In-group Loyalty

In domestic criminal justice, Trump frequently presents himself as defending what he depicts as the main “in-group” (law-abiding citizens) against threats from the main “out-group” (criminals, disproportionately minorities in urban areas). For example, he has repeatedly called for protecting American suburbs from social unrest,Footnote ¹⁵ which reflects broader efforts by Republicans to combat domestic crime with in-group/out-group appeals.Footnote ¹⁶ However, the same logic does not necessarily make conservatives more supportive of IHL. Domestically, conservatives tend to see victims of crimes as the in-group and perpetrators as the out-group. In war, however, they may be more inclined to see U.S. servicemembers as the in-group and foreign adversaries as the out-group.

Trump’s war crime interventions have been the clearest manifestation of turning support for U.S. servicemembers into a litmus test of in-group loyalty. By framing his clemencies as helping in-group American fighters, Trump has commonly pivoted the discussion toward the moral duty of voters to defend their countrymen in uniform. According to one journalist, for example, Trump’s war crime clemencies represent “a rational extension of Trumpist nationalism, which … sees violence against outsiders as a redemptive expression of national loyalty [emphasis added].”Footnote ¹⁷ Another writer summarizes Trump’s military agenda as reflecting the binary: “You’re either uncritically and unconditionally with us – the U.S. military – or with them – the terrorists.”Footnote ¹⁸

One tactic that Trump has used to forge in-group connections with conservative voters is how he refers to court-martialed combatants. Trump rarely employs standard, impersonal identifiers such as “U.S. servicemembers” or “America’s troops.” Instead, he invokes the first-person plural pronoun, “our,” to reinforce their in-group status. For example, he declared, “We’re going to take care of our warriors…. I will always stick up for our great fighters.”Footnote ¹⁹ Other allies of Trump have routinely borrowed from such phrasing. For example, Pete Hegseth has said “we need to back our warfighters.”Footnote ²⁰ Rep. Duncan Hunter of California has condemned prosecutors who have “been damning to our warriors on the front lines”Footnote ²¹ [emphasis added in all the above quotes].

Explicit appeals to “our boys” and “our warriors” mirror language that Trump employs in other contexts to draw a moral circle around in-groups. Scholar Victor Davis Hanson, for example, has observed that Trump’s use of “our” is how he earns the loyalty of rank-and-file conservatives. “The supposedly callous, spoiled, egotistical and privileged Trump early in his campaign began using the first-plural personal pronoun our for the heartland’s supposed losers,” Hanson stated. “Suddenly the nation heard of ‘our miners,’ ‘our farmers,’ ‘our vets,’ and ‘our workers.’”Footnote ²² Similarly, in reference to Trump calling on January 6 supporters to “take our country back,” a writer noted that “[t]he implication of the word ‘our’ is that America has fallen into the wrong hands: Democrats, minorities and urban elites.”Footnote ²³

By intervening on behalf of U.S. servicemembers who physically resemble a traditional image of “GI Joe” – that of a “red blooded, clean-cut” American in uniform – Trump has also reinforced an in-group connection with conservative voters. The apparent implication is that Trump’s base can more easily empathize with troops who they could imagine being their brothers, friends, or neighbors.Footnote ²⁴ This imagery reflects the accusation that Trump has used court-martialed troops as “political props”Footnote ²⁵ and “mascot[s] for … reelection.”Footnote ²⁶ Although Trump did not expressly mention race when granting his war crime clemencies, his defense of all-white servicemembers is notable given allegations of efforts to activate “white victimhood” in other contexts.Footnote ²⁷

Multiple observers have commented on the looks of the servicemembers whom Trump helped. For example, Paul Rieckhoff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America has stated that “[Eddie] Gallagher … [was] a perfect fit [for Trump]…. He’s handsome, he’s heroic, he’s got a beautiful wife. He’s a Rambo version of the same story Trump has been telling over and over.”Footnote ²⁸ A writer described Clint Lorance as having “the kind of bearing garrison commanders love: Blond and blue-eyed, he looked … ‘like Captain America.’”Footnote ²⁹ On social media, one Twitter user commented, “When I saw Gallagher and his wife I thought ‘central casting.’ That’s what 45* says whenever he’s talking about appointing people. Those two look like characters in a movie.”Footnote ³⁰ A Reddit poster remarked, “Let’s face it, Trump stepped in because Gallagher looks straight out of Central Casting and has a hot blonde wife.”Footnote ³¹

