How did the VFW's public stance on Donald Trump change from 2016 to 2024?

1. 2016: A targeted public scolding after the Khan episode

In 2016 the VFW publicly blasted Trump after his comments about Ghazala Khan, calling the remarks “out-of-bounds” and drawing a direct rebuke from VFW leader Brian Duffy, an instance of the organization condemning a candidate’s specific conduct rather than issuing broader partisan endorsements ^[1].

2. 2016 context: engagement with candidates at conventions and mixed reactions

That same election cycle the VFW still served as a venue for campaign engagement — hosting speeches and receiving attention from multiple candidates — and some veterans at VFW events reported being underwhelmed by the choices on offer, underscoring that the organization’s public voice then focused on veterans’ policy concerns and reactions to candidate behavior rather than wholesale political alignment ^[4].

3. 2016–2020 background: pattern of criticizing military-related comments

The VFW’s 2016 rebuke fits into a broader pattern of the organization calling out leaders of either party when remarks appeared to denigrate service members; past tensions had also included protests of presidential comments seen as mischaracterizing VFW members’ media consumption, showing the group’s willingness to defend its constituency’s honor across administrations ^[5].

4. 2024: Formal, repeated condemnation over Medal of Honor remarks

By 2024 the VFW’s public stance had crystallized into formal organizational condemnation when the group called Donald Trump’s comments comparing the Medal of Honor to civilian awards “asinine,” explicitly saying the remarks diminished the significance of the nation’s highest award for valor and issuing a high-profile rebuke in a press release and statements quoted widely in the press ^{[6] [7] [2]}.

5. From episodic rebuke to organizational admonition — what changed and what stayed the same

The change from 2016 to 2024 is less an abrupt partisan conversion than a shift in frequency and organizational posture: where 2016 produced a sharp targeted rebuke of a specific episode, 2024 saw the VFW repeatedly and publicly admonish the same individual for multiple comments touching veterans’ sacrifice and honors, signaling a lower tolerance for public remarks perceived to denigrate service members; at the same time the VFW continued to emphasize institutional norms — for example, statements about the transfer of power and the organization’s broader role — indicating it still frames interventions in terms of defending veterans’ dignity and democratic stability rather than endorsing a party ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Alternative readings and implicit agendas

Observers can read the VFW’s posture two ways: as principled defense of military honor, evidenced by formal statements condemning specific comments about wounded service members and medals ^{[2] [7]}, or as an organization navigating political pressure — responding more loudly when high-profile remarks generate public outrage and media attention — a dynamic that benefits the VFW’s visibility and fundraising even as critics argue it risks being perceived as politicized; the VFW’s own release about election results underscores an institutional interest in preserving nonpartisan legitimacy while still speaking forcefully on veterans’ issues ^[3].

7. Limits of the public record and what remains unclear

The available reporting documents instances where the VFW publicly rebuked Trump in 2016 and again in 2024 and describes the content of those statements, but does not provide a comprehensive accounting of every internal deliberation, membership poll, or private communications that shaped those public stances, so assessments about internal shifts in leadership sentiment or strategic intent are not definitively supported by the cited sources ^{[1] [6] [2] [3]}.