Did trump say that war veterans are suckers and losers?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple news reports and firsthand accounts say Donald Trump referred to some U.S. service members and war dead as “suckers” and “losers,” most prominently in a 2020 Atlantic article and corroborations by former aides such as John Kelly [1] [2]. Trump has denied those reports; fact-checkers and outlets note disputed specifics and altered clips have circulated, but several reputable sources and veterans’ advocates continue to cite the original allegations [3] [4].
1. The allegation and its origin — a multi-source Atlantic report
The central claim that Trump called veterans “suckers” and “losers” traces to a multi-source investigation published by The Atlantic in 2020 which described remarks linked to a 2018 trip to a World War I cemetery in France and to private conversations with senior staff; that reporting is the basis for much subsequent coverage and political debate [1] [2].
2. Corroboration from senior aides and veterans
Former White House chief of staff John Kelly publicly confirmed that Trump used the terms and explained the former president’s alleged attitude — “a person that thinks those who defend their country … are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them’” — statements that multiple outlets repeated as corroboration for The Atlantic’s account [2] [5].
3. Denials and competing claims
Trump has vehemently denied the Atlantic’s allegations, calling the reporting “totally false” and “disgraceful,” and some individuals have disputed certain attributions; campaign surrogates and allies have also pushed counter-narratives, while the DNC and Democratic groups have amplified the original claims in political messaging [6] [7] [4].
4. Fact-checks and altered media complicate the record
Independent fact-checkers have flagged manipulated or altered clips purporting to show Trump insulting soldiers during media calls; Reuters noted a viral video was altered and emphasized that Trump continues to dispute the Kelly account and The Atlantic’s story [3]. That does not by itself validate or disprove the Atlantic reporting, but it warns that some circulated evidence is not reliable [3].
5. Political framing and how actors use the claim
Both opponents and defenders use the allegation for political ends: Democrats and veterans’ groups cite the “suckers/losers” language to criticize Trump’s respect for service members and policy toward veterans, while Trump allies deny or minimize the reports and attack the sources as partisan [7] [4]. Congressional veterans publicly condemned the reported comments, illustrating how the story has been mobilized in legislative and public-opinion arenas [6].
6. Broader reporting and patterns cited by commentators
Long-form and investigative outlets (Rolling Stone, The Guardian, others referenced in the set) connect the “suckers/losers” allegations to a broader pattern of reported dismissals of military sacrifice and multiple anecdotes about Trump’s interactions with veterans and military ceremonies; those patterns have informed public perceptions even as individual incidents remain disputed [2] [8].
7. What the available sources do not settle
Available sources do not present an incontrovertible audiovisual smoking-gun of Trump uttering the exact words in a contemporaneous recording; instead, reporting rests on multi-source journalistic accounts, named corroborators like John Kelly, denials by Trump, and the presence of altered clips in circulation—which together leave factual gaps that reputable outlets continue to flag [1] [3].
8. Bottom line for readers
Reporting from The Atlantic and corroboration by former aides have strong influence on the public record that Trump called some veterans “suckers” and “losers,” but Trump’s denials and the existence of manipulated media mean the episode remains contested; readers should treat the Atlantic account and Kelly’s corroboration as the primary basis for the claim while noting that definitive real-time audiovisual proof is not presented in the cited coverage [1] [2] [3].