The idea of Trump’s clemencies involving “central casting” extended to him hosting a photo-op with Eddie GallagherFootnote ³² and telling aides that he “want[ed] to take his war criminal buddies on the campaign trail.”Footnote ³³ Trump has acknowledged using the tactic in other contexts. For example, he invoked the “central casting” phrase in nominating Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of Defense James Mattis.Footnote ³⁴ One journalist reported on Trump’s “mostly white casting,” noting that “[p]otential hires’ appearances have always weighed heavily on Trump’s decisions and he has been open about touting the ‘central casting’ appeal.”Footnote ³⁵ A CNN article entitled, “‘Central Casting’: Trump Is Talking More Than Ever about Men’s Looks,” recounted that “Trump likes people he believes look the part.”Footnote ³⁶

Apart from in-group loyalty, Trump has also used its complement, out-group aversion, to solidify backing for publicly challenging IHL. By presenting fighters and even civilians from adversarial countries as out-group enemies, Trump has consistently tried to legitimize flouting military rules by presenting such individuals as undeserving of legal protections. The rationale is that just like being a U.S. servicemember entitles one to special privileges, being a foreigner with sympathies counter to America demonstrates a moral inferiority, and a lack of humanity. Trump has not only justified a permissive attitude toward openly challenging the law of war. He has regularly glorified illicit behavior and treated American servicemembers who perpetrated crimes as heroes.

Trump has aggressively used dehumanizing language to underscore the out-group nature of U.S. enemies. For example, at a Republican debate in 2016, Trump advocated for waterboarding by railing against “animals over in the Middle East.”Footnote ³⁷ At a rally later that year, Trump said that the U.S. was “dealing with animals” when it allowed immigrants to enter the country from terrorist nations.Footnote ³⁸ In 2017, Trump described ISIS combatants as “sneaky, dirty rats” in a Fox News interview.Footnote ³⁹ The next year, Trump referred to the culprits of a terrorist attack in London as “animals [that] are crazy.”Footnote ⁴⁰ After the high-profile killing of ISIS head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2019, Trump remarked that al-Baghdadi “died like a dog” and labeled him “a gutless animal [emphasis added in all the above quotes].”Footnote ⁴¹

Dehumanizing language parallels references that Trump has made domestically. For example, Trump has called MS-13 gang members residing in America “animals.”Footnote ⁴² He compared former Black White House staffer Omarosa Manigault-Newman to a “dog.”Footnote ⁴³ He also referred to Baltimore as a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.”Footnote ⁴⁴ Legal expert Andrew Cohen observes that “Trump rush[es] to call human beings ‘animals’ … because the tactic always works – or at least always works well enough with a steady segment of the American population.”Footnote ⁴⁵ One journalist notes that “‘[a]nimals’ is so ingrained in … [Trump’s] rhetoric about immigrant criminals and terrorists – a group defined in part by themselves being foreigners … – that he applies it liberally and often.”Footnote ⁴⁶

Trump has also leveraged out-group aversion to rationalize open challenges to IHL through inciting ethnic prejudice. According to one writer, for example, Trump’s war crime clemencies had a subliminal racial and religious tinge: “Murders, Trump is effectively telling the troops he commands, are not really murders when the corpses are brown and Muslim.”Footnote ⁴⁷ Elsewhere, Trump once claimed that in New Jersey he saw “thousands and thousands” of Muslims rejoice over 9/11.Footnote ⁴⁸ In 2016, Trump said, “I think Islam hates us.”Footnote ⁴⁹ In 2020, following his order to kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani, Trump retweeted a fake picture of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wearing traditional Islamic headwear, alongside the phrase “The corrupted Dems.”Footnote ⁵⁰

