The Football Politics of Trump's Washington

Brian Dawkins, the former Philadelphia Eagles safety, delivers fierce tackles in a video promoted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to showcase immigration enforcement. The video uses Dawkins' aggressive nature as a metaphor for the DHS's approach, with Dawkins himself criticizing the use of his image. The DHS responded by calling the situation "lockdown defense" and stating they would use every tool available, referencing Dawkins' nickname "Weapon X." This instance exemplifies the football politics of Trump's Washington, where the game provides a familiar language for exercising power.

Football's structure—aggression becoming defense by altering who is hitting and why—offers a moral vocabulary that makes hard power more relatable. The DHS video demonstrates how this translation works, with the administration employing football terminology to legitimize force and protect territory. Linguists have explored the connection between politics, war, and sport for years, noting that football's use of terms like attacks, defenses, and weapons makes discussions of power more accessible.

Presidents Nixon, Bush, and others have drawn parallels between football and politics, using the sport's vocabulary to describe contests over power. Richard Nixon likened football and politics as having "a great deal of similarities." During the Gulf War, George H.W. Bush likened Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz's treatment of Secretary of State James Baker to a "total stiff-arm."

Military officers and reporters borrowed football terms like interceptions and scores to describe diplomacy and combat. Washington has historically used football to make power more comprehensible, and Trump's administration simply makes the logic more explicit. By flattening complex issues into binary oppositions—such as the United States versus outsiders—football provides clarity about who belongs where.

The DHS's use of Dawkins as a "weapon" exemplifies this, turning a human into a tool of immigration enforcement. While some might argue that there are more nuanced interpretations, the metaphor's simplicity and effectiveness make it difficult to dismiss. The DHS's response with "lockdown defense" and "Weapon" demonstrates that the metaphor carries the argument, making force feel like defense even before the argument is presented.