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
Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.