Trump's Washington Commanders threat: Can president actually block team's planned move to D.C.?
A Commanders spokesperson declined comment on the issue to the Washington Post on Sunday. Back in February, team owner Josh Harris committed to sticking with the new name, saying it's "embraced by our team." A poll conducted in May by the Post suggested it's embraced by the public too, with 50 percent of local people and 62 percent of Commanders fans saying they either "like" or "love" the name.
But Trump appears insistent, so the next logical question is: Can Trump actually block a move?
As with anything in politics, it's a tangled, complicated answer. We know this: The Commanders have submitted a proposal to move into a new stadium within D.C. limits built on the site of the old Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, which was the team's home from 1961 to 1996. But there are avenues the president could take, as laid out by Front Office Sports.
These are the paths of least resistance, though each would still require Trump to steel himself for a political fight:
Lobbying D.C. Council members
This would perhaps be the most conventional path to take, though it presents numerous challenges. The District of Columbia is negotiating directly with the Commanders on the $3.7 billion stadium proposal through the D.C. Council, which is the 13-member legislative branch of the District's government. Trump could attempt to get them to vote no through various channels. The main problem? Eleven of the council members are Democrats, including chairman Phil Mendelson, who sounded confused by the president's threat. "I don't know what the restriction would be," he told the Post.
Withhold funding since Congress controls D.C.'s budget
Under the Home Rule Act of 1973, Washington D.C. residents can elect local officials, but the district's budget is subject to Congressional oversight. Right now, both the Senate and House of Representatives are controlled by Trump's Republican party, and would likely approve the blocking of funds for the Commanders' new stadium. From there, untangling the stadium money from government bureaucracy could prove difficult, though there's one potential countermove for the Commanders and D.C. Council, as noted by Front Office Sports: delay public disbursements for the stadium project until after the 2026 midterms, in which Democrats are projected to regain control of the House of Representatives. That would conceivably give the council some reinforcements in the battle for stadium money.
Rescind control of the RFK Stadium property
Former president Joe Biden signed a bill in January that transferred control of the RFK Stadium site from the federal government to Washington D.C. Section J of the bill, however, outlines grounds for a reversion of control to the federal government and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, a Trump appointee. If Burgum wants to exercise it, however, he would be required to provide written notice to the D.C. Council and give them 90 days to correct the non-compliance.
So there appear to be options for Trump to follow through on his threat to prevent the Commanders from building their new stadium. It remains to be seen which one, if any, he'll take.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Officer convicted in Breonna Taylor raid gets 33-month sentence
A former Kentucky police officer has been sentenced to 33 months in prison after being convicted in connection with a raid that resulted in the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor, a black woman, in her home. A federal jury last year found Brett Hankison guilty of violating Taylor's civil rights by using excessive force. The maximum sentence for the charge was life in prison. The sentencing comes days after the Trump administration asked the judge to give Hankison a one-day sentence - a position that starkly contrasts with the approach to the case under President Joe Biden. Hankison is the only officer who has been charged and convicted directly in connection with the botched raid. Another former officer, Kelly Goodlett, who pleaded guilty to conspiring with a colleague to falsify the affidavit used to obtain search warrant for Taylor's home and to cover up their actions after her death, will be sentenced next year. After his sentence, Hankison will face three years of supervised release. Tamika Palmer, Taylor's mother, and lawyers for the family spoke after the sentencing on Monday. "I think the judge did the best she could with what she had to work with," Ms Palmer said, but she was critical of federal prosecutors who had argued for a lesser sentence. Taylor's boyfriend Kenneth Walker, who was in the apartment with her the night of the raid, said he was "grateful for the small piece of justice that we got". Taylor became a face of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020 following her death and the police killing of George Floyd, who was murdered during a police arrest that same year. She was killed after officers in plain clothes executed a "no-knock" search warrant at her home. They burst into her apartment in the early morning hours while