Why has Trump perceived an opportunity to openly test the U.S. military’s commitment to international humanitarian law (IHL)? Shortly before Trump issued his November 2019 war crime clemencies, a poll was released showing that only about half of active-duty servicemembers and veterans opposed the acts.Footnote 1 Given the U.S. military’s intensive focus on combat ethics, it might be puzzling that this percentage was not higher.Footnote 2 Strategically, however, ensuring that sizable parts of the military are receptive to the impunity agenda has been vital for Trump. Co-opting militaries for political gain almost always requires either the tacit or explicit consent of insiders.Footnote 3 For Trump, creating a “civil-military coalition”Footnote 4 that would not retaliate has maintained his credibility with the GOP base.
This chapter addresses the puzzle of why Trump has calculated that he could publicly challenge IHL with limited dissent from the U.S. military. Its answer traces to the military’s well-known conservative composition. For years, America’s military has not only exhibited a strong right-leaning bent. A nontrivial portion of its community has displayed more extremist, right-wing tendencies. When Trump first arrived in office in 2017, this made U.S. servicemembers and veterans appear susceptible to impunity messaging. Even if most combatants subscribe in principle to the importance of IHL, Trump discerned that these commitments could be compromised. This was especially true with Fox News and Republican Congress members supporting his agenda.
This argument challenges the “socialization” narrative that respect for IHL has thoroughly permeated Western militaries.Footnote 5 It aligns with new research showing that, although professionalized militaries have developed extensive programs to instill pro-IHL attitudes,Footnote 6 variation still exists in how combatants prioritize norms of restraint. Central is how the prevalence of military “subcultures” can contradict, and sometimes overwhelm, official doctrine emphasizing IHL.Footnote 7 In the U.S. military, the surfacing of right-wing, “MAGA” factions has yielded subcultures that in some cases elevate allegiance to Trump over other principles. Combined with the military’s broader conservative bent, Trump has activated these values to suppress political backlash.
Section 4.1 of this chapter analyzes the role of ideological subcultures in overriding formal doctrines relating to IHL. Section 4.2 turns to why Trump has perceived that Fox News and GOP Congress members could help him to appeal to conservatives and pockets of right-wing extremism in America’s military. Section 4.3 documents the rise of far-right subcultures in the military, both before and after Trump’s two electoral wins in 2016 and 2024. Finally, Section 4.4 presents a short case study of disproportionate military involvement in the January 6 Capitol riot. Although not a foreign battlefield, the case illustrates how Trump and his allies could lead combatants to discount norms of restraint, even to the point of attacking civilians on American soil.
4.1 Norm Socialization and Ideological Subcultures
Burgeoning literature shows that even professionalized militaries like the U.S. do not guarantee identical attitudes toward IHL.Footnote 8 Given their size and complexity, they tend to foster heterogeneous cultures. Research in military sociology, backed by findings in security studies, points to the existence of military “subcultures” that can operate in tandem with, and often in opposition to, official military doctrine.Footnote 9 In the U.S., research has shown that Republican-leaning combatants are especially likely to devalue IHL.Footnote 10 These partisan divides can stem from ideological predispositions, self-selection among recruits, or prevailing norms. Regardless of their origin, when taken to the extreme, they can contribute to right-wing subcultures that show indifference or contempt for IHL.
The potential for partisan “capture” of right-wing subcultures in the U.S. military has created an opportunity for Trump to openly dismiss the law of war while minimizing political fallout. Similar to how they activate other conservative voters, Trump, Fox News, and GOP Congress members have worked within a “division of labor” to court right-leaning servicemembers and veterans. At the top is Trump, willing to push unlike any prior U.S. president in explicitly challenging IHL. Underneath him, Fox News has formulated and vocalized messages suggesting that deference to IHL is more voluntary than imperative. Last, Republican Congress members, especially veterans, have stressed the optionality of strict adherence to IHL.
4.2 The Impunity Coalition’s Influence over the Military
Trump
Trump’s perception that he could persuade U.S. servicemembers to abandon IHL has likely come first and foremost from a belief in his own popularity with the military. In 2016, for example, Trump declared that he had been “endorsed … at least conceptually, by the military.”Footnote 11 As president, Trump claimed that the “soldiers are in love with me.”Footnote 12 Exit polling from 2016 showed that active-duty servicemembers and veterans voted for Trump over Hillary Clinton at a rate of nearly two to one.Footnote 13 Although this support declined over his first term, Trump still won the majority of military votes over Joe Biden in 2020.Footnote 14 A 2019 Pew poll found that more than 90 percent of Republican-leaning veterans approved of Trump as commander-in-chief.Footnote 15 In 2024, Trump won 65 percent of the military vote over Kamala Harris.Footnote 16
In addition to rank-and-file support, Trump has received endorsements from several high-profile veterans groups. In 2016, for instance, nearly ninety retired military leaders, including four four-star generals, published an open letter praising Trump’s candidacy.Footnote 17 In 2020, 235 retired senior military officers, including eight four-star generals and admirals and a Medal of Honor recipient, also published an open letter endorsing Trump.Footnote 18 In 2021, 124 retired admirals and generals, who dubbed themselves “Flag Officers 4 America,” signed a letter endorsing Trump’s baseless stolen election claims.Footnote 19 Even if not representative, such support has enabled Trump to suggest that the impunity agenda is not outside the bounds of what many top military leaders want.
