WNBA commentator Rebecca Lobo forced into bizarre on-air U-turn after praising Donald Trump
WNBA legend and ESPN commentator Rebecca Lobo issued a bizarre apology on air for calling America 'great' during the Las Vegas Aces' win over the Indiana Fever.
Lobo, who was named a WNBA All-Star back in 1999, was debating a foul call in Sunday's game with play-by-play announcer Pam Ward when she used a term vaguely similar to Donald Trump 's MAGA catchphrase.
'So they disagree with you?' Ward asked her colleague about the decision made by officials on court.
'They do, and I disagree with them. And that's fine,' Lobo responded before adding, 'that's what makes America great, right Pam Ward?'
After seemingly being left uncomfortable with her choice of wording, Ward stayed silent before Lobo backtracked on the comment in strange fashion.
'I should rephrase that,' the former New York Liberty star said.
Ward then replied: 'Yeah, I did think differences of opinion are perfectly fine.'
WNBA legend and ESPN commentator Rebecca Lobo (left) issued a bizarre apology on air for calling America 'great' during the Las Vegas Aces' win over the Indiana Fever (right)
"I should rephrase that" https://t.co/U3rxWphcId pic.twitter.com/7XJNgWMmov
— CJ Fogler 🫡 (@cjzero) June 22, 2025
'Yes, that's a better way to say it. Sorry about that,' Lobo added.
Fans quickly took to social media to slam Lobo, Ward and ESPN over the awkward moment, which many felt was unnecessary.
'Clearly not political. Just a general statement,' one user posted on X.
'Disgraceful! There is too long a pause after Rebecca said it. Someone in the booth told her rephrase it. There is nothing wrong with what she said, get over yourself woke ESPN. Not everything is political,' wrote another.
A third put: 'Imagine being offended about saying America is great. F***in losers'.
While another simply commented: 'Pathetic moment.'
Lobo has spent over two decades as a commentator for ESPN after joining the network back in 2004, a year after she retired from basketball.
As well as playing for the Liberty, Houston Comets, Springfield Spirit and the Connecticut Sun, the iconic center also won a gold medal at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta with Team USA.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Super Bowl champion is now also an author
Jalen Hurts, the Super Bowl -winning quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, is releasing his first children's book. The book is titled "Better Than a Touchdown" and is scheduled for release on March 10, 2026, with pre-orders currently available. Hurts announced the new work on social media, posting the cover on X. He stated that it has always been a dream to write a children's book, aiming to share lessons of resilience and self-belief with the next generation. The book was illustrated by Canadian artist Nneka Myers.
The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
header
Fifa is facing new questions over the increasingly fraught World Cup next year, with the issue of how to treat Iran while the country is involved in a conflict with the co-host the US. There are no provisions within Fifa's regulations to prevent Iran from playing their group matches in the US, despite the country being subject to military action by the Trump administration and Iranian citizens being under a travel ban that prevents them from entering the country. The ban contains an exemption that could apply to players, staff or associated families with teams at the 2026 Fifa World Cup. Iran, who faced USA in the group stage of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, qualified in March for their fourth consecutive World Cup. Although 2026 is also being hosted by Canada and Mexico, only by being given a specific slot in group A could Iran avoid playing in the US, with their matches then taking place in Mexico. If Iran won that group they would stay in Mexico for their last-32 game and any last-16 match. Should they go further – and they have never reached a World Cup knockout game – they would then play in the US. Fifa did not respond on Monday to a request for comment from the Guardian and will likely be considering its options before the World Cup draw, which is due to take place in December. The decision will be a difficult one for its president, Gianni Infantino, who has associated himself closely with President Donald Trump, who authorised the use of US bombs on Iranian nuclear sites last weekend. Infantino and the Fifa Council will have the final say on inclusion in the competition and the makeup of the draw, but the organising committee for Fifa competitions will be expected to have input. The committee has members from Canada, Mexico and Iran, and its chair is Uefa's president, Aleksander Ceferin. In 2022, his organisation announced that Ukraine and Belarus would be kept apart in Uefa competition draws, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and his action may provide an example for Fifa to follow. Before the World Cup draw in Qatar, the agreed draw constraints included limitations on where teams could be selected but this related only to a 'general principle' that no more than one team from each confederation (excluding Europe) should appear in a given group.
Reuters
24 minutes ago
- Reuters
Senate parliamentarian faults Republicans' plan to limit judges' power
June 23 (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate official has concluded that a Republican-drafted provision in President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies violates budgetary rules. The Senate's parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, advised over the weekend that the provision ran afoul of a Senate rule governing what can be included in budget reconciliation legislation that can be passed with a simple-majority vote and would instead need to be subject to a 60-vote threshold if it remained in the bill. Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, intend to use complex budget rules to pass the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" with a simple majority vote. The parliamentarian is a nonpartisan referee. Her decision could spell doom for the provision's inclusion in the ultimate legislation Congress passes because it would allow Democrats to challenge the vote on the floor and require Republicans to muster 60 votes to pass it. Congressional leaders hope to enact the overall bill in the coming days so Trump can sign it into law before July 4. The courts-related provision in the Senate version of the bill would limit the ability of judges to issue preliminary injunctions blocking federal policies unless the party suing posts a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned. The bond requirement differs from one tucked into the version of the bill the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed in May that would curb courts' power by curtailing the ability of judges to hold officials in contempt if they violate injunctions. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday hailed the parliamentarian's assessment, saying Republicans had tried to "write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution, and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy." The provision was drafted by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is led by Senator Chuck Grassley. He had argued the provision would ensure judges enforce an existing requirement that parties seeking a preliminary injunction provide a security bond to cover costs incurred by a defendant if a judge's ruling is later overturned. Judges rarely require such bonds when a lawsuit is not pitting two private parties against each other but instead challenging an alleged unlawful or unconstitutional government action. Several judges have denied the Trump administration's requests for bonds or issued nominal ones. Grassley in a statement on Sunday said Republicans are committed to using all available avenues to "ensure courts operate according to lawful and constitutional standards." Congressional Republicans have called for banning or curtailing nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of Trump's agenda have been stymied by such court rulings. The House in April voted 219-213 largely along party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act to do so, but the Senate has not yet taken up the measure. A White House memo in March directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post bonds if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. Such bonds can make obtaining an injunction a cost-prohibitive option in cases concerning multi-billion-dollar agenda items. Read more: US Senate Republicans seek to limit judges' power via Trump's tax-cut bill
