‘Horribly Wrong’: US Veterans Condemn Trump’s Politicization of the Military – What It Means for 2024 and Beyond

Washington, DC – November 22, 2025. A growing chorus of US veterans is publicly condemning what they describe as the “horribly wrong” politicization of the military under Donald Trump, reigniting a fierce debate over the role of the armed forces in American democracy. The latest wave of criticism, first highlighted in a report by The Guardian, has pushed the question of military neutrality back into the center of the 2024 election aftermath and the broader fight over US civil-military norms.

Veterans’ groups, retired officers, and military families are warning that the former president’s rhetoric and tactics — from campaign-style rallies invoking “my generals” to explicit promises to purge “disloyal” officials — are eroding a norm that has underpinned American stability for decades. Some are blunt: “This isn’t conservative or liberal. It’s dangerous,” said one former Marine colonel quoted in the report.

With millions of Americans having served in uniform and the military still ranking among the most trusted institutions in US life, the backlash from veterans carries unusual weight. It’s not just about Trump. It’s about whether the armed forces remain a nonpartisan instrument of the Constitution — or become one more battlefield in a zero-sum political war.

What Happened?

The immediate spark for the latest controversy was a set of on-the-record comments from US veterans and retired officers who say Donald Trump crossed a line by openly treating the military as a political asset rather than a neutral institution bound to the Constitution.

According to The Guardian report, which compiled interviews with veterans from multiple branches, criticism centers on a pattern, not a single incident. That pattern includes:

• Campaign rhetoric invoking the military as a personal tool – Veterans pointed to Trump’s regular references to “my generals” and “my military” at rallies, framing the armed forces as an extension of his personal power rather than a national institution.
• Pressure on senior military leaders around 2020 protests – Several veterans referenced the infamous June 2020 photo-op in Lafayette Square, when law enforcement cleared peaceful protesters shortly before Trump walked to St. John’s Church with senior military leaders in tow. Then–Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley later apologized for his presence, calling it a mistake that “created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.”
• Election-related language implying military loyalty – Interviewees highlighted Trump’s repeated suggestions, both in 2020 and since, that the military would “stand with” him or that only “his” leadership could keep the armed forces from being “woke” and “weak.” Several veterans called this a deliberate attempt to frame the military as aligned with one faction.
• Open talk of using the military in domestic political conflicts – More recently, in the 2024 campaign and its aftermath, Trump and some close allies have floated ideas about deploying the military for sweeping immigration crackdowns, domestic policing, and a broad purge of the federal bureaucracy, blurring legal lines around the Posse Comitatus Act and long-standing norms that limit military involvement in domestic politics.

In the report, veterans from Iraq, Afghanistan, and earlier conflicts described a deep unease. One retired Army Ranger captain stated bluntly: “We didn’t swear an oath to a man. We swore an oath to the Constitution. When a politician talks about the military as ‘his,’ that’s when it goes horribly wrong.”

Another veteran, a Navy corpsman who served in Fallujah, described feeling “personally used” when campaign materials and political ads featured troops in uniform or combat footage in ways that strongly implied partisan alignment. “You’re taking the sacrifices of people who can’t legally respond and weaponizing them for votes,” he said.

The Guardian story also noted growing internal dissent inside veterans’ organizations. Some traditional conservative veterans — historically a core part of Trump’s base — are now breaking ranks, publicly warning that what began as aggressive messaging has evolved into a full-blown effort to recast the military as a political loyalist institution. The phrase “horribly wrong” appears repeatedly in the interviews, capturing not just anger but a sense that a crucial line has been crossed.

Why This Matters

To understand why veterans’ condemnation of Trump’s politicization of the military matters, it helps to remember a simple fact: the modern US system depends on strict civilian control over a politically neutral military. That neutrality is not a mere convention; it is one of the guardrails that has prevented the kinds of coups, purges, and military-led crackdowns seen in less stable democracies.

Veterans, especially combat veterans, tend to hold the military’s institutional norms with almost religious intensity. They have seen what happens when armed power becomes a personal or factional instrument. Many served in countries where militaries were used as political enforcers. When they say something is “horribly wrong,” they are not critiquing a talking point; they are pointing at a structural risk.

This controversy also lands in a uniquely volatile moment. The 2024 election cycle and its aftermath have hardened political identities. The January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol — including the involvement of some individuals with military backgrounds — left lasting scars on civil-military trust. Since then, both parties have accused each other of either “politicizing” or “undermining” the armed forces, whether over diversity initiatives, social policy, or defense budgets.

Trump’s approach is different in kind, not just degree. Where previous presidents were generally cautious about image-making involving the military, Trump has repeatedly centered soldiers, generals, and veterans in his political brand. That may be effective in energizing supporters, but it risks reframing the military as a partisan identity marker, like a flag or a slogan, rather than as a shared institution.

Beyond questions of democratic norms, there are practical downstream risks:

• Recruitment and retention – Young Americans may hesitate to enlist if they perceive the armed forces as captured by one party or ideology.
• Cohesion inside the ranks – Politicization can intensify cultural and partisan divides within units that depend on trust and apolitical professionalism.
• International credibility – US allies pay attention to internal civil-military tensions. A politicized force looks less predictable and less reliable.