Trump has curried favor with what he called “my military”Footnote 20 by presenting its members as a core extension of his base. For example, shortly after his 2016 victory, Trump gave a speech at an Air Force base in Florida where he declared. “We had a wonderful election, didn’t we? I saw those numbers, and you liked me and I liked you. That’s the way it worked.”Footnote 21 In 2018, after autographing MAGA hats for U.S. servicemembers during his first visit to Iraq as president, Trump was described by one retired major general as enjoying “a rock star kind of a status” among troops.Footnote 22 As an example of how he used his pro-military image to win voters, Trump’s campaign in 2020 promised supporters who joined “the Trump Army” a camouflage “Keep America Great” hat.Footnote 23
Trump’s courting of the military, often in apparent violation of civil-military norms, has advanced both his appeal and the impunity agenda. For example, one journalist noted that “Trump’s comments suggested that he saw service members as another constituency: Like factory workers, farmers and coal miners, they seemed to be cast as an interest group to be wooed.”Footnote 24 Another analyst referred to Trump’s “pander[ing] to excessively violent military personnel.”Footnote 25 Ret. Air Force Major General Steven J. Lepper said that Trump “spent much of his time lavishing praise on the military, hailing himself as its savior, or pandering to it.” By “treating the military … as his friend,” he continued, it seemed to “explain why he pardoned three accused American war criminals.”Footnote 26
Trump’s confidence in U.S. military support has likely been bolstered by the fact that he had elsewhere broken military norms with few consequences. For example, in 2015, Trump criticized Sen. John McCain, held as a prisoner in Vietnam, by declaring, “I like people who weren’t captured.”Footnote 27 In 2016, he pronounced, “I know more about ISIS than the Generals do.”Footnote 28 That same year, Trump also lashed out at the parents of a Gold Star Muslim soldier who had died in Iraq.Footnote 29 In 2020, Trump reputedly referred to dead U.S. servicemembers as “suckers” and “losers” (although his staff denied this allegation).Footnote 30 An article in Foreign Policy claimed that “Trump has mocked the military his whole life.”Footnote 31 Despite such behavior, Trump maintained high favorability among military voters.
Trump’s ability to escape major backlash from the military with such statements has conceivably emboldened him to think that he could do the same in dismissing IHL. For example, in referencing some of Trump’s most polemical comments, military expert Mark Perry wrote that “[t]he military noted … insults and repaid Trump in kind by overwhelmingly voting for him in the 2016 election.”Footnote 32 Trump’s apparent trust in his military support closely mirrored the confidence that he displayed in his notoriously loyal civilian base, such as his remark that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody … and … [not] lose any voters.”Footnote 33 It also reflected Trump’s “Teflon” reputation for scandals not sticking to him like they did with other politicians.Footnote 34
Trump’s overt attacks on IHL are not the only case where he has expected the U.S. military to follow orders on demand, regardless of whether they broke standard protocol. For example, in 2017, Trump reportedly asked for a “Red Square/North Korea-style parade” for his inauguration, replete with tanks, missile launchers, and jets flying over the U.S. Capitol and New York City.Footnote 35 In 2018, Trump also proposed hosting a “North Korea-style” parade to celebrate Veterans Day.Footnote 36 In describing his relationship to military subordinates, one expert said that Trump tried to “assert ownership over the armed forces.”Footnote 37 Another writer noted that “Trump … s[aw] the military as his personal plaything, little toy soldiers to move around on the map of America.”Footnote 38
Fox News
Fox News’s reputation for courting a military audience also likely signaled to Trump that he could leverage the network to openly challenge the law of war. For Trump, Fox News has not only provided a mouthpiece through which to reach the military community. U.S. servicemembers and veterans almost uniformly regard it as pro-military. Even before Trump’s presidency, Fox News had been the main media station shown on the Armed Forces Network, which broadcasts to military bases. It had a clear record of promoting pro-American, nationalist values. One journalist, for example, referred to Fox News as “patriotic” and “pugilistic” due to its stars-and-stripes programming.Footnote 39 Another called Fox News one of “the military’s biggest cheerleaders.”Footnote 40
Timing-wise, Trump’s initial ascent to the White House in 2016 occurred after Fox News’s 2014 hiring of Pete Hegseth,Footnote 41 and just before the departure of moderates like military analyst Ralph Peters, who accused Fox News of being a “propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous [Trump] administration.”Footnote 42 It also occurred as Fox News began to feature more outspoken military veterans. This included former Navy SEAL Rob O’Neill, known for killing Osama bin Laden, who declared on Fox News that “a commander in chief … can do anything he wants.”Footnote 43 It also included former U.S. Army Ranger Mat Best, who on Fox Nation blasted “political elitists sitting in some progressive ivory tower … [who] if they heard a gunshot from afar, they’d be triggered.”Footnote 44
These and similar far-right voices on Fox News have provided Trump with reliable partners in broadcasting the impunity agenda. For example, one analyst noted that “[f]or those who watch Fox News, the notion that the laws of war are inherently unfair and unnecessarily hinder our service members overseas will, most likely, seem acceptable.”Footnote 45 Another analysis referred to Fox News anchors as “All the SEAL’s Men,” saying that their incessantly positive coverage of Eddie Gallagher made him “untouchable” to conservatives.Footnote 46 One account described the network’s staunchly pro-Trump stance as sending a clear signal: “If you violate the laws of war, the commander-in-chief may well bail you out – especially if your case wins the sympathy of Fox News.”Footnote 47
Fox News’s ubiquity on military bases has offered an indispensable medium for Trump to promote the impunity agenda. According to political scientist Tom Nichols, for example, Fox News remains the “default channel” in public military spaces.Footnote 48 Journalism professor Helen Benedict has likewise described “Fox News … [as] the most popular TV channel on military bases.”Footnote 49 Anecdotally, one source reported that “Fox News is always blaring in common spaces during duty hours” and that “[f]ar from always being a service member’s choice … everyone is subjected to it like it or not.”Footnote 50 A recent schedule for the Armed Forces Network displayed Fox News running for eight out of twenty-four hours on a weekday, including programs like “The Five,” “Jesse Watters Primetime,” and “Hannity.”Footnote 51
