In Front of Our Noses: Politicizing the Military
Trump's speech at Fort Bragg.
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”-George Orwell.
For previous entries, click here.
Yesterday, Trump gave a grossly, nakedly political speech at Fort Bragg. It was an utterly inappropriate usage of US military personnel as political props, and also an inducement of those soldiers to engage in partisan behavior.
I recommend Tom Nichols writing in The Atlantic: The Silence of the Generals.
The president also encouraged a violation of regulations. Trump, himself a convicted felon, doesn’t care about rules and laws, but active-duty military members are not allowed to attend political rallies in uniform. They are not allowed to express partisan views while on duty, or to show disrespect for American elected officials. Trump may not know these rules and regulations, but the officers who lead these men and women know them well. It is part of their oath, their credo, and their identity as officers to remain apart from such displays. Young soldiers will make mistakes. But if senior officers remain silent, what lesson will those young men and women take from what happened today?
The president cares nothing for the military, for its history, or for the men and women who serve the United States. They are, like everything else around him, only raw material: They either feed his narcissism, or they are useless. Those who love him, he claims as “his” military. But those who have laid down their life for their country are, as he so repugnantly put it, just suckers and losers, anonymous saps lying under cold headstones in places such as Arlington National Cemetery that clearly make Trump uncomfortable. Today, he showed that he has no compunction about turning every American soldier into a hooting partisan.
See, also, The Bulwark: Trump’s Grotesque Military Address.
More clips:
Hooray for Confederates!!
Ever classy.
BTW, personalizing the military is a dangerous move.
Ooh, this is a perfect opportunity to try something:
Let’s say in 2 or 4 years we’re trying to rebuild a national consensus. Would the center-right walk away from the table over keeping Fort Robert E Lee? The center-left probably would.
…
Nope, still as stupid a thought experiment as it was the first time and still not sure what it was intended to prove.
Vulgar, churlish, and breathtakingly stupid. The whole world is either laughing or shaking its head in disbelief. Probably both.
@Matt Bernius: Ostensibly, the base is actually being renamed for Pvt. Fitz Lee, a member of the all-Black Buffalo Soldiers who was awarded a Medal of Honor during the Spanish-American War.
@Steven: I largely agree with the excerpt from Tom Nichols’ article you posted, but vehemently disagree with the larger thrust of the piece. It’s simply not the job of military officers to lecture the Commander-in-Chief. Certainly, it’s not the job of unit or base commanders. Really, only the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who is the statutory chief military advisor to the President, has that responsibility. And, even there, that advice should be private rather that a public scolding.
@James Joyner:
Then it would be helpful for the President not to undercut that message by saying, “We’re really renaming it for Robert E. Lee.” This gets to the big issue the administration has in court–they say in official records they are doing “x” and then in public announcements say “Nope! We’re really doing Y.” It’s literal bad faith.
BTW, don’t get me started on “I’m working with Congress to pass an unconstitutional law about Flag Burning” either.
Compare and contrast Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg with the speech Gavin Newsom gave yesterday. Then let’s speculate about how viable it might be for Trump to remain in office at the end of his term.
Instead of removing the names of traitors to the US, try naming new bases, ships, buildings, etc. things like King George III, Benedict Arnold, Kaiser Wilhelm, Joseph Stalin, Admiral Yamamoto, etc.
What? you’d rather forget your history?
While I obviously defer to Dr. Taylor on the proper operation of the military, it is quite possible that the Chairman had that conversation with Trump to which Trump probably responded with some version of “what’s your point?”
I am a little more interested in the base commander ordering troops to attend this or – assuming the nature of this speech was not entirely foreseeable – to know whether the troops will be reprimanded in any way for booing elected officials. Teachable moment and all.
@James Joyner:
Fair enough.
Woof, the day after reporting makes this even worse:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/06/11/bragg-soldiers-who-cheered-trumps-political-attacks-while-uniform-were-checked-allegiance-appearance.html
I’d make a comment about how fascist pay very close attention to aesthetics (i.e. no fat soldiers on camera please!) but that would trigger someone.
@Matt Bernius:
Trump really has some goddamn nerve ordering no fat soldiers at his speech. Look at him. He’s obese.
@James Joyner:
The puppetmasters of this administration so do love their trolling of America.
On the road to martial law lies a whole lot of engineered pretext
One of the things which has separated the US from much of the rest of the world has been the strong efforts to keep the military non-politicized. For the most part we have done a good job of keeping up pretty strict barriers. There have been periods of some weakening of the barrier but in general senior officers have acted to crack down on it. It’s a shame that it looks like that is going away. It’s obvious that is bad for the country but it’s bad for the military. Most in the military lean to the right and I dont see a good outcome if the military decides to make enemies of civilians they dont like or become puppets for those they do.
Steve