Follow us on social

In 2024, veterans voted Trump

In 2024, veterans voted Trump

Some say Harris's attempt to embrace old Iraq War hawks may have had the opposite effect

Reporting | Latest

According exit polls on Election Day, 12% of the voters in this presidential election had served in the U.S. military and 65% of them said they voted for Donald Trump, while 34% said they voted for Kamala Harris.

We still need a breakdown of age to see if this was generational. Some suggest that younger Republicans, especially more recent veterans, are among the biggest resisters to the War Party orthodoxies on Capitol Hill, including now-Vice President-elect JD Vance, who served as a Marine in Iraq. Former Democratic Congresswoman and Iraq War veteran, Tulsi Gabbard, who campaigned for Trump and recently turned Republican, has also been a fierce critic of Biden's Ukraine War policy and Washington's militarism overall.

In the last weeks of the campaign Trump dusted off his 2016 case against forever wars, criticizing Harris for embracing Iraq war supporters, particularly Liz Cheney.

Tuesday's results are certainly not an anomaly. According to a report issued by the Pew Research Center in September, about 61% of registered voters who said they had served in the military or military reserves were planning to vote for Trump while 37% backed Harris. This tracks with past elections. According to Pew, 60% of veterans voted for Trump in 2020, while 39% backed President Joe Biden.

A survey of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) membership this fall, however, said they were "evenly split" on the question of Harris and Trump. IAVA, which is non-partisan, says 90 percent of the 1,906 respondents deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan during those wars. The demographics of this particular group: 66% have earned a bachelor's degree or more, and 55% say they don't affiliate with any party. According to the poll, these voters were going 43% for Harris, 42% for Trump, and 15% for a third party candidate.

But in 2016, veterans in counties across several key swing states helped to put Trump over the top. Though Republicans had won these counties handily before, Trump outperformed predecessors like Sen. John McCain, a veteran of the Vietnam War, in counties with big military installations. Analysts over the years have said that Trump was able to tap into frustration in military communities with the the failing wars, endless deployment cycles, and the way veterans are treated once they get home. Trump was able to get these votes despite Democrats' accusations that he disparaged Gold Star families and McCain.

If the exit polls are to be believed, he was able to connect even more with this part of the electorate this year, despite hundreds of former national security officials and senior military officers signing a letter contending that Harris was the better candidate. In the waning days of the election, Trump's own former generals and top staff who served in the military called him unfit to serve and a fascist.

"It is hard to overstate how much righteous anger there is within the GWOT veteran community over the foreign and domestic policy failures of the last 23 years. Almost everyone has lost friends or family, experienced first hand the failures of the VA, and watched those responsible for the sustaining the system that perpetuated our foreign misadventures escape accountability," charged Dan Caldwell, Public Policy Advisor for Defense Priorities, and an Iraq War veteran.

"By doing things like campaigning with Liz Cheney and touting the endorsement of her father, Vice President Harris positioned herself as the defender of the people and policies that have inflicted so much pain on the veteran community. It is therefore not hard to see why the majority of the veteran community went with Trump."

Did younger vets really put more stock in Trump, and if so, was it for the reasons Caldwell claims? As more data comes in, perhaps we will know more about Trump's bump (and the Democrat's losses) among this important segment of the American electorate.


Top photo credit: Shutterstock/Christopher Lyzcen
Reporting | Latest
Somalia
Top image credit: U.S. forces host a range day with the Danab Brigade in Somalia, May 9, 2021. Special Operations Command Africa remains engaged with partner forces in Somalia in order to promote safety and stability across the Horn of Africa. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Zoe Russell)

Why the US can't beat al-Shabaab in Somalia

Africa

The New York Times reported earlier this month that recent gains by al-Shabaab Islamist militants in central and southern Somalia has prompted a debate within the State Department about closing the U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu and withdrawing most American personnel. At the forefront of some officials’ minds, according to the Times, are memories of recent foreign policy fiascos, such as the fall of the Afghan government amid a hasty American withdrawal in 2021.

There are good reasons to question why the U.S. has been unable to defeat al-Shabaab despite nearly 20 years of U.S. military involvement in the country. But the scale of the U.S. role is drastically different than that of Afghanistan, and the U.S. cannot necessarily be described as the most significant external security actor on the ground. At the same time, the Trump administration has given no indication that it will scale down drone strikes — meaning that the U.S. will continue to privilege military solutions.

keep readingShow less
Hegseth Guam
Top photo credit: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth departs Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, March 27, 2025. (DOD photo by U.S. Air Force Madelyn Keech)

Hegseth goes to 'spear point' Guam to prep for war with China

Asia-Pacific

The Guam headlines from the recent visit of the U.S. secretary of defense are only part of Secretary Hegseth’s maiden visit to the Pacific. It is Guam’s place in the larger picture - where the island fits into U.S. strategy - that helps us understand how the “tip of the spear” is being positioned. Perhaps overlooked, the arrangement of the “Guam piece” gives us a better sense not only of Guam’s importance to the United States, but also of how the U.S. sees the larger geopolitical competition taking shape.

Before he landed on Guam, the secretary of defense circulated a secret memo that prioritized U.S. readiness for a potential conflict with China over Taiwan. At the same time, it was reported that U.S. intelligence assessed that Guam would be “a major target of Chinese missile strikes” if China launched an invasion of Taiwan.

keep readingShow less
Pope Francis' legacy of inter-faith diplomacy
Top image credit: Pope Francis met with Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, one of the Muslim world's leading authorities on March 6, 2021 in Najaf, Iraq. (Vatican Media via REUTERS)

Pope Francis' legacy of inter-faith diplomacy

Global Crises

One of the most enduring tributes to Pope Francis, who passed away this Easter, would be the appreciation for his legacy of inter-religious diplomacy, a vision rooted in his humility, compassion, and a commitment to bridging divides — between faiths, cultures, and ideologies — from a standpoint of mutual respect and tolerance.

Among his most profound contributions is his historic meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf, Iraq, on March 6, 2021. What made this meeting a true landmark in inter-faith dialogue was the fact it brought together, for the first time, the spiritual leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics and one of the most revered figures in Shia Islam, with influence on tens of millions of Shia Muslims globally. In a humble, yet moving ceremony, the meeting took place in al-Sistani’s modest home in Najaf. A frail al-Sistani, who rarely receives visitors and typically remains seated, stood to greet the 84-year-old Pope and held his hand, in a gesture that underscored mutual respect.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.