Such words again echo tactics that Trump has employed in a domestic setting. Most clearly, this manifests in repeated allegations of race-baiting and xenophobia. Trump’s activation of out-group aversion has been exhibited in policy: for instance, in issuing a travel ban on Muslim-majority countriesFootnote ⁵¹ and in a national emergency declaration to build a U.S.–Mexico border wall.Footnote ⁵² It also comes in the form of inflammatory, racially charged language. For example, Trump has denounced immigration from “sh*thole countries,”Footnote ⁵³ stoked fears about “caravans” from Central America,Footnote ⁵⁴ referred to Mexicans as “rapists” and people “bringing drugs … [and] crime,”Footnote ⁵⁵ and claimed that there were “very fine people on both sides” in the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.Footnote ⁵⁶

Authority

Trump has gone out of his way to aggressively tout and uphold the police as essential authority figures. One journalist, for example, has even described Trump’s “‘law and order’ election message” as expressly “tak[ing] on an authoritarian tinge.”Footnote ⁵⁷ Deference to authority is a core element underpinning Republican respect for law enforcement. However, this value can again take on a different meaning in foreign wars. Rather than defer to legal officials, such as military lawyers, to determine the permissibility of military conduct, conservatives may be more apt to submit to the commander-in-chief. By downplaying the importance of IHL and by meddling in the U.S. military justice system, Trump has used his executive authority to justify the impunity agenda.

Trump has claimed authority over the military’s legal code by making explicit pronouncements about it. In 2016, for instance, Trump insisted that he could compel U.S. servicemembers to violate IHL, declaring, “Believe me…. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”Footnote ⁵⁸ According to one journalist, Trump’s assertion reflected an “authoritarian misconception.”Footnote ⁵⁹ Another writer remarked that “Trump … present[s] himself as a strong man … ungoverned by rules or wimpy institutional norms or tenets such as the Geneva Conventions…. [H]e envisions … an authoritarian state in which … war criminals are misunderstood victims.”Footnote ⁶⁰ One commentator called Trump’s war crime clemencies an effort to “hype authoritarian support among his most rabid supporters” [emphasis added in all of the above quotes].Footnote ⁶¹

Trump has suggested that his authority over the military is so total that it allows him to legally deploy force against American civilians. In the wake of Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, for example, Trump proposed invoking the Insurrectionist Act to quell social unrest.Footnote ⁶² According to accounts, Trump called on the military to “[c]rack [protestors’] … skulls!,” “beat the f–k out [of them],” and “[j]ust shoot them.”Footnote ⁶³ Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said that Trump had “sole authority to invoke the Insurrection Act.”Footnote ⁶⁴ In an article entitled “Trump’s Moves Are Right out of the Authoritarian Playbook,” counterterrorism expert Stephen Tankel wrote that “[w]hether the president might ask military and paramilitary troops to shoot U.S. civilians … is now something that needs to be considered.”

Trump’s assertions of operating above IHL reflect similar pronouncements that he has made about having nearly unfettered authority domestically. For example, in 2019, Trump insisted that “Article 2 [of the Constitution] … gives the president powers you wouldn’t believe.”Footnote ⁶⁵ Later that year, Trump boasted that Article 2 granted him “the right to do whatever I want as president.”Footnote ⁶⁶ In 2020, Trump asserted that “[w]hen somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. And that’s the way it’s got to be. It’s total.”Footnote ⁶⁷ Trump also stated that local officials “can’t do anything without the approval of the president of the United States.”Footnote ⁶⁸ The Washington Post compiled a video entitled, “All the Times Trump Said the Constitution Let’s [sic] Him Do Whatever He Wants.”Footnote ⁶⁹

Trump has further projected his authority over the military through his demeanor toward subordinates. In referencing top military leaders, for instance, Trump frequently uses the possessive “my generals,” implying a legal power over the armed forces that draws its legitimacy more from him personally than the Constitution. According to one analysis, “Trump irked some military leaders right from the start when he rhapsodized over ‘my generals.’”Footnote ⁷⁰ Former CIA Director Leon Panetta has inveighed against Trump’s invoking of the possessive, saying, “[T]he military belongs to the country…. [I]t’s not the president’s military.”Footnote ⁷¹ Gen. Mark Milley, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Trump, reportedly called Trump “the classic authoritarian leader.”Footnote ⁷²

