Trump Stirs Redskins Name Controversy in 2025 \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ President Donald Trump has reignited controversy by demanding the Washington Commanders return to the “Redskins” name, a term widely regarded as a slur. The move, criticized as both a political distraction and a power play, echoes broader debates over race, identity, and national branding. Trump’s push comes amid legal challenges and mounting scrutiny over transparency issues tied to the Epstein investigation.
Quick Looks
- Trump called for renaming Washington Commanders back to “Redskins.”
- The original name was dropped due to racial and cultural concerns.
- Trump’s comment sparked widespread backlash and internet uproar.
- The president linked the name change to American identity and power.
- The timing coincides with political pressure over Epstein documents.
- Critics say it’s a distraction tactic and a branding power move.
- Trump’s renaming push extends to places like the “Gulf of America.”
- Naming debates remain a political tool across global history.
Deep Look
In 2025, President Donald Trump, now in his second non-consecutive term, has once again seized the spotlight by doing what he does best: turning cultural controversy into a political cudgel. This time, the target is the Washington Commanders, the NFL team formerly known as the Redskins, a name long decried as a racial slur against Native Americans. In a bold and divisive move, President Trump demanded the team abandon the “Commanders” identity and return to the controversial moniker — a gesture cheered by his base and condemned by critics as racially insensitive and politically calculated.
On his social media platform, Trump wrote that his statement “has totally blown up — in a very positive way,” framing the move as a patriotic act and threatening to block a multibillion-dollar stadium deal if the team doesn’t comply. His intervention marks yet another flashpoint in the ongoing cultural battle over national identity, historical memory, and who gets to control the narrative of what it means to be “American.”
But the timing of the name revival raised eyebrows: it came amid mounting political pressure on the president over his administration’s handling of records tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation. In recent weeks, Trump has shuffled between dismissing the controversy, attacking the media, suing The Wall Street Journal, and ordering the Justice Department to attempt to unseal grand jury transcripts — a move interpreted by some as damage control.
Naming as Presidential Power — From Gulf Waters to Football Fields
Trump’s strategy is not new — nor is it subtle. Throughout his political and business career, he has relied on branding as a primary tool of power. Whether it’s calling Florida Governor Ron DeSantis “Meatball Ron,” labeling opponents with sticky nicknames like “Crooked Hillary” or “Sleepy Joe,” or putting his name on everything from skyscrapers to steaks, Trump understands branding as both identity and weapon.
Now, as president once again, he is using the full weight of executive authority to reshape the cultural landscape through naming. In 2024, he issued Executive Order 14172, titled “Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness,” which controversially renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. The order created chaos across industries, igniting legal battles, press access restrictions, and pushback from international and domestic bodies alike.
Major corporations, including Chevron, have adopted the new name in their public filings, stating, “That’s the position of the U.S. government now,” according to CEO Mike Wirth. Meanwhile, the Associated Press remains embroiled in a First Amendment legal battle after refusing to adopt the new terminology in its reporting, leading to curtailed access to White House briefings and presidential travel.
This renaming approach is about far more than words. It’s about defining reality. “Naming gives you control,” said Shannon Murphy of the brand strategy firm Nameistry. “It’s an assertion of power — over people, over place, over perception.”
Redefining American Identity Through Nostalgia
In Trump’s vision, restoring the name “Redskins” is not just about sports — it’s about reclaiming a version of America he believes was lost. His presidency has been defined by a campaign against what he and his followers see as the overreach of “woke” culture, which they argue has erased traditions, censored speech, and rebranded patriotism as oppression.
The Washington football franchise had dropped the name in 2020, in the wake of national protests over the killing of George Floyd and a growing cultural reckoning with America’s racial history. The team became the Washington Football Team before settling on the Commanders, a rebranding that reportedly cost tens of millions of dollars.
That same year, other institutions followed suit: the Cleveland Indians became the Cleveland Guardians, Aunt Jemima was retired, Eskimo Pies rebranded, and the country band Lady Antebellum became Lady A. These changes were hailed by many as long overdue but denounced by conservatives as unnecessary erasures of history.
Now, in 2025, President Trump has reversed many of those reforms, ordering a halt to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs in federal agencies, schools, and universities — part of a larger movement to dismantle what he calls “divisive ideologies.”
Reinstating the Redskins name, then, is about more than a football team. It’s about drawing a line in the sand between Trump’s America and what he characterizes as a progressive, censorious tide that has gone too far.
Stadium Politics: Leverage and Legacy
Trump’s threat to derail the Commanders’ planned $4 billion stadium unless they revert to the Redskins name underscores the way he uses presidential power to enforce his cultural agenda. While it’s unclear whether he has legal authority to block the project — which involves local and private partnerships — the threat alone sent shockwaves through Washington sports and political circles.
In parts of the conservative South, the branding shift has already caught on. In Louisiana, seafood industry leaders have begun labeling their products with “Gulf of America,” believing it boosts patriotic consumer appeal and helps push back against foreign seafood imports.
Whether these names take hold nationally remains to be seen. Critics recall earlier, failed branding efforts — like the Bush-era rebrand of French fries as “Freedom Fries.” Yet in Trump’s America, symbolic gestures carry weight far beyond their practical outcomes.
The Global History of Naming as Political Power
Trump’s approach mirrors centuries-old strategies used by rulers across the globe. From colonial-era renaming of cities and territories to modern geopolitical rebranding (think: Bombay to Mumbai, Constantinople to Istanbul), leaders have long used names to assert ideological control and consolidate narratives.
As linguist Norazha Paiman notes, “To name is to collapse infinite complexity into a manageable symbol… Whole worlds are won or lost in that compression.” Whether through renaming cities, cultural icons, or entire seas, leaders signal shifts in values, alliances, and history.
Trump is not unique in this. But his willingness to wield naming as a cultural sword, especially while serving as the sitting president, raises new questions about how branding and governance are becoming inseparable in American politics.
A Legacy of Cultural Combat
President Trump’s insistence on reviving the Redskins name will likely fuel another legal and cultural firestorm, but for him, the calculation is clear: it rallies his base, dominates media coverage, and offers a sharp contrast to President Biden’s 2020-era progressive coalition.
From redefining NFL history to rebranding bodies of water, Trump is actively trying to reshape America’s symbolic landscape as he governs. Whether seen as nostalgia-driven nationalism or cultural authoritarianism, it’s a playbook he’s used with consistency — and, at times, with surprising effectiveness.
In the short term, the backlash is fierce. Native American leaders, civil rights advocates, and sports reformers have denounced the proposal as regressive and damaging. But Trump has never governed for consensus. He governs for dominance — and in the politics of names, that dominance is loud, visual, and headline-ready.
Trump Stirs Redskins Trump Stirs Redskins Trump Stirs Redskins
You must Register or Login to post a comment.