Earlier this week we asked the following questions of our Bridge Alliance, Coffee Party and Fulcrum communities regarding the potential political complexities that may come into play as championship sports teams visit the White House, especially in our country’s current politically charged climate. We asked:
- Are visits to the White House inherently political statements? What is the cause of this political charge?
- How would you recommend extending or accepting a championship congratulatory visit if there are political differences?
While sports is idealized to be the last apolitical frontier that we have as a culture, political inertia has become a reality in recent years especially. Good or bad, in previous decades of political tension, minimal thought was given to how the political sphere can infect the non-political. Now, many of our political alliances have become almost a part of our innate identity, necessitating new considerations on how to keep division at bay.
Even in consideration of this year’s March Madness women’s basketball championship, which was in fact the all-time highest viewed championship of its kind, conversations on racism and sexism detracted from the historical notability of the moment. First Lady Jill Biden’s comments were widely considered as stepping in the proverbial mess, illuminating the need for important cultural dialogue. Whether a team decides to visit the White House or not, our ability to engage in said dialogue remains valuable.
Your responses suggest that the political and apolitical are not always fitting as a strong binary; there is a lot of nuance. The real issue becomes the level of our ability to engage responsibly.
Here is a sample of your thoughts. Responses have been edited for length and clarity.
Every administration is reflective of political leanings - Democrat, Republican, (or perhaps something else in the future) - Paul Dupuis
Just like deciding not to go to the White House, deciding to go is a political statement. It may be a weaker statement, but it's tacit approval of the administration. A clear statement on the differences as part of the acceptance would help. I'm not looking for purity, but rather clarity. - Erica Schmitt
I would recommend the White House to stop inviting sports teams, movie stars, and other non-political entities. Accepting or rejecting a White House invitation has become political statement, due to the way the political parties behave. Accept the reality and move on. If, at any point, political parties are back to actually providing governance for the country, rather than looking to score points for their supporters, they can consider going back to non-political events.- Eric
Sadly, I think nearly all celebratory invitations to the White House have become political statements. This seems to stem from the abundance of instant information that contributes to polarized perspectives. I would hope that the invitation is extended and accepted with grace and good will and, if necessary, a reminder that it is not viewed as a political statement. - Barbara Weber
Visits should not be political statements. I do not believe they ever were. But, in today's climate they have become so. For these visits to not be political requires a president who understands the presidency is there to serve all citizens, especially on these very universal events such as congratulating athletes for a job well done. But, from any normal observation, the pre-Trump presidencies performed these traditional roles very well. The events were always as "neutral" as the annual pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkey. We have disagreements on the best approaches to issues. Reagan and Tip O'Neill were buddies, for example. Certainly, they could attend the same events despite their differences. It all is a question of character and civility. - Charles Gage
I think that making the accomplishment political would diminish the purpose of the invitation and might make some recipients decline the invitation. - Ron Tobias
The White House should extend an invitation to major sports champions and be gracious hosts. That is all. - Adam Delouche
I think that this country focuses too much on sports. Sports are entertainment and not essential to the functioning of our society [which helps to lend these visits to politicization]. I would rather visits be from championship robotics teams or scientific teams that have made new discoveries. Groups or individuals that volunteer to clean up after a hurricane or flood or tornado or other natural disasters should also be invited. - Harold Faulkner, III
Our toxic political environment where political position is equal to moral character has added angst to what was before something teams just didn't turn down. Today, who you are seen with is judged by many as your statement of who you support or tolerate (e.g. Ellen DeGeneres being seen hanging out with GW Bush at a football game). This creates angst for participants who have a disdain for the President or who (often rightly) fear backlash for having participated in the ceremonies from those who disdain him. - Bruce Bond
Those visits did not used to have a political component, but they have developed. Sports champions reflect the best of American values. Those values include sacrifice, fair play, inclusion and overcoming adversity. The conflict comes because/when the occupant of the White House does not represent those values. - Larry R. Bradley
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.