Trump’s claims of unrestrained legal authority are again not confined to the military. Trump has routinely suggested that officials in the federal government are accountable to him personally. For instance, after berating U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the “Trump Justice Department,” Trump told associates that he “finally” had “my attorney general” in William Barr.Footnote ⁷³ Trump has applied the word “my” to a range of other individuals, from former presidential assistant Peter Navarro to Republican Minority Whip Steve Scalise. A biographer suggested that Trump’s use of “my” is an unconscious power move, noting, “[I]t’s not really about putting them on equal footing … [I]t’s completely in the possessive, and it’s about ownership, and it’s about control.”Footnote ⁷⁴

Just as Trump points to his own authority as taking precedence over IHL, he has suggested that devolving decision-making to others could subvert the U.S. military’s proper functioning. In doing so, Trump has warned against the opposite of authority, anarchy, where political foes undermine not only his lawful power but also the interests of American troops. This is exemplified by Trump’s allegation that a military “deep state” has tried to sabotage U.S. servicemembers in war crime cases. Headlines from multiple media sources – such as “Trump Says He Stood Up to the ‘Deep State’ by Intervening in War Crime Cases” (The Hill)Footnote ⁷⁵ and “Trump Ramps Up Attacks on ‘Deep State,’ Focuses on Pentagon amid Eddie Gallagher Controversy” (USA Today)Footnote ⁷⁶ – evince its centrality to Trump’s messaging.

Trump first invoked the “deep state” in regard to the military after his November 2019 war crime clemencies. At a Florida rally, he boasted, “Just this week, I stuck up for three great warriors against the Deep State. You know what I’m talking about.”Footnote ⁷⁷ The comments came after Clint Lorance pronounced that “‘a big majority’ of the ‘people with stars on their collar that work in the Pentagon’ are ‘part of what president Trump calls the deep state.’”Footnote ⁷⁸ Other allies have made similar comments. For example, Rep. Duncan Hunter tweeted to Trump, “I will continue to stand with you in your fight on behalf of our combat warriors and against the Deep State Military.”Footnote ⁷⁹ FoxNews.com published an op-ed arguing that a “‘deep state’ anti-Trump ‘resistance’ exists at [the] Pentagon.”Footnote ⁸⁰

Trump’s charge of a deep state within the U.S. military justice system echoes conspiracy theories about federal bureaucrats undercutting his authority.Footnote ⁸¹ For example, in 2018, Trump railed against a “Criminal Deep State” that he said had fabricated “Phony Collusion with Russia, a made up Scam.”Footnote ⁸² Trump also complained of a “whistleblower … from the Deep State!” during his 2019 impeachment proceedings stemming from his July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.Footnote ⁸³ At a campaign rally, Trump declared that “[u]nelected, deep state operatives who defy the voters, to push their own secret agendas, are truly a threat to democracy.”Footnote ⁸⁴ Trump further blamed a “deep state” for holding off on approving a COVID-19 vaccine until after the 2020 election.Footnote ⁸⁵

In the same vein, Trump has regularly insisted that U.S. military lawyers undermine proper chains of authority. This is reflected in Trump’s recurring theme that “overzealous” prosecutors distort military justice. After Eddie Gallagher was acquitted on murder charges, for example, Trump moved to take away medals from the lawyers who prosecuted the case. In what amounted to what one journalist called a “remarkable rebuke by a president of his own Navy leadership,”Footnote ⁸⁶ Trump tweeted about the prosecutors being “ridiculously given a Navy Achievement Medal”Footnote ⁸⁷ and demanded that the Navy “immediately withdraw and rescind the awards.”Footnote ⁸⁸ One analyst commented that he “c[ould not] remember a time when a president involved himself in an award decision at this low a level.”Footnote ⁸⁹

Trump’s criticism of “overzealous” lawyers has been part of a broader attempt to frame the U.S. military justice system as anti-authority. For instance, one analysis described how advocates of Mathew Golsteyn, Clint Lorance, and Eddie Gallagher frequently cast the men as “victims of overzealous prosecutors.”Footnote ⁹⁰ Echoing one of Trump’s favorite phrases on Fox News, Pete Hegseth called the Navy’s prosecution of Gallagher a “witch hunt.”Footnote ⁹¹ He also complained about “overzealous prosecutors who were not giving the benefit of the doubt to the trigger-pullers.”Footnote ⁹² Upon learning of Trump’s interventions on behalf of Blackwater contractors, Rep. Steve King of Iowa protested against “overzealous prosecutors,” declaring that “[i]f ever there was a justifiable set of pardons, president Trump has delivered it.”Footnote ⁹³