Fox News’s reach on military installations became so significant during Trump’s first term that it inspired attempts to remove its content. For instance, in 2019, the Army & Air Force Exchange Service called for replacing TV news altogether on military bases because of its divisiveness.Footnote 52 After Trump left office in 2021, the progressive organization VoteVets launched a campaign to bar Fox News from military bases, accusing it of waging “information warfare that divides the troops, hurts unit cohesion, … and threatens our national security.”Footnote 53 Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell of California suggested that Fox News should be banned on military bases.Footnote 54 The Lincoln Project, a group of anti-Trump Republicans, also circulated a petition with the hashtag “#BanFoxonBase.”Footnote 55
Although efforts to remove Fox News from military bases have largely been pegged to misleading 2020 election coverage,Footnote 56 criticism goes beyond these concerns. Several commentators have complained that Fox News undercuts proper conduct on the battlefield. According to one Navy officer, for example, “The values of Fox News are not aligned with those of the United States military, and undermine good order and discipline among the ranks.”Footnote 57 Other experts have argued that because “[o]ur military leaders have a duty to maintain good order and discipline in the ranks … [a]llowing Fox News to blast into every barracks, orderly room, and enlisted club makes no more sense than allowing Radio Moscow to propagandize new recruits during the cold war.”Footnote 58
Fox News’s pro-military slant has also enabled Trump to push the impunity agenda in civilian settings. For example, interviews with the wives of U.S. servicemembers pleading for clemencies have presented the impunity agenda as representing the plights of everyday military families.Footnote 59 Such efforts likely gain even more traction when aired alongside other military-themed programming. For instance, the network’s franchise series “Proud American” expressly recognizes heroism in the armed forces.Footnote 60 Fox News’s offer of a free year of paid subscription to “Fox Nation” for all active-duty U.S. combatants and retirees is another part of its military outreach.Footnote 61 Fox News maintains an entire webpage on “Military Families,” which includes more than seventy stories from 2020 alone.Footnote 62
GOP Allies on Capitol Hill
Trump’s perception that GOP Congress members could shield the impunity agenda from military criticism has likely been bolstered by the fact that many of his allies on Capitol Hill are former veterans. For Trump, who never served in uniform (he received a medical deferment),Footnote 63 such support has not only added to the impunity agenda’s perceived credibility. Lawmakers have also been able to speak firsthand to the priorities of rank-and-file U.S. servicemembers. This includes playing to concerns that Pentagon bureaucrats make American troops vulnerable to prosecution. Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, for example, Congressional Justice for Warriors Caucus (CJWC) co-founder Rep. Duncan Hunter wrote an opinion piece citing that less than a third of U.S. servicemembers felt that their leaders acted in their best interests.Footnote 64
Republican Congress members who had pushed for war crime clemencies even before Trump first took office in 2017 gave a preview of what the impunity agenda would become. As early as 2015, for example, Reps. Duncan Hunter and Ryan Zinke of Montana, a former Navy SEAL, wrote a letter to the Obama administration demanding a review of Clint Lorance’s verdict. The request, coinciding with a petition garnering more than 100,000 signatures, urged the White House “to tell the military … that when we send our young sons and daughters into harm’s way, we do not turn against them.” The effort made headlines in the Army Times,Footnote 65 Washington Post,Footnote 66 and New York Times,Footnote 67 giving Trump proof of the political traction that challenges to the military justice system could gain.
When Trump first entered office, the most strident voices challenging the U.S. military justice system on Capitol Hill were both ex-combatants and MAGA allies. This included CJWC co-chair Duncan Hunter, who served as an officer in the U.S. Marines with deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. It also included CJWC co-chair Rep. Louie Gohmert, who worked as a defense lawyer in the U.S. Army JAG corps at Fort Benning in Georgia. Alongside the CJWC leaders were some of Trump’s most firebrand, “ultra-MAGA” defenders generally. Among them were Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas, a former Navy SEAL who lost his right eye from an improvised explosive device (IED) in Afghanistan, and Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, who had both of his legs amputated after stepping on an IED in Afghanistan.Footnote 68
CJWC members have regularly spotlighted their own military backgrounds to defend the impunity agenda. For instance, in a 2019 video posted to Sean Hannity’s website, Louie Gohmert pointed to his time as “a former judge advocate general corps member” who “handled … no telling how many court martials” to explain what inspired him to found the CJWC.Footnote 69 In an exchange with Pete Hegseth on Fox News, Rep. Michael Waltz of Florida said that he understood the clemency defense that “[w]ar is messy” and filled with “snap decisions of shoot or no shoot” because he himself “had to make those own decisions … in combat.” Affirming his service, Hegseth replied, “Congressman, very well said from someone who understands it and has been there himself.”Footnote 70
Duncan Hunter, in particular, routinely appealed to his own combat service to excuse illegal behavior on the battlefield. For example, in downplaying criminal charges against Eddie Gallagher, he declared, “A lot of us have done the exact same thing … Eddie did one bad thing that I’m guilty of, too.”Footnote 71 According to a reporter, Hunter insisted “that defending fellow veterans [wa]s at the very core of why he got into politics.”Footnote 72 Speaking on the Zero Blog 30 podcast, Hunter expressly said that his primary motivation in running for Congress was to represent the “millions of people … who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan.”Footnote 73 Eddie Gallagher’s brother, Sean, praised Hunter’s “advocacy, based in large part on a shared experience in combat.”Footnote 74
Republican Congress members have also leaned into their service in other ways to help both themselves and the impunity agenda. For example, Duncan Hunter used military imagery so aggressively in his campaigning that Marine leadership ordered him to stop using its official “Eagle, Globe, and Anchor” symbol in his electioneering.Footnote 75 CJWC members without military experience displayed their commitment by allying with court-martialed troops. For instance, in 2023, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida hired convicted war criminal Derrick Miller as a legislative aide. The move prompted headlines like “Matt Gaetz’s Legislative Aide Is a Convicted War Criminal Who Murdered an Afghan Civilian and Dumped His Body in a Latrine” (Insider).Footnote 76 Gaetz’s office insisted that Miller “served our country with honor.”Footnote 77
