Political campaigns are often fraught with controversy, but there are certain boundaries that candidates, historically, have been hesitant to cross. Arlington National Cemetery, a sacred place for many, where countless soldiers are buried, is one of those boundaries. However, a recent incident involving former President Donald J. Trump has challenged long-standing norms about how politicians engage with this revered site.
A troubling history of politicizing sacred ground:
Politicians, regardless of party affiliation, have sometimes crossed the line in using Arlington National Cemetery as a backdrop for a political message. One notable incident occurred in November 1999, when Senator John McCain, then the Republican presidential nominee, used footage of himself solemnly walking into Arlington in a campaign ad. It didn’t take long before the military pointed out that his campaign had not obtained the necessary permission to film on these hallowed grounds, insisting that Arlington was no place for partisan activities. McCain, known for his service as a Navy pilot and his reputation as a Vietnam War hero, immediately recognized the mistake. The campaign promptly removed the footage, and McCain publicly acknowledged the mistake, regretting the decision.
Trump’s different approach: Confrontation over reconciliation:
Fast forward to the present day, and a similar situation unfolded, but with a dramatically different outcome. During a recent visit to Arlington National Cemetery, Donald Trump’s campaign was reported to have filmed in a restricted area without permission. According to the military, such permission would never have been granted, as it would have violated federal law prohibiting partisan activities on military grounds.
Rather than following the path of candidates before him, who immediately corrected their course, Trump’s campaign took a confrontational approach. The military issued a rare public rebuke to Trump campaign officials for their conduct, specifically for allegedly shoving a cemetery worker who tried to stop the filming. Instead of admitting fault or apologizing, the campaign responded by criticizing the cemetery worker, accusing him of experiencing a “mental health episode.”
The fallout: A clash of norms and values:
The Trump campaign’s response has shocked people, not only for its disregard for rules but also for its apparent departure from the way previous candidates have handled similar situations. Other politicians who find themselves in similar situations — such as John Bel Edwards in 2015 — have quickly changed tack when faced with backlash. Edwards, a Democrat running for governor in Louisiana, removed an image of Arlington from a campaign ad after a grieving mother expressed discomfort at seeing the cemetery being used for political gain.
In contrast, Trump’s team has placed controversial images online, including photos and video of the former president laying flowers and giving a thumbs-up near the graves of Marines killed during the withdrawal from Afghanistan. The footage also showed other graves, including the grave of a Green Beret who committed suicide, further fueling criticism.
History of defiance: Trump and military criticisms:
Trump’s handling of the incident is consistent with his broader history of challenging political norms, particularly those related to the military. During the 2016 presidential election campaign, Trump suggested that John McCain was not a war hero because he was captured in Vietnam, a statement that sparked widespread outrage. “I like people who weren’t captured,” Trump said at the time, dismissing McCain’s five-and-a-half-year sentence as a prisoner of war.
Trump’s interactions with veterans and their families have also sparked further controversy. In 2016, he criticized the parents of a Muslim soldier killed in Iraq who spoke at the Democratic National Convention. In 2017, he reportedly told the widow of a soldier killed in Niger that her husband “knew what he signed up for,” a comment that was widely condemned as insensitive. His former chief of staff, John F. Kelly, confirmed in 2023 that Trump had privately referred to American soldiers killed in combat as “losers” and “idiots” — a claim Trump has denied.
Expert opinion: Unprecedented territory in civil-military relations:
Political science experts such as Duke University’s Peter D. Feaver say political entanglements with the military are nothing new, but Trump’s approach in this particular case is unprecedented. Normally, when politicians get caught in such situations, they apologize or clarify misunderstandings. However, the Trump campaign’s decision to “double down” on its actions even after the military publicly called them out represents a new low in civil-military relations.