UJ
—
At the beginning of his first term, President Donald Trump appointed several prominent positions with retired generals—seasoned veterans who held leadership roles during the post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, a group of enlisted soldiers, infantrymen, and junior officers who executed rather than devised America’s so-called global war on terror have emerged as key advisers in Trump’s administration.
Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard all began their military careers as lower- to mid-ranking soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Only Waltz, a former Green Beret, is over 50 years of age.
Collectively, they represent a significant faction of Trump’s national security team and embody a disillusioned generation of younger veterans who often express skepticism towards traditional institutions deemed to have failed them amid years of indecisive conflicts in the Middle East.
This perspective aligns closely with Trump’s rhetoric, which includes a stated reluctance to deploy American military forces overseas and a broader distrust of government agencies and the so-called deep state.
Many of Trump’s appointees from the ranks of the global war on terror—particularly Gabbard and Hegseth—have encountered significant criticism from both parties regarding their qualifications for cabinet-level roles, which are typically viewed as requiring extensive experience in strategic foreign policy oversight or leadership of larger organizations.
However, both have contended that their frontline experience equips them with a deep understanding of how policy decisions made in Washington impact real-life situations.
Last week, the prominence of Hegseth and Vance was noteworthy at a NATO meeting in Brussels and an international security conference in Munich. Both conveyed messages reflecting Trump’s populist foreign policy values. Hegseth, an Army veteran, urged Europe to “take responsibility for its own security” and insisted that NATO allies raise their defense expenditures.
Meanwhile, Vance, a former Marine Corps member, delivered a scathing address to European allies, minimizing the threats posed by Russia and China and accusing European democracies of stifling free speech and refusing collaboration with right-wing parties—a statement that Germany’s Defense Minister Boris Pistorius labeled “unacceptable.”
Former veterans in Congress, from both parties, recognize that veterans of the global war on terror are uniquely positioned to express broader social grievances.
“When it comes to politics, veterans of the global war on terror tend to be more skeptical than supportive. Many feel they have been sent to fight based on misleading justifications and that the systems intended to provide oversight have repeatedly failed them,” remarked Democratic Rep. Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger with three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
‘Far from democratic’: Study says US military intervention in the world is backfiring
“The connection with the broader American electorate,” Crow said, “is a profound frustration with broken promises and being misled — whether it’s economic distress, given the historically low upward mobility, or the fact that promises during the war on terror have been unfulfilled.”
“In both scenarios, it was our institutions and systems that failed the people… and that frustration is genuine.”
Veterans of these campaigns hold a distinctive moral authority to criticize traditional political elites, asserted Allison Jaslaw, an Iraq veteran leading a GWOT veterans’ advocacy group in Washington, DC. Although this veteran cohort faces challenges like suicide and PTSD, the politicians “in charge… remain unscathed,” Jaslaw noted. “Thus, we occupy a unique position of authority.”
‘Salute and execute’
During Trump’s first tenure, a succession of acting and retired three- and four-star generals — including his initial defense secretary, Jim Mattis; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley; and chief of staff, John Kelly — frequently exasperated the president with their attempts to moderate his transactional or isolationist foreign policy inclinations.
The attraction of choosing individuals like Hegseth and Gabbard lies in the fact that they weren’t general officers, according to a former US official familiar with Trump’s circle.
Appointing lower-ranking officers and enlisted personnel to top positions signifies a clear rejection of traditional elites—such as four-star generals—and also serves as a safeguard for Trump that ensures these officials will follow his directives, the individual explained.
“He favors individuals who are ready to salute and execute,” they remarked. “These individuals have been employed in the last five to seven years, unlike retired generals who often occupied board positions and were spoon-fed information during their service.”
Furthermore, they might not carry the same attachment to traditional multinational power structures, like NATO, which Trump’s previous generals aimed to defend—because they didn’t engage with those organizations at the leadership level during their tenure.
They could also exhibit greater skepticism towards deploying American troops in global conflicts, wars from which Trump sought to withdraw military forces during his first term. According to Pew research, most veterans of the global war on terror consider the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts not worth the cost.
“My vocal stance on ending these unnecessary regime-change wars stems from witnessing firsthand the severe human cost of war and its effects on my fellow service members,” Gabbard stated in 2019, while still affiliated with the Democratic party. “I will strive to do everything within my power to prevent sending our service members into harmful situations fighting in these ineffective, counterproductive wars.”
This stance should not be mistaken for a shared sense of isolationism, as noted by Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Republican and former Navy SEAL, emphasizing that Trump did deploy additional forces to Syria to combat ISIS during the early days of his first term.
“Trump did not shy away from using military force,” Crenshaw stated. However, political leaders in Washington have long struggled to communicate the justification for the war in Afghanistan—“to prevent further 9/11 attacks,” he asserted—and “that is why the American people grow weary of these conflicts — the desire to avoid wastefulness.”
GWOT veterans, he continued, “have been advocating for more leadership over the years.”
Other GWOT veterans interviewed by UJ highlighted that not all veterans share the same political views or experiences and many clearly differentiate the service of various officials within the Trump administration. The level of violence experienced by service members fluctuated considerably throughout the years of their service, and in their own community, GWOT veterans are notorious for internal disputes regarding the legitimacy of one another’s military service.
According to many, Waltz stands out as a more conventional institutionalist compared to Hegseth and Gabbard, who appear to carry a noticeable grievance against the military establishment, noted Seth Lynn, a retired Marine Corps officer and head of a nonprofit that aids veterans in pursuing public office.
Hegseth has fiercely criticized the military’s diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, while Gabbard has denounced “warmongers” in Washington.
Vance, on the other hand, has not highlighted his military background as central to his political narrative, primarily focusing on his Appalachian family connections, Lynn observed.
Crow and Jaslaw both contend that some of Trump’s selections are taking advantage of the public’s trust due to their military service, which underscores what academic experts describe as the “civilian-military divide”—the gap in public perception of the military in a nation with a relatively small all-volunteer force.
Jaslaw particularly noted Hegseth’s advocacy for service members accused of war crimes.
UJ reported in 2019 that Hegseth, during his time at Fox News, privately urged Trump to pardon several convicted war criminals. Trump subsequently pardoned Army Maj. Matthew Golsteyn and 1st Lt. Clint Lorance and restored the rank of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who had previously been demoted.
This controversial decision went against the recommendations of then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and other senior military leaders, who cautioned that a presidential pardon could compromise the integrity of the military judicial system.
Nonetheless, advocates for Gallagher and other service members accused or convicted of war crimes have defended Trump’s actions as a means of supporting military personnel who carry out tasks that others are unwilling to undertake.
“I don’t ignore the irony when someone takes that respect and reverence and uses it to dismantle the very system that upholds it,” Crow remarked.