Equally critical has been an absence of pushback from other high-profile veteran Congress members in the GOP. This was especially true regarding Trump’s war crime clemencies, which occurred after the 2018 death of Sen. John McCain, one of IHL’s most lucid defenders.Footnote 78 Other Republican legislators, including South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, an Air Force veteran, have seemingly undergone a volte-face on the issue. Following revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib in 2003, for example, Graham proclaimed, “Your goal has to be as an American to … respect the concepts of the Geneva Convention.”Footnote 79 By contrast, Graham expressed “some sympathy” for Trump’s war crime clemencies because “the president believes that the rules of engagement were not clear, that we put our folks in a bad spot.”Footnote 80
4.3 Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the Military
Trump’s rises to power in 2017 and again in 2025 both reflect and reinforce a subculture of political extremism within the U.S. military that has been key to carrying out the impunity agenda. Pro-Trump, right-wing servicemembers and veterans have bolstered Trump’s calculation that he could inspire a critical, conservative mass of the military to support, or at least not oppose, overt challenges to IHL. Although the Department of Defense (DoD) does not officially collect data on partisanship, survey after survey dating back decades shows that its members lean to the right.Footnote 81 Despite more political diversity existing among enlistees than the officer corps,Footnote 82 studies still point to the U.S. military as a conservative organization. Scholars have referred to this outcome as a partisan “gap” in civil-military relations.Footnote 83
While conservatism does not equate to a far-right ideology, data show that perceptions of partisan divisions have become increasingly acute among the ranks.Footnote 84 During Trump’s first term, for instance, more than three in four military members polled by the Military Times thought that the community was becoming more politically polarized.Footnote 85 A wave of independent reports – with titles like “The Violent Far-Right Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Military” (Council on Foreign Relations)Footnote 86 and “Right-Wing Extremism in the Military” (International Centre for Counter-Terrorism)Footnote 87 – cite a concomitant surge of far-right sympathies in the military after Trump’s 2016 election. These movements have been characterized by adherence to fundamentalist, anti-government beliefs.
Indicative of this trend has been the gaining stature of right-wing paramilitary organizations like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, whose ranks comprise disproportionate numbers of current and former military members. Based on estimates, upwards of a quarter of the membership of such groups is now made up of U.S. military veterans, with totals in the populations reaching the tens of thousands.Footnote 88 According to a federal prosecutor, the Proud Boys see themselves as “Donald Trump’s army” who are willing to “line … up behind Donald Trump and … commit violence on his behalf.”Footnote 89 One analysis described the Oath Keepers as a radical-right militia “keen on supporting veterans while preying on their desire to defend the country once again.”Footnote 90
It is worth underscoring that extremism within the modern U.S. military is not a new problem.Footnote 91 Concerns about white supremacist infiltration, such as Ku Klux Klan membership, were prevalent during the Vietnam War.Footnote 92 In the 1980s, the DoD reported multiple instances of military participation in white supremacist groups.Footnote 93 In the 1990s, the Oklahoma City bombing, carried out by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Lynn Nichols, showcased the catastrophic damage wrought by two radicalized veterans.Footnote 94 After 9/11, the FBI counted “203 individuals with confirmed or claimed military service active in the extremist movement [from 2001 to 2008].”Footnote 95 In a 2006 publication, the Southern Poverty Law Center warned that “extremists are once again worming their way into a recruit-starved military.”Footnote 96
Still, Trump’s record as commander-in-chief has appeared to empower extremism in the military.Footnote 97 In the final full year of Trump’s first term in office, the FBI launched criminal probes into 143 current and ex-military members, nearly half of whom were connected to extremist behavior.Footnote 98 In 2020, the Pentagon recommended both banning servicemember participation in hate groups and revising the UCMJ to address the problem.Footnote 99 In 2021, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a “stand down” order to counter military extremism.Footnote 100 The DoD also initiated a large-scale investigation into extremism.Footnote 101 The Center for Strategic and International Studies further found that, from 1994 to 2021, U.S. servicemembers were implicated “in a growing number of domestic terrorist plots and attacks.”Footnote 102
Available data, which tend to focus on legally defined criminal activity, likely capture only a fraction of U.S. military sympathies to radical, mostly far-right groups. More passive forms of extremism may not register in official counts, even if they raise the risks for illicit activity both on and off the battlefield. The extent of extremist proclivities is largely unknown due to the lack of a centralized, federal clearinghouse documenting the problem. Democrat Rep. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, for instance, has acknowledged that data measuring military extremism is “really poor.”Footnote 103 Mark Pitcavage of the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism has lamented that “[t]he military has never set up the structure to track people who were kicked out for … extremism.”Footnote 104
Aggravating these patterns is that right-wing groups have prioritized recruiting military and ex-military members due to their transferable skills. Skills taught in basic training, such as tactical maneuvers, the use of weaponry, leadership, and management of high-stress situations, are prized by paramilitary groups. Political scientist Peter Feaver, for example, has observed that “[r]ight-wing groups targeted military veterans for having the skill sets that they were looking for,” quipping “[t]hey weren’t recruiting from among the Columbia Journalism School.”Footnote 105 Former National Security Council member Jeff McCausland has similarly called the “unique training the military offers in weapons, communications and cyber” an “exploitable asset” for hard-right extremists.Footnote 106
Concerns about the U.S. military’s extremist problem have increasingly drawn attention. Democrat Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, for instance, has referred to “the rise of extremism and white supremacy in the ranks” as a “crisis … fueled by President [Donald] Trump.”Footnote 107 Thomas Kolditz, previously of the U.S. Military Academy, has remarked that among his “bigger concerns” is “a strong Trump following in the military,” noting that, when it comes to January 6 sympathizers, “[w]e’re probably talking about thousands across the Department of Defense.”Footnote 108 In reviewing major extremist incidents within the military since the 1970s, one group of national security experts has called for “future policies, strategies, and bureaucratic structures to counter extremism in the military.”Footnote 109
