Officials from the Defense Department have stated that uniformed soldiers who expressed support for President Donald Trump’s political remarks and booed former President Joe Biden and California Governor Gavin Newsom during Tuesday’s rally at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, did not breach military regulations. However, former military legal officer Geoffrey DeWeese disagrees, asserting that their behavior did indeed violate military standards.
During the speech, Trump encouraged the troops, asking, “Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden? I don’t think so,” as boos erupted in response to Biden’s name. He made further comments targeting Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, amidst ongoing protests against immigration policies prompted by Trump’s administration. His remarks about various subjects, including the media, transgender individuals, and flag-burning, similarly elicited boos from the gathered soldiers.
Typically, Trump reserves such politically charged commentary for campaign rallies rather than military installations. While the president can engage in political discourse on military bases, military leaders often discourage soldiers from participating in such reactive displays as it contradicts standards of military discipline. According to DeWeese, these actions likely contravene the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
DeWeese, who has extensive experience as a retired judge advocate general, expressed concern about the implications of the event. “It’s a sad tradition to use the military as a backdrop for political purposes,” he remarked, highlighting that Trump’s direct attacks on political opponents could significantly impact the military’s perceived neutrality.
“I would be cringing if I was a senior officer and it happened under my watch,” he added, implying that the atmosphere during the rally could lead to potential violations of military regulations.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has consistently advocated for minimizing political influences within the military, pushing for the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and barring service by transgender individuals.
In an email, Kori Schake, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former government official, criticized military leadership at Fort Bragg for inadequately preparing troops for such incidents. “It’s terrible,” she wrote. “It’s predictably bad behavior by the President to try and score political points in a military setting, and it’s a command failure by leaders at Fort Bragg not to prepare soldiers for that bad behavior and counsel them not to participate.”
The Pentagon subsequently affirmed in a statement that no violations of the UCMJ occurred, while suggesting that media narratives were biased against policies favored by Trump. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell claimed that the media favored the Biden administration and cited issues related to military diversity and the recent vaccine mandate.
“Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media,” Parnell stated. “Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers.”
Additionally, Army officials addressed concerns regarding the sale of MAGA merchandise at the event, organized with a nonpartisan group, American 250. Colonel Mary Ricks, a representative from the Army’s 18th Airborne Corps, assured that the Army remains committed to its core values and an apolitical stance, stating, “The Army does not endorse political merchandise or the views it represents.”
This merchandise situation is currently under review to understand how it was allowed at the event and to prevent similar issues in the future. The Army’s newly published field manual emphasizes that its members must maintain a nonpartisan stance to uphold public trust. The manual clarifies, “Being nonpartisan means not favoring any specific political party or group,” reinforcing the military’s commitment to serve the Constitution and citizens loyally.
While U.S. troops are encouraged to engage in political activities as private citizens, the manual stipulates, “As a soldier, you must be mindful of how your actions may affect the reputation and perceived trustworthiness of our Army as an institution.”