Trump and his inner circle have articulated nearly identical language when defending Trump’s nonmilitary pardons and choices not to prosecute allies. For example, in describing the 2020 pardon of longtime Trump associate Roger Stone, the White House condemned “overzealous prosecutors pursing [sic] a case that never should have existed.”Footnote ⁹⁴ In a 2020 memo justifying the discarding of criminal proceedings against former national security advisor Michael Flynn, Attorney General William Barr assailed the Justice Department’s “hyper-aggressive extensions of the criminal law.”Footnote ⁹⁵ Additionally, Trump lawyer Rudolph Giuliani complained about “completely overzealous prosecutors” treating former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort “like this was [mobster] John Gotti.”Footnote ⁹⁶

Purity

Trump, like many Republicans, regularly claims that he will protect America’s criminal justice system from a radical progressive agenda that ignores the law. By contrasting his message with that of Democrats who, in his words, “don’t give a damn about crime,”Footnote ⁹⁷ Trump has depicted himself as championing moral purity in the law. Yet while blackletter law is typically seen by conservatives as embodying purity domestically, the term can again assume a different definition in foreign wars. Instead of prioritizing the law as written, conservatives may view U.S. military conduct, by dint of the fact that it is done by Americans, as intrinsically ethical. Trump has used this logic to insist that, even when it breaches IHL, the U.S. remains firmly on the side of righteousness.

Trump has given short shrift to the atrocities committed by Americans to whom he granted clemency. Instead, he has focused on how these servicemembers, standing for pure U.S. values, need to be protected. By framing court-martialed troops as occupying the moral high ground, Trump has made the case that they should possess broad leeway to defeat their enemies. Military historian Waitman Wade Beorn, for example, has explained that Trump has “preferred to overlook serious war crimes in favor of a warped notion of patriotism and heroism” because he “subscribes to a ‘bad things happen in war’ mentality.”Footnote ⁹⁸ According to historian Nicole Hemmer, “Hate the war, love the war criminal. That seems to be the mantra guiding President Donald Trump’s foreign policy.”Footnote ⁹⁹

Trump has depicted IHL violations by U.S. troops as not only permissible but also ethical. Douglas Porch of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, for example, has stated that Trump “encourag[ed] Fox News to promote war crimes as patriotic acts.”Footnote ¹⁰⁰ One journalist remarked that “[i]n the Trumpist worldview, [Eddie] Gallagher is not a hero in spite of his alleged atrocities, but because of them.”Footnote ¹⁰¹ Foreign policy scholar Peter Certo similarly accused Trump of “encourag[ing] war crimes” and “glorifying serial killer-type behavior most service members would find appalling.”Footnote ¹⁰² In the words of another writer, “Trump is sending a bright and clear message to troops in the field: Go ahead, do what you have to do, forget the rules of war, there’ll be no punishment.”Footnote ¹⁰³

Trump has attempted to reinforce the moral purity of his war crime clemencies by extolling the U.S. servicemembers granted reprieves and portraying them as brave men for fighting. For example, he praised Eddie Gallagher as “one of our ultimate fighters.”Footnote ¹⁰⁴ He similarly touted Mathew Golsteyn as “highly decorated”Footnote ¹⁰⁵ and a “U.S. [m]ilitary hero.”Footnote ¹⁰⁶ After his 2019 clemencies, Trump told his supporters that they should be “proud” of what he did to stand up for “our great fighters” who “are doing a job for us like nobody else in the world can do.”Footnote ¹⁰⁷ In a different context, while handing out an American military award, Trump stated that “[t]here is no love more pure than the love and courage that burns in the hearts of American patriots [emphasis added].”Footnote ¹⁰⁸