Efforts to crack down on military extremism, however, have been uneven. Intelligence specialist Kristofer Goldsmith, for instance, has criticized the DoD for treating extremists with “kid gloves.”Footnote 110 Retired personnel, in particular, are often overlooked in lieu of a focus on current combatants.Footnote 111 To date, the Department of Veterans Affairs has not devised any permanent initiative aimed at opposing extremism. Among active-duty ranks, keeping extremism at bay is seen as difficult because so much activity occurs at the unit level. For example, the RAND Corporation’s Heather Williams has observed that “[u]ltimately, the war to root out extremism is going to be fought in the trenches by individual military commanders and against specific bad apples.”Footnote 112
One reason for uneven political will to stop extremism likely stems from internal recruitment incentives. Because the U.S. military relies disproportionately on enlistees from Republican areas,Footnote 113 efforts to eradicate extremism may also be seen as alienating a core part of its base. For instance, writer Matthew Kennard has argued that the military’s under-recruitment problem dates back at least to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, when it began lowering standards that allowed “neo-Nazis, gang members, and criminals” into the ranks.Footnote 114 According to a 2005 report by the DoD, the military informally maintained a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on extremism, stating, “If individuals can perform satisfactorily, without making their extremist opinions overt, they are likely to be able to compete their contracts.”Footnote 115
The military’s recruiting challenges became even more pronounced after Trump left power the first time. In 2022, for example, the Army reported falling 15,000 recruits below its 60,000 recruitment target.Footnote 116 Due to fitness and other criteria, the fraction of Americans eligible to serve in the military based on age has fallen to below a quarter.Footnote 117 Analysis from the Council on Foreign Relations refers to U.S. military under-recruitment as a “crisis.”Footnote 118 Experts David McCormick and James Cunningham describe the U.S. military’s inability to reach targets as symptomatic of a “cultural rot” pervading the institution.Footnote 119 The need to replenish the ranks may partially explain why the Pentagon has, despite pressure, yet to proscribe military membership in hate groups.Footnote 120
Such challenges are only made more difficult by right-wing pushback. When in 2021 the Pentagon announced its inquiry into extremism after January 6, critics cast it as a targeted attack on Republicans. On Fox News, for example, Pete Hegseth warned against a “purge of the Defense Department led by a new and now powerful radical leftist.”Footnote 121 Fox News’s Laura Ingraham criticized an “ideological and un-American purge of the U.S. military.”Footnote 122 On Fox News, Army veteran Rob Smith complained that the political left has “rush[ed] to define all of their political enemies right now as extremists,” adding that “[s]tuff like this will destroy the military.”Footnote 123 Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama insisted that extremism “is far from the largest military justice issue.”Footnote 124
A growing number of Republicans have cited specific instances of what they refer to as political retaliation. For instance, Pete Hegseth claims that he was prevented from working at Joe Biden’s inauguration because of his Christian tattoo that read, “Deus Vult” (“God wills it,” in Latin), which became popular with right-wing paramilitary groups involved in the U.S. Capitol storming.Footnote 125 Space Force lieutenant Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier, author of the book Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military, claims that he was demoted for criticizing the New York Times’s 1619 Project.Footnote 126 Many conservatives argue that such alleged maltreatment reflects hostility to Republicans that uses rooting out extremism as a pretense to justify politically motivated bias.
As part of this effort, right-wing personalities have been especially vocal in critiquing the U.S. military as overly “woke.” In addition to arguing that “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) harms the military’s lethality,Footnote 127 a common narrative is that left-wing activists hurt recruitment by punishing conservative-aligned servicemembers.Footnote 128 Following Trump’s election in 2024, the White House released plans to create “Warrior Boards,” with the intent of weeding out “woke generals” and “DEI hires.”Footnote 129 Critics have cast the proposal as a loyalty vetting, in which senior military officials could be dismissed if they fail to express favored political positions. One Army lieutenant complained that “[i]t could be very hard to do our job if we have to constantly be making sure we’re appeasing someone on a political or partisan level.”Footnote 130
It is important to caveat that the U.S. military is a sprawling organization, with approximately 1.3 million Americans currently serving in uniform and 18 million veterans. As such, its problem of right-wing radicalization, at least to some degree, reflects radicalization within America generally. As scholars Michael Robinson and Kori Schake have remarked, “To the extent that military service – active or prior – poses an extremist threat, we shouldn’t expect only the military to solve this problem for us.”Footnote 131 Still, extremist sympathies within the military appeared to grow during Trump’s term in the White House, a trend that shows no signs of slowing in his second act. This helps to explain why Trump, as part of the impunity coalition, believed that he could exploit right-wing support.
4.4 Illustrative Case: Storming of the U.S. Capitol
None of Trump’s efforts to tap into the military’s right-wing extremism epitomizes his ability to undercut norms of restraint more than the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Despite not being a foreign battlefield, the insurrection, which killed five Americans,Footnote 132 was notable for the outsized number of military personnel who participated.Footnote 133 Rioters with military ties came to dominate a war-like zone. As Steven Sund, the former chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, testified, “[the insurrectionists] came prepared for war…. [w]hat we got was a military-style assault.”Footnote 134 Journalist Carl Bernstein declared that January 6 proved that Trump was an “American war criminal,” insisting that it should prompt Americans to see him as committing crimes “against our people.”Footnote 135
Pro-Trump, anti-state violence on the homeland is not identical to unauthorized aggression in war. However, it does reveal Trump’s potential to shape, or activate, views toward the use of force among a military population. One January 6 rioter, Edward Richmond, had even been found guilty of manslaughter for killing a handcuffed civilian during a 2004 tour of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom.Footnote 136 As with his overt challenge to IHL, Trump had the “means, motive, and opportunity” to incite violence on January 6. Trump gained the means with backing from Fox News and GOP lawmakers. He had the motive to court right-wing parts of the military community. Finally, Trump’s delay in calling for the quelling of violence enabled military and other rioters to inflict far more damage than they would have otherwise.
