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
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.