because that is our democracy under attack.' Today, Trump's administration is yet again seeking to blur those lines. The conflations are continuing. And these officials will apparently just keep doing it — no matter what they said before.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Mariners call up left-hand pitcher Brandyn Garcia to add to their bullpen
The Mariners selected 25-year-old left-handed pitcher Brandyn Garcia from Triple-A Tacoma. The announcement was made by Mariners Executive Vice President & General Manager of Baseball Operations Justin Hollander on Monday as they optioned right-handed pitcher Juan Burgos to Triple-A Tacoma after their game on Sunday. Seattle selected Garcia in the 11th round of the MLB draft out of Texas A&M University in 2023. He started with the Double-A Arkansas Travelers this season, making a move up to the Tacoma Rainiers last month. Garcia comes to the Mariners with a career ERA of 2.49, 184 strikeouts and 67 walks. This season, his ERA is 3.51 with 42 strikeouts and 17 walks. His first appearance with the Mariners will be his major league debut.