On November 22, 2025, this is not a purely academic debate. It is happening in real time, with veterans — often among Trump’s most visible supporters in previous cycles — now stepping forward to say the line has been crossed, and the risk is no longer hypothetical.

Social Media Reaction

The Guardian report immediately ricocheted across social platforms, splitting timelines into familiar but sharper lines. By midday, “my generals” and “horribly wrong” were both trending phrases on X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok political feeds.

On X, a retired Army officer using the handle @CavScoutRet wrote:

“I’m a lifelong Republican, two tours in Iraq, one in Afghanistan. The day any politician claims the military as ‘his’ or ‘hers’ is the day I check out. The veterans in this piece are right — this is horribly wrong.”

Another viral post came from @PolicyNerdJess, a defense policy analyst:

“Worth noting: when veterans say ‘politicizing the military,’ they don’t mean having opinions. They mean treating the uniform as campaign branding. That’s the nightmare scenario every civil-military scholar warns about.”

Pro-Trump accounts pushed back hard. A popular influencer under the handle @PatriotEagle45 claimed:

“The media is mad because our troops LOVE Trump. That’s not ‘politicization’ — that’s respect. These so-called ‘veterans’ talking to foreign papers don’t speak for the rank and file.”

On Reddit, the debate turned more introspective. A thread on r/Veterans, with thousands of upvotes, featured a long post from a former infantry sergeant:

“I’m not anti-Trump. I voted for him once. But I get chills when any politician says the military will ‘stand with them’ against ‘enemies at home.’ That’s not what we’re for. If you served, you know how bad that script gets.”

Responses ranged from full-throated agreement — “This. We serve the Constitution, not personalities.” — to angry rebuttals accusing the poster of “buying into media narratives.” Moderators eventually locked a parallel thread on r/Conservative after it devolved into accusations of treason and “stolen valor.”

On TikTok, enlisted and veteran creators stitched videos of Trump’s past rallies with clips from military leaders’ public statements on nonpartisanship. One video, showing the Lafayette Square incident side by side with Gen. Milley’s later apology, ended with on-screen text: “This is what ‘never again’ is supposed to mean.” It pulled in millions of views within hours.

Across platforms, the divide was clear: for some, the backlash proved that “the brass” and “establishment vets” are part of a hostile elite; for others, it was a much-needed red line drawn by the people who understand the stakes best.

Expert Analysis

Civil-Military Norms Under Stress

Scholars of civil-military relations have been warning for years that the US is drifting into uncharted territory. The veterans’ condemnation described in The Guardian report, they say, is not a partisan sideshow but a last-ditch effort to restore norms before they fracture permanently.

Dr. Alicia Herrera, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University, framed it bluntly in an interview with DailyTrendScope:

“In stable democracies, the military is depoliticized by design. It is not supposed to be seen as the armed wing of a particular party, leader, or ideology. When a politician tries to brand the military as ‘his’ or claims its loyalty in partisan terms, that’s a classic red flag in democratic backsliding. It’s how you start inching toward a ‘party army’ rather than a national one.”

Herrera emphasized that Trump did not invent political theater involving the military. Presidents have long used visits to bases, military backdrops, and “Commander-in-Chief” imagery. The difference, she argues, is that Trump personalizes and weaponizes that relationship more openly:

“He doesn’t just say ‘our military’ in the national sense. He repeatedly says ‘my generals,’ ‘my military,’ and implies that their loyalty should be to him as a person. That is a subtle but extremely important shift.”

The Constitutional Oath vs. Personal Loyalty

Retired Air Force JAG officer and constitutional lawyer Col. (Ret.) Mark Lindstrom draws attention to the oath itself — the one every enlisted service member and officer recites:

“We swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. We do not swear an oath to the president, to a party, or to a flag with a particular slogan on it. That distinction is not symbolic. It is the anchor that keeps the military from becoming a personal army.”

Lindstrom argues that rhetoric suggesting the military should “stand with” a specific leader against domestic political opponents risks inverting that oath. Even if no explicit illegal orders are given, it primes part of the public — and potentially some within the ranks — to see political disputes as quasi-military conflicts.

“When veterans say this has gone ‘horribly wrong,’ they’re reacting to that inversion,” he says. “They know from history — and from deployments in fragile states — that once military loyalty becomes personal rather than constitutional, you don’t just get strong leadership. You eventually get purges, shadow chains of command, and, often, violence.”

Inside the Ranks: Quiet Concerns

Active-duty officers rarely speak publicly about partisan politics, and regulations sharply limit what they can say. But off the record, concern is palpable. A mid-career Army officer currently serving in Europe told DailyTrendScope on condition of anonymity:

“What worries me isn’t one speech or one rally clip. It’s the slow normalization of the idea that the military ‘belongs’ to a side. You see it in how some soldiers talk about politics online. You see it when people assume my uniform tells them how I voted. That’s a slippery slope.”