Supporters of Trump’s military leadership have praised Trump as epitomizing pure American ideals. For example, Pete Hegseth has called Trump “a true warfighter’s president.”Footnote ¹⁰⁹ Mathew Golsteyn applauded Trump’s “incredible … courage.”Footnote ¹¹⁰ Clint Lorance called Trump “[a]wesome!”Footnote ¹¹¹ Eddie Gallagher feted Trump as “a true leader” and “exactly what the military and this nation needs.”Footnote ¹¹² Rep. Louis Gohmert exalted Trump’s “superb judgment” in issuing the 2020 Blackwater pardons.Footnote ¹¹³ One critic described the lobby advocating Trump’s acts as “a cadre of conservative groups, right-wing politicians and cable TV hosts … [who] wrap themselves up in the flag and squawk about patriotism and try to convince people that war crimes are not, in fact, crimes.”Footnote ¹¹⁴

In trying to highlight the U.S. military’s moral purity even when it violates IHL, Trump has stressed the moral impurity of its enemies by pointing to how America’s opponents debase standards for fighting. He has expressly said, “You have to play the game the way they [America’s enemies] are playing the game.”Footnote ¹¹⁵ Trump has argued not only that America’s adversaries are unworthy of legal rights in combat, but that their actions are so morally impure that they deserve maltreatment. As one reporter writes, Trump “seemingly mak[es] the case for using similarly brutal tactics as terror groups.”Footnote ¹¹⁶ According to another observer, Trump’s mentality is that “torture is justified by the barbarism of others. It’s the opposite of ‘when they go low, we go high.’”Footnote ¹¹⁷

Trump has routinely underlined the moral impurity of U.S. enemies to justify dismissing IHL. For example, in 2015, he affirmed that the U.S. should “be strong” because “over there” adversaries “put people in cages and … drown them in the ocean.”Footnote ¹¹⁸ In 2016, Trump said that the U.S. should torture because its enemies possess “weapons that are so destructive … that the world could end.”Footnote ¹¹⁹ The same year, Trump implored the U.S. military “to fight so viciously … [a]nd violently because we’re dealing with violent people.”Footnote ¹²⁰ He also said that America should “go tougher than waterboarding” in response to “animals over in the Middle East that chop off heads.”Footnote ¹²¹ In 2017, Trump called for “fight[ing] fire with fire” because terrorists “chop … off [heads] and … put ’em on camera and … send ’em all over the world.”Footnote ¹²²

That the moral impurity of the other side justifies almost any tactic is a theme that Trump has also invoked in domestic political fights. In 2019, for instance, Trump tweeted: “THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY…. STICK TOGETHER, PLAY THEIR GAME, AND FIGHT HARD REPUBLICANS. OUR COUNTRY IS AT STAKE!”Footnote ¹²³ Trump also implored Republicans to “get tougher and fight” because “the Democrats fight dirty … they’re vicious.”Footnote ¹²⁴ In 2020, Trump retweeted a video of New Mexico politician Couy Griffin stating that “the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.”Footnote ¹²⁵ One commentator said that, in aiding war criminals, Trump “sees parallels … to himself. He wants his own history of fighting dirty to be likewise excused.”Footnote ¹²⁶

Trump has even suggested that U.S. troops should not be above committing war crimes that exploit views about purity held by the other side. For example, in 2016, Trump approvingly recounted an apocryphal story of U.S. General John Pershing from the early 1900s in the Philippines. He told supporters that Pershing dipped bullets in pig’s blood, viewed as spiritually impure by Muslims, before executing terrorists. Trump elaborated: “He took 50 bullets and he dipped them in pig’s blood, … and he lined up the 50 people, and they shot 49 of those people and the 50th person, he said, ‘You go back to your people and you tell them what happened.’”Footnote ¹²⁷ Trump later alluded to the story in a 2017 tweet, declaring, “Study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught.”Footnote ¹²⁸

Trump has made similar arguments about adversaries getting what they ostensibly deserve when defending his war crime interventions. As one journalist commented, “Trump’s justification of [Eddie] Gallagher’s conduct (and his defense of torture) comes down to this: They’d do it to us if the shoe was on the other foot!”Footnote ¹²⁹ In a similar vein, when members of Gallagher’s platoon alleged that he had stabbed an ISIS captive, Gallagher reportedly replied, “Stop worrying about it; they do a lot worse to us.”Footnote ¹³⁰ Pete Hegseth has likewise asked, “What if we treated the enemy the way they treated us?” His answer was: “Hey, Al Qaeda: if you surrender, we might spare your life. If you do not, we will rip your arms off and feed them to hogs.”Footnote ¹³¹