she and Walker, were asleep. Authorities believed Taylor's former boyfriend was using her home to hide narcotics. Mr Walker fired a single shot when the police knocked the door down, hitting one officer, Sgt John Mattingly, in the leg. Mr Walker said the officers did not announce themselves as police, and he thought they were intruders. The three officers returned fire, shooting 32 bullets into the flat. Hankinson fired 10 times into her apartment, in order, he said during the trial, to protect fellow officers. None of Hankison's bullets hit anyone, but they did enter a neighbouring property, where a pregnant woman, a five-year-old and a man had been sleeping. Prosecutors said Hankison acted recklessly and "violated one of the most fundamental rules of deadly force: If they cannot see the person they're shooting at, they cannot pull the trigger." Outside the courthouse, protestors waiting for the verdict blocked the streets chanting Taylor's name. Several people, including Taylor's aunt, Bianca Austin, were detained by police. How was the justice department involved in this case? In early November 2024, Hankison was convicted on one count of civil rights abuse. "His use of deadly force was unlawful and put Ms Taylor in harm's way," then Attorney General Merrick Garland, a Biden-appointee, said in a statement. "This verdict is an important step toward accountability for the violation of Breonna Taylor's civil rights, but justice for the loss of Ms Taylor is a task that exceeds human capacity." Days after Hankinson's conviction, Donald Trump won re-election - a political shift that meant the sentencing recommendation would come not from the Biden administration, which brought the charges, but from the Trump-led justice department. Last week, that recommendation - a request for Hankison to serve one day in prison - stunned some, including Breonna Taylor's family. "Every American who believes in equal justice under the law should be outraged," attorneys for the family said. "Recommending just one day in prison sends the unmistakable message that white officers can violate the civil rights of Black Americans with near-total impunity." In its sentencing request, the justice department argued that although Hankison was involved in "executing the warrant" during the deadly raid, he did not shoot Taylor "and is not otherwise responsible for her death". The justice department also said that additional prison time "would simply be unjust under these circumstances". Ordinarily, sentencing recommendations are signed by lawyers involved in the case or career justice department employees who deal with sentencing requests. In this case, Trump's appointee to run the Civil Rights Department, Harmeet Dhillon, signed the recommendation. What changes has Trump's justice department made? Since returning to the White House, Trump has made rolling back Biden-era policies a priority, particularly at the justice department. In May, the justice department began the process of dismissing lawsuits brought against the Louisville and Minneapolis following controversy over high-profile police killings and brutality, including that of Taylor. Investigations into police constitutional violations in other cities such as Memphis and Phoenix were also ended. The justice department criticised the Biden administration for enacting "sweeping" oversight agreements "that would have imposed years of micromanagement" of local police by federal courts. During Biden's tenure, the justice department opened civil investigations into 12 state and local law enforcement agencies. In four of those - in Louisville, Minneapolis, Phoenix and Lexington, Mississippi - the department issued reports of systemic police misconduct. While accountability agreements were made with some of the police departments, they were not formally enacted. These changes have also come amid a mass exodus from the justice department. In the Civil Rights Division alone, the division of the department that made the Hankison sentencing recommendation, about 70% of attorneys have left since Trump was inaugurated, reports say. US seeks one-day prison for officer convicted in Breonna Taylor shooting Trump administration to scrap police reform measures in some US cities
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's What Trump Told Howard Stern in 2006 When Asked About His Minimum Sexual Age Limit
The interview resurfaces days after a Wall Street Journal report on Trump's ties to Jeffrey Epstein Donald Trump gave a startlingly low number when asked if he had a sexual 'age limit' during a now-resurfaced interview with Howard Stern. Trump has been under heightened scrutiny in the weeks since the DOJ and FBI released a memo that, despite previous statements, there was no evidence of a client list from Jeffrey Epstein existed. This led many conspiracy theorists convinced of the list's existence to assume Trump has to be on it. With this closer examination into the president's past statements, an unearthed interview on 'The Howard Stern Show' certainly paints more questions for Trump. More from TheWrap Here's What Trump Told Howard Stern in 2006 When Asked About His Minimum Sexual Age Limit New Congressional Bill Bans AI Companies From Training on Copyrighted Works or Personal Data Without Consent Jim Parsons Slams Trump for Cutting LGBTQ+ Crisis Hotline: 'I Think It's Quite Literally Criminal' Hunter Biden Blasts George Clooney Over Joe Biden Criticisms: 'What Right Do You Have' 'Do you think you could now be banging 24-year-olds,' Stern asked in the 2006 interview. 