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




















U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."