A number of Trump’s allies have also smeared opponents inside the U.S. military justice system as lacking moral purity. For example, one of Eddie Gallagher’s and Trump’s attorneys, Timothy Parlatore, vilified the effort to take away his client’s SEAL trident as “pure retaliation.”Footnote ¹³² He also labeled the search of Gallagher’s home, where he accused the Navy of “dragg[ing] … [Gallagher’s] kids out of the house at gunpoint in their underwear,” as “pure intimidation.”Footnote ¹³³ Another one of Gallagher’s lawyers, Marc Mukasey, referred to Gallagher’s prosecution as “pure and simple retaliation.”Footnote ¹³⁴ Gallagher’s brother, Sean, on Fox Nation, described the attempt by naval leadership to take away Gallagher’s SEAL rank as an exercise in “pure vindictiveness.”Footnote ¹³⁵

Such rhetoric extended beyond formal accusations, with many deploying derogatory labels to undermine their adversaries as morally compromised. For example, Eddie Gallagher dubbed fellow Navy SEAL Craig Miller, who described him as “freaking evil,” as “Crying Craig Miller.” He maligned SEAL Joshua Vriens, who labeled Gallagher “toxic,” as “The Joker.”Footnote ¹³⁶ He also ridiculed New York Times journalist Dave Philipps as a “Sky Crane” because he was a “big tool” for allegedly defaming him.Footnote ¹³⁷ The tags had clear parallels to Trump’s own use of phrases like “Crooked Hillary” Clinton and “Crazy Joe” Biden.Footnote ¹³⁸ Gallagher’s wife added that her husband’s prosecution was the result of “COWARDS & WHINERS”Footnote ¹³⁹ and labeled his ex-platoon mates “mean girls.”Footnote ¹⁴⁰

Support for Exonerating Crimes

The first issue examined is how ideological and MFT divides affect support for punishing crimes domestically versus in combat. This speaks to the core claim regarding the motivations of the impunity agenda – that conservatives support law and order more in a criminal justice context than in foreign wars. To test this prediction, respondents were asked whether they supported punishing criminals to the full extent of the law, but the question randomly varied a key detail: whether the criminals were U.S. citizens who committed crimes in their communities or U.S. servicemembers who committed crimes on the battlefield. In response to a version of the following question, answers were coded on a 1–7 Likert scale, ranging from “Strongly agree” (1) to “Strongly disagree” (7) (i.e., higher numbers = more support for exoneration):

Table 3.1 reports the main findings by ideology, which confirm expectations.Footnote ¹⁴⁵ Model 1 shows that conservatives are comparatively more inclined than liberals to exonerate U.S. servicemembers (significant at p < .01). Unlike liberals, their baseline levels of support for exonerating U.S. servicemembers are also higher than that for domestic criminals (significant at p < .01). As displayed in Figure 3.2a, the predicted level of disagreement for punishment on the 1–7 Likert scale is 3.17 for conservatives when criminals are depicted as U.S. servicemembers, compared to 2.23 when depicted as U.S. citizens. For liberals, these numbers were 2.21 and 2.66, respectively.Footnote ¹⁴⁶ As predicted, Figure 3.2b also shows that placing greater emphasis on the conservative MFT values of in-group loyalty, authority, and purity is correlated with both more support for exonerating U.S. servicemembers and less support for exonerating domestic criminals.Footnote ¹⁴⁷ The opposite is true for respondents who prioritize the liberal values of harm and fairness (see Appendix Table 3.A.2 for full estimations).

Figure 3.2a

Support for exoneration from the law, by ideology

Figure 3.2b

Support for exoneration from the law, by MFT values

Support for Challenges to IHL

The next set of experiments tests whether ideological and MFT divides exist in support for U.S. military actions that challenge IHL. Specifically, attitudes are examined toward: (1) military ROE; and (2) adherence to the Geneva Conventions. The topics were chosen not only because Trump has actively challenged IHL in these areas, but also because they offer variation in the degree to which the impunity agenda clearly breaches the law. Considerable debate exists about the appropriateness of particular ROE constraints. However, failure to comply with the Geneva Conventions is an unambiguous violation of IHL.