Role of Current and Former Military Members
Although precise numbers vary, some estimates suggest that almost 20 percent of the Capitol rioters had military backgrounds,Footnote 137 a rate nearly triple their representation in the national population. Furthermore, nearly 40 percent of the military rioters had links to extremist organizations, a number roughly fourfold that of other January 6 participants.Footnote 138 Overall, more than eighty individuals with military ties were arrested across all four major branches of the armed forces. Five rioters were active-duty, with another enrolled in a U.S. Air Force boot camp.Footnote 139 Combat service spanned time in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. At least one insurrectionist was a Purple Heart recipient.Footnote 140 Collectively, rioters had careers totaling more than three centuries of military experience.Footnote 141
Battlefield actions featured prominently among the insurrectionists on January 6. This included commonly taught maneuvers in the U.S. military, such as the so-called “Ranger File,” which creates a human wall to infiltrate targets,Footnote 142 as well as “small unit tactics” like military-style hand signals and communications.Footnote 143 According to Ret. Admiral James Stavridis, “Many of the commands verbalized by the rioters to each other (‘cover down,’ ‘flank them,’ ‘do a reconnaissance,’ ‘we are in’) were drawn straight from Army and Marine Corps small tactical maneuver doctrine.”Footnote 144 Even much of the gear used by the rioters – such as military boots, patches, ballistic goggles, zip ties, body armor, and helmets – appropriated or replicated standard-issue military products.
The deployment of military techniques significantly increased the efficacy of the rioters. Referring to their skills, for example, former FBI agent Michael German stated that “ISIS and al-Qaida would drool over having someone with the training and experience of a U.S. military officer.”Footnote 145 Katrina Mulligan of the Center for American Progress similarly observed that “[p]art of what was so horrifying about what happened that day [January 6] is you saw training in action.”Footnote 146 During a criminal case, a judge opined that former Army Ranger Robert Morss was “willing to use his training or experience to organize with the rioters on January 6 … thereby making their actions more effective, more forceful and more violent.”Footnote 147 According to one of the rioters, January 6 was “everything we f------ trained for.”Footnote 148
Current and ex-military personnel were also instrumental in organizing January 6. Especially central were right-wing militias like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, comprised vastly of members with military ties.Footnote 149 For example, Oath Keepers founder and Army veteran Stewart Rhodes, who was sentenced to sixteen years in jail for “seditious conspiracy,”Footnote 150 was accused by prosecutors of behaving like “a general surveying his troops on a battlefield.”Footnote 151 A federal indictment alleged that Rhodes “organised members into military-style units.”Footnote 152 Active-duty Army officer Capt. Emily Rainey led a busload of Trump supporters to Washington on January 6.Footnote 153 Jessica Watkins, a transgender former Army Ranger, recruited insurrectionists for the invasion, who she said needed to be “fighting fit.”Footnote 154
Others with military backgrounds defended the storming. For example, Jacob Fracker, an Army National Guardsman who was pictured giving the “middle finger” inside the Capitol, posted on Facebook, “Lol to anyone who’s possibly concerned about the picture of me going around … Sorry I hate freedom? … Not like I did anything illegal.”Footnote 155 Thomas Robertson, an Army veteran, bragged on Facebook that “CNN and the Left are just mad because we actually attacked the government who is the problem…. The right IN ONE DAY took the f***** U.S. Capitol.”Footnote 156 Jason Riddle, a military veteran, celebrated the violence by taking a “selfie” photo inside the Capitol while drinking a glass of stolen wine from the Office of the Senate Parliamentarian.Footnote 157
Many military insurrectionists proudly admitted coming to Washington on January 6 with the explicit intent to wage war against the federal government. For example, Marine Cpl. Micah Coomer, who became the first rioter with military ties to be convicted of criminal activity, pronounced that he was “waiting for the boogaloo,” a phrase meaning “Civil War 2.”Footnote 158 Ret. Air Force Lt. Colonel Larry Brock said that in preparing for January 6, he “bought … body armor and a helmet for the civil war that is coming.”Footnote 159 Retired Navy SEAL Kevin Newbold declared that he was “absolutely not above going to war,” claiming he had “[d]one it before.”Footnote 160 U.S. Army National Guard member Matthew Greene testified that he was “openly expecting a civil war.”Footnote 161
Means
Alongside Fox News and GOP Congress members, Trump again served as the political entrepreneur who mobilized military members to violence. After months of making false claims about election rigging, he called on supporters to join his “Save America March,” scheduled to coincide with the certification of the 2020 election results. Moments before rioters broke the Capitol’s security barrier, Trump pronounced: “We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore”; “Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back…. [W]e’re going to have to fight much harder”; and “[Y]ou’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength.”Footnote 162 Trump’s attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, expressly advocated “trial by combat!”Footnote 163
Similar to his war crime clemencies, Trump would eventually give a blanket pardon to roughly 15,000 January 6 rioters on the first day of his second term, including defendants charged with committing violence against police.Footnote 164 Trump also commuted the sentences of fourteen members of the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers. The decision capped off a barrage of first-day executive actions that Trump had pledged to carry out in his 2024 campaign. Before his election, for example, Trump promised to “treat those people from Jan. 6 fairly”Footnote 165 and insisted that the rioters were victims of a “persecution.”Footnote 166 Several insurrectionists called on Trump to intervene personally in their cases. This included retired Navy SEAL Adam Newbold who expressed what he called a “cry for clemency.”Footnote 167