'Oh, absolutely,' Trump responded 'I have no trouble.' 'Would you do it' Stern clarified. 'I have no problem,' the future president said. Stern's co-host Robin Quivers then asked, 'do you have an age limit or would you…' 'If I- No, no, I have no age–. I mean, I have an age li…' Trump replied. Then, when asked to provide his 'upper bracket,' Trump said, 'I don't want to be like Congressman Foley, with, you know, 12-year-olds.' Trump was referring to disgraced former Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley. His political career was destroyed in 2006 after it came out that he had sent sexually suggestive emails and instant messages to several teenage boys he had met when they were congressional pages. The revelations kicked off a major scandal for Republicans just before the 2006 election, and Foley was forced to resign from congress on September, 2006. However, he was ultimately never charged with any crime. Meanwhile, the minimum age to become a congressional page is 16. Foley was never accused of sending sexually explicit messages to anyone younger, contrary to Trump's baseless claim in his interview with Stern. Read more here. Trump's appearance on 'The Howard Stern Show' was resurfaced days after the Wall Street Journal published the content of a note Trump wrote for Epstein's 50th birthday in 2003 consisting of 'several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker.' The message also included an imaginary conversation between the two. According to WSJ, a portion read. Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it. Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that? The message ended with, 'may every day be another wonderful secret.' Following the story's release, Trump filed a $10 billion libel lawsuit. The post Here's What Trump Told Howard Stern in 2006 When Asked About His Minimum Sexual Age Limit appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
George Bush was determined to ‘rid world of evil-doer Saddam Hussein'
Britain's ambassador warned that President George W Bush was bent on the overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as part of a 'mission' to rid the world of 'evil-doers', according to newly released government files. In January 2003 – two months before US and UK forces launched their fateful invasion – Tony Blair to flew to Camp David to urge the president to allow more time for diplomacy to work. However, files released to the National Archives at Kew, west London, show that Britain's ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer, warned it had become 'politically impossible' to draw back from war unless Hussein surrendered. British officials were still hoping that the the United Nations Security Council would agree a new resolution specifically authorising the use of military force against Iraq. Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, said that when he met the president he should make the point that a new resolution was 'politically essential for the UK, and almost certainly legally essential as well'. However, the Americans were becoming increasingly impatient with the unwillingness of France and Russia – which both had a veto on the council – to agree a resolution so long as UN inspectors were unable to find any evidence of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, the supposed justification for war. Following Mr Bush's annual State of the Union address to Congress, shortly before Mr Blair's visit, he warned that the options for a peaceful solution had effectively run out. 'It is politically impossible for Bush to back down from going to war in Iraq this spring, absent Saddam's surrender or disappearance from the scene' he wrote. 'If Bush had any room for manoeuvre beforehand this was closed off by his State of the Union speech. 'In the high-flown prose to which Bush is drawn on these set-piece occasions, he said in effect that destroying Saddam is a crusade against evil to be undertaken by God's chosen people.' In a cable sent the previous month, Sir Christopher said that much of the impulse for deposing Hussein was coming from the president, a born-again Christian, who was scornful of what he saw as the 'self-serving' reservations of the Europeans. 'His view of the world is Manichean. He sees his mission as ridding it of evil-doers. He believes American values should be universal values,' Sir Christopher wrote. 'He is strongly allergic to Europeans collectively. Anyone who has sat round a dinner table with low-church Southerners will find these sentiments instantly recognisable.' In the event, the US and UK abandoned their efforts to get agreement on a new Security Council resolution, claiming French president Jacques Chirac had made it clear he would never agree.