He added that the politicization doesn’t come only from the right: “We’ve had members of Congress on both sides using us as props, attacking budgets or policies with culture-war rhetoric. But there’s a qualitative difference when a former president signals he expects personal loyalty and public displays of allegiance.”

Global Comparisons: Warnings from History

Experts draw parallels with other democracies that eroded from within. In countries like Turkey, Pakistan, and several Latin American states, blurred lines between political leaders and military institutions often preceded periods of instability, crackdowns, or military coups.

“The US is not Turkey, and Trump is not a general,” says Dr. Herrera. “But the underlying dynamic — a leader trying to cast the military as a personal base of support — is eerily familiar. It starts with rhetoric and symbolic gestures. If left unchecked, it can progress to the expectation of intervention.”

In Europe, NATO allies are watching closely. A defense attaché from a northern European country, speaking off the record, described the mood bluntly:

“We rely on a United States whose military is bound to constitutional process, not to a leader’s political survival. When we see veterans and generals having to publicly insist on that basic point, it makes us nervous. Instability in US civil-military relations translates directly into alliance risk.”

Veterans as a Political Barometer

Politically, veterans have often been seen as a reliable, though not monolithic, conservative-leaning constituency. Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaigns leaned heavily on veteran endorsements, military imagery, and appeals to patriotic identity. The latest wave of veteran criticism signals a noteworthy shift.

Polls over the last year have shown a subtle but consistent trend: veterans are increasingly divided over Trump. Many still support his policies on defense spending or veterans’ healthcare, but a growing minority — particularly among post-9/11 combat vets — express discomfort with his approach to institutions.

“When veterans break with a politician over issues of norms and institutional integrity, that’s politically significant,” notes political scientist Dr. Jamal Stone of the University of Michigan. “They bring credibility on security issues that neither party can easily dismiss. If they are the ones saying, ‘This has gone horribly wrong,’ it cuts differently than when the same message comes from think tanks or media figures.”

What Happens Next?

Over the next 12–18 months, the clash over the politicization of the military is likely to intensify, not fade. Several trajectories are emerging:

• Institutional Pushback – Expect more public statements from current and former senior officers reasserting the apolitical nature of the armed forces. The Joint Chiefs, service academies, and professional military education institutions may step up training and messaging on civil-military norms, emphasizing the constitutional oath and the dangers of partisanship.
• Organized Veteran Voices – Veterans’ groups that have often avoided explicit political fights may feel compelled to take clearer positions. We may see the rise of new organizations specifically focused on defending military neutrality, positioned as “pro-Constitution, not anti-anyone,” but inevitably drawn into the Trump debate.
• Campaign Escalation – Trump and aligned candidates are unlikely to back away from using military imagery and rhetoric — it has been central to their political identity and fundraising. If criticism from veterans grows, the temptation will be strong to portray them as “elites” or “politicized brass,” deepening the divide.
• Legal and Policy Guardrails – Congress could respond with efforts to clarify or tighten laws around the use of active-duty forces in domestic operations, political events, or immigration enforcement. Even symbolic measures — like nonbinding resolutions on military neutrality — may be debated as both parties try to claim the mantle of “defending the troops.”

From a broader democratic perspective, the conversation is likely to expand beyond Trump. Once raised, the question does not go away: How do you keep the military out of partisan warfare in a hyper-polarized society?

On November 22, 2025, the answer is unresolved. But several indicators will be worth watching:

• Whether more high-profile retired generals and admirals publicly echo the “horribly wrong” language.
• Whether recruitment patterns shift, with certain regions or political demographics overrepresented in the enlisted ranks.
• How quickly and decisively senior military leaders respond to any future attempt by political figures to involve troops in election-related or protest-related operations.

If veteran criticism coalesces into a visible, organized movement — one that speaks across party lines — it could serve as a powerful counterweight to continued politicization. If, instead, those voices are dismissed as partisan and the issue becomes just another culture-war front, the erosion of norms may accelerate quietly beneath the surface.

Conclusion

On this November 22, 2025, the phrase “horribly wrong” is doing a lot of work. It is not simply a moral judgment on a politician’s style. It is a diagnosis from people who have worn the uniform and who understand, often better than anyone, what happens when armed power becomes an extension of personal politics.

US veterans condemning Trump’s politicization of the military are not all anti-Trump, and they are not all aligned with one party. What they share is a conviction that the credibility and cohesion of the armed forces — and the stability of American democracy itself — depend on maintaining a hard boundary between military duty and partisan loyalty.

The Guardian’s reporting has crystallized a simmering concern into a clear warning. Social media has amplified it. Experts have contextualized it in decades of civil-military scholarship and centuries of global history. Allies are watching. So are adversaries.

Whether the United States treats this moment as a temporary flare-up or a turning point will shape not only the next election cycle but also the basic character of American power at home and abroad. For now, the message from a growing number of veterans is simple, and stark: the line between a constitutional military and a political one is thinner than many realize — and crossing it would not just be wrong. It would be, in their words, horribly wrong.