Both Fox News and Republican allies in Congress helped set the groundwork for January 6. At Fox News, a crucial voice was again Pete Hegseth, who before the riot declared, “The more you suppress it and tell these folks … [that] it’s just conspiracy theories, … there was not widespread fraud, you’re creating a bifurcation in the country.”Footnote 168 One analysis found that “[a]mong those taking inspiration from Fox News figures … [were] Ashli Babbitt, the U.S. Air Force veteran who … was shot and killed while storming the Capitol.”Footnote 169 Another rioter claimed in court that an acute case of “Foxitis” was to blame for his partaking in January 6.Footnote 170 A Washington Post headline read, “The Pro-Trump Media World Peddled the Lies that Fueled the Capitol Mob. Fox News Led the Way.”Footnote 171
As the Capitol storming unfolded, Fox News offered a selective framing of the events. For example, after reports of teargas being sprayed in the Capitol Rotunda, anchor Martha MacCallum called the breach a “huge victory for these protesters.”Footnote 172 In response to an analyst on another news network observing, “We can’t stand by idly and see people in uniform … have QAnon patches on,” Fox News’s Laura Ingraham disparaged the comment as “absolutely poisonous.”Footnote 173 Later, Fox News then-anchor Tucker Carlson released a three-part series on January 6 entitled “Patriot Purge” where he implied that the insurrection was a “false flag” operation.Footnote 174 One writer observed that Fox News’s audience was “subjected to a parade of rationalization and whataboutism” surrounding January 6.Footnote 175
Many Republican lawmakers also helped to stoke the violence. For example, Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama proclaimed, “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass…. Louder! Will you fight for America?”Footnote 176 Earlier, Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina had instructed Republican voters to “lightly threaten” their Congress members, telling them to say, “if you don’t start supporting election integrity, I’m coming after you … everybody’s coming after you.”Footnote 177 Rep. Marjorie Greene Taylor of Georgia insisted she would “go on the attack” to ensure Trump’s win and compared January 6 to a “1776 moment.”Footnote 178 Rep. Paul Gosar of the CJWC declared, “Once we conquer the Hill … Donald Trump is returned to being the president.”Footnote 179
After the riot, several GOP lawmakers refused to condemn the violence. Rep. Mo Brooks, for instance, stated, “I make no apology … I encourage EVERY citizen to watch my entire rally speech and decide … what kind of America they want: One based on freedom and liberty or … Godless dictatorial power.”Footnote 180 Rep. Matt Gaetz insisted, without evidence, that many of the Capitol rioters were disguised ANTIFA activists.Footnote 181 Rep. Paul Gosar pronounced that “in a better society, quislings like the strange sodomy-promoting General Milley would be hung” for being a “traitor” on January 6.Footnote 182 CJWC’s Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia likened January 6 to a “normal tourist visit.”Footnote 183 In a proposed resolution to honor Capitol police for January 6, CJWC co-chair Rep. Louie Gohmert attempted to expunge references to the insurrection.Footnote 184
Motive
As with his war crime clemencies, an irony of Trump’s role in the Capitol storming is that it came even as he billed himself a “law-and-order” president. On January 6, for example, Trump tweeted, “WE are the Party of Law & Order.”Footnote 185 Later, Trump affirmed, “I always have, and always will, be a champion for the unwavering rule of law … [and] the heroes of law enforcement.”Footnote 186 One journalist denounced Trump’s words as “full of hypocrisy.”Footnote 187 Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said that Trump’s behavior on January 6 “demonstrated he’s at war with the rule of law.”Footnote 188 Despite criticisms, Trump still garnered support among many members of the U.S. military community by again activating the MFT values of in-group loyalty, authority, and purity.
First, many military personnel who stormed the Capitol expressed their loyalty to Trump’s “in-group” patriotism. In a large-scale textual analysis of insurrectionist statements, political scientist Eric Hodges found that “veterans’ comments revealed that they believed they were acting patriotically.”Footnote 189 For example, one former Navy SEAL said approvingly of the siege: “our building, our house.”Footnote 190 Such feelings were punctuated by the framing of opponents as out-group enemies. For instance, Gabriel Garcia, a retired Army captain, called police trying to prevent the storming “f**king traitors.”Footnote 191 Retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. Thomas Edward Caldwell allegedly planned to ramp up the violence on January 6 by assembling a sniper team to “go hunting after dark … [for] cockroaches.”Footnote 192
A core aspect of in-group loyalty on January 6 was the extremist tie-in to white nationalism, which included the brandishing of Confederate flags and related paraphernalia.Footnote 193 Several analyses drew links between rioters with military backgrounds and advocacy for white supremacy. One reporter, for example, observed that “[t]he nation’s military has a history of downplaying white nationalism…, but the siege of the Capitol has created a new urgency for dealing with them.”Footnote 194 According to an expert, “Jan. 6 … exposed the crossover of military personnel to violent extremism and white supremacy.”Footnote 195 Another writer alleged that “white supremacy … is now front and center following signs that former military personnel played a role in the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol.”Footnote 196
Evidence also indicates that respect for Trump’s authority motivated military rioters. Not unlike troops on a battlefield, many appeared to believe that they were complying with the orders of their commander-in-chief. For example, former Navy officer Jeremey Butler observed, “If you’re already suffering from some level of mental health issues and you have your … commander-in-chief saying, ‘Go to the Capitol and take back our democracy’ with very strong martial language…, it’s obvious to me why they interpreted it that way.”Footnote 197 Legal scholar Leonard M. Niehoff noted that Trump’s words offered “clear instruction” that he wanted rioters to “show strength” and “take the country back.”Footnote 198 CNN anchor Anderson Cooper called Trump’s words on January 6 “marching orders.”Footnote 199
Deference to Trump’s authority became a common defense among those criminally charged over January 6. One report, for instance, recounted that “[a]s the cases against nearly 200 of the Capitol rioters begin to wind through federal court, many of the defendants blame the commander in chief.”Footnote 200 A lawyer expressly said that his client, a retired Marine corporal, was “duped” and reacted “to the entreaties of the then commander in chief.”Footnote 201 In an unprecedented statement, the Joint Chiefs of Staff even circulated a memo to U.S. servicemembers reiterating that Joe Biden, not Trump, would be their next commander-in-chief.Footnote 202 A journalist remarked “[t]hat the chiefs … found it necessary to remind their rank and file of their sworn oath to the country was extraordinary.”Footnote 203
