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.
Who first reported Donald Trump's suckers and losers remarks about soldiers?
Executive Summary
The core factual finding is that The Atlantic first published the report alleging Donald Trump called U.S. war dead “suckers” and “losers” in 2020, based on multiple anonymous sources cited by reporter Jeffrey Goldberg; that account has been repeatedly discussed, denied by Trump and aides, and later supported by corroborating statements from former White House chief of staff John Kelly and other officials [1] [2]. Subsequent coverage, confirmation attempts, and fact checks have produced a mix of corroboration, denials, and clarifications: multiple outlets note The Atlantic as the originating report while later reporting added testimonies and dispute over exact wording and context [3] [4] [5]. This analysis extracts the key claims, shows how contemporaneous confirmations evolved, and highlights where reporting remains contested.
1. Who first published the explosive allegation — a clear origin story
The first public appearance of the specific phrasing that Trump called fallen U.S. service members “suckers” and “losers” traces to The Atlantic’s September 2020 article by Jeffrey Goldberg, which attributed the quotes to four unnamed sources with direct knowledge of the remarks [1]. That initial piece is consistently identified across later summaries and fact-checks as the originating report; major subsequent accounts refer back to The Atlantic as the provenance of the allegation [6] [2]. The Atlantic’s role as the original publisher is central to how the story entered national discourse: subsequent reporting and public responses framed themselves as either confirming, qualifying, or disputing the magazine’s claims, and many analyses start by establishing that provenance before evaluating corroboration [3].
2. What corroboration emerged after the initial report — slow, partial confirmation
After The Atlantic’s publication, some officials and insiders later provided confirmations or supportive statements, most notably former White House chief of staff John Kelly, who publicly corroborated elements of the reporting by indicating Trump made disparaging comments about U.S. service members [7] [5]. Fact-checking outlets and national press pieces documented these confirmations as adding weight to the Atlantic account, while noting they did not always reproduce the precise phrasing or context contained in the original article [4] [8]. The pattern that emerges is partial corroboration rather than incontrovertible proof of every quoted word; reporting cited multiple witnesses and secondhand accounts that collectively buttressed the original allegation without universally producing a single, on-record eyewitness who heard the exact quote as reported [2].
3. What denials and disputes exist — context and competing narratives
From the outset, Trump and his allies denied the Atlantic report and disputed the words attributed to him, and some later fact-checks identified related media manipulations or altered media components that complicated public perception [9]. Reports also highlighted how anonymous sourcing and differing recollections among officials produced variations in accounts about wording, timing, and context, which critics used to question the reliability of the allegation despite later confirmations [2] [9]. Media critics and supporters framed these disputes differently: supporters argued corroborations from officials like Kelly reinforced the Atlantic’s claims, while defenders of Trump emphasized denials, disputed memory, and the lack of publicly available firsthand recordings to assert uncertainty [8].
4. How fact-checkers treated the story — verification with caveats
Independent fact-checks and news analyses treated The Atlantic’s report as a serious allegation that merited scrutiny; many fact-checks affirmed that key elements were corroborated by later statements, while also underscoring limits such as anonymous sourcing and absence of direct tape evidence for the exact phrasing [4] [9]. Reuters and other outlets investigated related video claims and found instances where media had been manipulated or altered, demonstrating how verification requires careful attention to source provenance and media integrity [9]. Fact-checkers emphasized corroboration of the broader claim — that disparaging remarks were made — while highlighting evidentiary gaps about verbatim quotes and context, resulting in nuanced verdicts rather than binary confirmations.
5. The big-picture takeaway — provenance, corroboration, and remaining questions
The durable headline is that The Atlantic was the first to publish the “suckers” and “losers” allegation in 2020, and subsequent reporting added corroborative testimonies that strengthened the core claim that disparaging remarks were made about U.S. service members, particularly through John Kelly’s later statements [1] [7]. At the same time, denials, variations in witness accounts, and fact-checkers’ caution about exact wording and context mean some elements remain contested, leaving the public record with a clear origin and partial corroboration but not universal, audio-recorded proof of the precise quoted language [2] [9]. Readers should judge the claim knowing The Atlantic is the originator, corroboration followed, and substantive debate over wording and context persists.