The Erosion of America’s Military Under Trump

One thing you have to give Donald Trump: he is an extraordinary political gaslighter. Time and again, he convinces millions of supporters that reality is the opposite of what is plainly in front of them. He benefits from an ecosystem of loyal sychophants and compliant media outlets, but he also possesses a remarkable instinct for reframing events to his political advantage.

Perhaps nowhere is that more evident than in his reputation as a champion of the military.

During his first term, Trump repeatedly generated controversy over comments about military service and sacrifice. He reportedly referred to Americans who died in war as “suckers” and “losers,” publicly criticized decorated veterans and prisoners of war, and frequently used the military as a backdrop for partisan political messaging. Any one of those incidents might have seriously damaged previous presidents or presidential candidates. Somehow, Trump emerged politically unscathed.

Today, that image is colliding with the consequences of his administration’s national security decisions. Primarily, I would argue, because these decisions are not based upon what is good for our national security. Rather, they are designed to divert public attention from other politically damaging issues, including questions surrounding the Epstein files, allegations of self-enrichment, attacks on democratic institutions, and the administration’s failure to deliver on promises to reduce consumer prices.

Rather than keeping America out of another prolonged conflict, the administration has drawn the country into a war of choice while offering little clarity about its strategic objectives or exit strategy. 

Junior military officers are taught early a sacrosanct principle: before committing troops to combat, political leaders should understand exactly what they are trying to accomplish, what success looks like, and how the conflict will end. Why? Because are history has repeatedly demonstrated the costs of entering wars without clearly defined objectives.

Many observers argue that this administration has failed that test.

The result is growing concern not only about battlefield risks but also about the long-term health of America’s armed forces. Our munitions stockpile is being depleted, maintenance for our aircraft, ships and land vehicles is persistently overlooked and underfunded, and the OPSTEMPO (operations tempo) for our personnel is affecting readiness. Even the world’s strongest military cannot continuously expend resources without affecting preparedness for future contingencies.

The strain is not limited to operations overseas. The Department of Defense’s overseas deployment-to-dwell time remains at the 1:3 goal (one month deployed for every three months at home.) The massive increase of domestic missions on U.S. soil however don’t count in that ratio, and have resulted in troops spending substantially less uninterrupted time at home with their families.

Trump though, either doesn’t get it, or doesn’t care. Following the deaths of American service members in Jordan, he told reporters during (what was supposed to be a “dignified”) transfer ceremony that the fallen troops “all said very strongly, ‘We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.’” Gold Star family members publicly criticized those remarks, arguing that the president was using their loved ones to justify his administration’s policy. Those Gold Star families, and other military-connected families know that Trump has no idea what their deceased loved ones thought about the war. And, they—along with the rest of us—know that the shifting numbers on dead and injured in this current war, are not being accurately reported.

Meanwhile, other personnel decisions have generated their own controversy and contribute to the chipping away of our military might.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has overseen the removal of numerous senior military leaders, arguing that the armed forces require new leadership and a renewed focus on combat effectiveness. Supporters view these changes as necessary reforms. Critics see something different: the loss of decades of operational experience, disruption of the military’s traditional apolitical culture, and the perception that loyalty to political leadership is becoming more important than professional military judgment.

That perception matters.

Combat effectiveness depends on far more than weapons and technology. More than anything, rests on trust—trust that promotions are earned through merit, that commanders are selected because they are the most qualified, and that military institutions remain insulated from partisan politics. Trust that commanders will care for their troops and that troops will care for each other. Once service members begin questioning whether those principles still apply, esprit de corps inevitably suffers.

Additional personnel policies have further fueled discontent and distrust. Trump’s executive order directing transgender service members from serving has resulted in an estimated 4,000 being place on administrative leave (with pay) while the courts work through the lawsuits that have been filed. Now, Secretary Hegseth has mandated medical screening for testosterone without any valid scientific or medical rationale. These and other personnel directives have consumed time and attention that many military leaders argue would be better spent on readiness, training, and modernization. Even supporters of these policies must acknowledge that implementing them has required significant administrative effort while affecting thousands of service members and their families.

The administration’s broader domestic policies have also had unintended consequences for the military community.

Veterans have historically relied heavily on federal employment after leaving active duty. Large reductions in the federal workforce therefore fall disproportionately on veterans, many of whom receive hiring preference because of their military service. At the same time, changes affecting military family benefits, health care policies, and immigration enforcement involving military households have generated uncertainty among service members already coping with frequent deployments and the stresses of military life.

Recognizing growing dissatisfaction within parts of the military community, the administration has promoted new initiatives such as the Freedom Haulers to fast track veterans into the commercial trucking industry. These programs though, are tiny bandaids that don’t make up for the damage being done.

What is becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss, is the cumulative effect of the administrations bad decisions around military readiness. A military’s strength is measured not only by its ships, aircraft, and missiles but also by the confidence of the men and women who serve. Strategic ambiguity, political polarization, controversial personnel decisions, leadership turnover, and repeated cultural battles all impose costs that cannot be measured on a balance sheet.

History shows that great militaries are weakened gradually before they are weakened suddenly. The erosion begins with depleted readiness, declining trust in leadership, and the belief among service members that political considerations have begun to eclipse professional military judgment. In other words, decisions made for the wrong reasons. Reasons having nothing to do with honoring the sacrifice of those doing the fighting.

Just like everything else this president has touched, the military is another institution that has been degraded and devalued. Don’t believe his propaganda. He is not a friend of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. He knows he is not worthy of them and he despises them for it.