Last, an impulse to fight for the ostensible purity of Trump’s cause appeared to motivate military rioters. Rioters sought both to ensure what they falsely perceived as the correct 2020 election result and to purge defenders of Joe Biden’s victory. Calls conjured up images of military heroes acting as the first line of defense against the “deep state.” For example, Army veteran Joseph Biggs pronounced, “It’s time for fucking War if they steal this shit.”Footnote 204 Ethan Nordean, who served as a sailor recruit, declared, “We tried playing nice…, now you will deal with the monster you created. The spirit of 1776 has resurfaced.”Footnote 205 One writer noted that later efforts to depict January 6 as a “false flag” were designed to “preserve … the ‘real American’ purity of the participants” [emphasis added].Footnote 206
At the center of the most extreme efforts to cleanse the federal government of supposedly impure actors were adherents of the far-right QAnon conspiracy. Human Rights First, for example, found that at least twenty-five military veterans loyal to QAnon were key to marshaling support for the insurrection.Footnote 207 Army intelligence officer Christina Bembenek noted that “QAnon supporters – including … veterans, and current military members – … led the mob on Jan. 6.”Footnote 208 One report indicated that some of the “most elite, lethally trained members of the U.S.military” used secret Facebook groups to spread QAnon theories before the storming.Footnote 209 Notably, Jacob Anthony Chansley, the “QAnon shaman” pictured in countless January 6 photos wearing horns, covered in face paint, and draped in fur, was a Navy veteran.Footnote 210
Opportunity
Insurrectionists were presented with an opportunity to do damage at the Capitol. After the storming began, Trump spent 387 minutes refusing to ask rioters to leave. Without his orders, it took the U.S. Army more than four hours to deploy the National Guard. While some have attributed the delay to unclear chains of command, others have speculated about ulterior causes. One possibility, as national security experts Ryan Goodman and Justin Hendrix have written, is that military leaders feared “injecting federal troops that could have been re-missioned by … [Trump] to advance his attempt to hold onto power.”Footnote 211 Another, more critical interpretation of the military, as journalist Max Boot wrote, is that “Pentagon leaders … did not want to battle a mob that had been mobilized and incited by their commander in chief.”Footnote 212
The concern that Trump could have co-opted troops at the Capitol stemmed from conversations he reportedly had with high-level advisers about declaring martial law to stop the peaceful transfer of power.Footnote 213 Some critics even went so far as to theorize that Trump’s goal from the beginning was to create a putsch on January 6 as a pretext for staging a military coup. According to one report, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley allegedly “feared … Trump’s ‘Reichstag moment,’ in which, like Adolf Hitler in 1933, he would manufacture a crisis in order to swoop in and rescue the nation from it.”Footnote 214 Enacting such a plan could have entailed Trump invoking the Insurrectionist Act to forcefully put down what he might have labeled a domestic rebellion.Footnote 215
The accusation that Army leaders reacted slowly due to some supporting Trump’s efforts to retake power gained traction amid Trump’s efforts to root out detractors at the Pentagon after his election loss. In November 2020, Trump terminated Mark Esper as Secretary of Defense and replaced other top DoD personnel with partisan loyalists.Footnote 216 This reportedly prompted some remaining officials to plan a “Saturday Night Massacre in reverse,” in which they would pledge to resign one by one to ensure that Trump could not execute a coup.Footnote 217 Charges of politicization were only amplified with reports that one of the individuals who failed to order the National Guard to the Capitol was the brother of former Trump national security adviser and election-denier Michael Flynn.Footnote 218
What led to the military’s delayed response on January 6 continues to prompt debate. Trump claimed, falsely, that he requested 10,000 National Guard troops be sent to the Capitol but was denied by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.Footnote 219 Although the Pentagon’s inspector general defended the military’s reaction, others have been more critical. Most prominently, whistleblower Col. Earl Matthews, who served on Trump’s National Security Council, published a thirty-six-page memo in which he accused the Army’s rationalization of its actions on January 6 as “worthy of the best Stalinist or North Korea propagandist.”Footnote 220 Matthews wrote that leaders in the D.C. Guard were ready to respond, but were held back, leaving them “stunned watching in the Armory.”Footnote 221
Ultimately, the U.S. Capitol was not a foreign battlefield, and the men and women who rioted on January 6 were not fighting an enemy state or terrorist group. Yet if even a small part of the U.S. military community could be persuaded to attack American civilians at the Capitol, it raises concerns about potential implications for foreign combat. For months, Trump, alongside Fox News and GOP Congress members, urged retaliation over baseless election rigging claims. January 6 reflected Trump empowering right-wing extremists to relinquish prior commitments to norms of restraint. Although exact parallels cannot be drawn to American servicemembers in war, the case suggests Trump’s power to change the basic orientation toward the use of force among a military population.
More broadly, this chapter showed that the political advantages of Trump’s overt challenges to IHL rested on the receptivity of the U.S. military community. By tapping into the military’s conservative, especially right-wing, elements, Trump was able to preempt pushback and frame his agenda as pro-military. The rise of far-right radicalization among active-duty servicemembers and veterans provided an opportunity that Trump, along with Fox News and GOP lawmakers, exploited. These developments reflected mounting politicization within the ranks, increasing the perceived validity of open attacks on IHL. The result shielded Trump from potential backlash with his GOP base, which might otherwise have been wary of straying from official military principles.
Open access