Have veterans groups or military leaders responded to claims Trump called them suckers and losers?
Executive summary
Reporting beginning with a 2020 Atlantic article alleges Donald Trump called U.S. service members who died in war “losers” and “suckers,” and that those comments were repeated and amplified in subsequent coverage and political messaging; multiple outlets and actors — including former White House officials and veterans-focused critics — have publicly referenced or rebutted those reports [1] [2] [3]. Responses have been polarized: veterans, lawmakers and advocacy organizations have denounced the alleged comments, while Trump and some supporters have disputed or dismissed the reporting as false or politically motivated [4] [2] [5].
1. The allegation and its origin: anonymous accounts in The Atlantic
The core claim — that Trump called dead American soldiers “losers” and “suckers” and declined to visit a cemetery for that reason — traces to a multi-source Atlantic piece published in 2020 that quoted anonymous administration officials recounting comments during a 2018 France trip, including “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers,” and a separate remark labeling Marines at Belleau Wood “suckers” [3] [1].
2. Veterans groups, lawmakers and critics condemned the reports
After the Atlantic and subsequent reporting, elected officials with military backgrounds and veterans’ advocates publicly slammed the reported remarks as appalling and an insult to service members and families. Congressional veterans and other critics said the alleged comments demeaned veterans, with statements citing personal and family military service to rebut the characterization [4].
3. Former military and administration officials corroborated elements
Some former senior officials have supported the basic outlines of the reporting. For example, former White House chief of staff John Kelly has been reported to confirm that Trump used the term “suckers” in an earlier 2018 exchange, a point cited by fact-checking outlets and news coverage challenging Trump’s denials [2].
4. Pushback from Trump and his allies: denial and political framing
Trump and his supporters have denied or minimized the reporting, calling it invented or the work of biased outlets. Trump’s public denials — and framing the story as made up by a “third-rate magazine” — have been widely noted by fact-checkers and news organizations as part of the contested record [2] [6].
5. How news outlets and fact-checkers treated the evidence
Fact-checking and mainstream outlets have traced the allegations back to the Atlantic story and documented contemporaneous sourcing, while also noting denials and the difficulty of independently verifying anonymous quotes. News organizations such as The Hill and Newsweek summarised the Atlantic reporting, referenced official corroboration from some former staffers, and recorded the political back-and-forth [2] [6] [3].
6. Political actors used the claim in campaign and advocacy messaging
Democratic groups and campaigns repeatedly used the “suckers/losers” reporting as a political cudgel, circulating attack ads and statements that tied alleged remarks to policy criticisms — for example, accusing Trump of seeking cuts to veterans’ benefits and using the reported language to question his respect for service members [7] [5].
7. What veterans themselves have done in response (available sources do not mention details)
Available sources document statements by Congressional veterans and advocacy groups condemning the reported comments [4], but they do not comprehensively catalogue how major veterans service organizations (like the VFW, American Legion, or Disabled American Veterans) officially responded; such organization-level reactions are not found in current reporting provided here.
8. Why the dispute matters for public trust and institutions
The disagreement is consequential: the claim implicates the commander-in-chief’s respect for military service and has been leveraged to argue both political fitness and policy priorities for veterans. Reporting shows both corroboration from some former insiders and categorical denials — leaving the public debate driven by competing narratives rather than a single, independently verifiable record [3] [2].
Limitations and next steps: this analysis is limited to the supplied reporting. For a fuller accounting of reactions from specific veterans service organizations or an evidentiary adjudication of the exact remarks, consult direct statements from major veterans groups and the original Atlantic reporting and its sources [3] [1].