Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did Trump's war veterans remarks affect his approval ratings among veterans in the 2020 election?
Executive Summary
Donald Trump’s public comments about veterans — including fact‑checked exaggerations of his veterans’ gains and widely reported allegations he called some soldiers “losers” and “suckers” — produced a mixed but measurable effect on his standing with veterans in the 2020 cycle: some polls show solid backing overall while others record clear erosion among younger and active‑duty service members. The evidence in the supplied analyses indicates no single uniform shift; instead, age, gender, and service status drove variation, with older veterans remaining likeliest to support Trump while younger and active‑duty respondents showed lower favorability or preference for Biden [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the veterans vote looked steady on the surface but wasn’t monolithic
Public polling shortly before and during the 2020 election showed aggregate veteran support for Trump remained substantial, sometimes in the low‑to‑mid 50s percentage range, creating an appearance of continuity from 2016 to 2020. Multiple analyses report that overall veteran intention or reported vote share favored Trump in many polls [2] [4]. That headline figure masks internal divisions: the same sources note wide splits by age and gender, and the persistence of majority backing in cross‑sectional snapshots does not prove his remarks had no effect. Fact‑checks documenting exaggerations about veterans’ gains and attacks on figures like Sen. John McCain generated media coverage that likely influenced certain subgroups even as the overall proportion expressing support held up [1] [5].
2. The fracture by age and service status that polling reveals
Military and veterans‑focused surveys recorded stronger Trump support among older veterans (55+) and weaker support among younger veterans and active‑duty personnel, with some polls showing majorities of younger veterans preferring Biden. The Military Times and other outlets cited in the analyses found older veterans driving Trump’s margin while active duty respondents and younger cohorts shifted toward Biden or registered higher unfavorable ratings for Trump [2] [3]. That pattern indicates Trump’s rhetoric and controversies around veteran issues resonated differently across generations and career phases; older veterans’ views likely reflected service era, policy priorities, or partisan realignment, whereas younger and currently serving members reacted more strongly to conduct and policy controversies.
3. The role of highly publicized controversies and fact‑checks
High‑profile fact‑checks and veteran protests placed Trump’s remarks and behavior in the public eye, with outlets documenting inaccuracies in his claims about veterans’ benefits and critiquing derogatory anecdotes about service members. These reports framed the story for many voters and veteran organizations, producing targeted reputational damage among those attentive to credibility and dignity in veteran treatment [1] [5]. Yet the analyses show that media coverage did not uniformly translate into vote defections; some veterans maintained support despite criticism, highlighting the distinction between reputational hits and electoral decisions, which are influenced by broader partisan and policy considerations.
4. Contradictory snapshots: some polls show erosion, others stability
Different polls reached divergent conclusions: one Military Times poll cited an erosion in favorable views among military respondents with a tilt toward Biden, while other veteran‑focused surveys reported majority backing for Trump close to 50–60 percent. The discrepancy stems from timing, sampling (active duty vs. veteran), and question wording, which produced conflicting portrayals—some showing a dip in Trump’s favorability among service members after controversies and others showing steady vote intentions [3] [4]. This illustrates how methodological variation shapes narratives about whether controversies “moved” the veteran electorate in 2020.
5. What the evidence omits and why that matters for interpretation
The supplied analyses do not provide longitudinal individual‑level tracking to prove causation — i.e., we cannot definitively say which veterans changed their views because of specific remarks. There is also limited cross‑tabulation by race, branch, or geography in the materials, and active‑duty samples differ from veteran populations in significant ways. Those missing data points matter because they determine whether observed shifts reflect new persuadable voters or compositional differences in samples [2] [3]. Without panel data or consistent question framing across polls, the most defensible conclusion is that Trump’s remarks contributed to uneven effects rather than a uniform collapse or surge in veteran approval.
6. Bottom line: mixed effect, decisive only within subgroups
Synthesizing the analyses yields a clear, evidence‑backed conclusion: Trump’s veterans‑related remarks and controversies produced measurable but nonuniform impacts in 2020—solid overall veteran support in several polls coexisted with significant declines among younger and active‑duty respondents and with reputational hits amplified by fact‑checks and protests. The result was a veteran electorate that remained a net asset for Trump in many snapshots while simultaneously showing vulnerabilities and cleavages that opponents could exploit in targeted demographics [1] [2] [3].