Constraints on U.S. Soldiers

Attitudes toward ROE were proxied by support for allowing troops to employ maximum firepower on the battlefield. Respondents were randomly assigned a version of the question below, which gauged assessments of the potential costs and benefits of loosening ROE. Answers were coded on a 7-point Likert scale from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (7) (i.e., higher numbers = less restraint):

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The United States should allow U.S. soldiers to use the maximum firepower necessary to target enemy forces [, even if it significantly increased civilian casualties/if doing so saved the lives of U.S. soldiers].

A Control group received only the baseline condition. Respondents assigned to Treatment 1 (CivilianCasualtiesTreatment) not only read the same text but also received the caveat that allowing U.S. soldiers to use maximum firepower would significantly increase civilian casualties. Respondents assigned to Treatment 2 (SoldiersSavedTreatment) also received the caveat that allowing U.S. soldiers to use maximum firepower would save the lives of U.S. soldiers. Finally, Treatment 3 (ComboTreatment) received both caveats.Footnote ¹⁴⁸

Table 3.2 reports the key results by ideology. The first analysis restricts the data to only respondents who received the Control. In line with expectations, Model 1 shows that conservatives agree more than liberals with using maximum firepower (significant at p < .01).Footnote ¹⁴⁹ As depicted in Figure 3.3a, on the 1–7 Likert scale of agreement, the predicted value for conservatives is 5.91, compared to 3.83 for liberals. Model 2 estimates the fully interactive regression that disaggregates the individual treatments.Footnote ¹⁵⁰ Consistent with predictions, conservatives in every scenario again agree more with using maximum firepower compared to liberals (for CivilianCasualtiesTreatment, significant at p < .01; for SoldiersSavedTreatment treatment, significant at p < .01; for ComboTreatment, significant at p < .01).Footnote ¹⁵¹ Predicted values are plotted in Figure 3.3b.

Table 3.2Support for using maximum firepower, by ideology

	OLS (1)	OLS (2)	OLS with covariates (3)	Ordered logit (4)
Constant	3.828Footnote ***	3.828Footnote ***	2.756Footnote ***
	(0.155)	(0.152)	(0.220)
Conservative	2.087Footnote ***	2.087Footnote ***	1.777Footnote ***	2.222Footnote ***
	(0.232)	(0.227)	(0.220)	(0.260)
CivilianCasualtiesTreatment		−1.033Footnote ***	−1.135Footnote ***	−1.188Footnote ***
		(0.212)	(0.204)	(0.245)
SoldiersSavedTreatment		0.754Footnote ***	0.709Footnote ***	0.756Footnote **
		(0.212)	(0.203)	(0.239)
ComboTreatment		−0.737Footnote ***	−0.731Footnote ***	−0.758Footnote ***
		(0.204)	(0.196)	(0.228)
Conservative × CivilianCasualtiesTreatment		−0.531	−0.373	−0.542
		(0.321)	(0.308)	(0.358)
Conservative × SoldiersSavedTreatment		−0.680Footnote *	−0.605Footnote *	−0.723Footnote *
		(0.319)	(0.307)	(0.353)
Conservative × ComboTreatment		−0.134	−0.106	−0.219
		(0.316)	(0.303)	(0.348)
N	316	1,256	1,254	1,256
Adjusted R2	0.200	0.280	0.340

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Two-tailed tests.

Model 3 includes covariates for age, gender, race, income, and education.

Larger values indicate greater support.

Moderates were included in the analysis but not shown for legibility.

Figure 3.3a

Support for using maximum firepower (control), by ideology

Figure 3.3b

Support for using maximum firepower, by ideology

Figure 3.3c stratifies effects by MFT values.Footnote ¹⁵² As anticipated, the three conservative values (in-group loyalty, authority, and purity) are positively related to support for using maximum firepower in every condition. By comparison, the liberal values (harm and fairness) are both inversely related to this outcome (full results displayed in Appendix Table 3.A.3). Taken together, these results confirm that conservatives are more supportive of the U.S. challenging IHL in combat when legality is ambiguous. Associated MFT values of in-group loyalty, authority, and purity correspond with this preference.

Figure 3.3c

Support for using maximum firepower, by MFT values

Adherence to the Geneva Conventions

The next experiment turns to the clear-cut case of IHL violation by measuring support for rejecting U.S. abidance to the Geneva Conventions. All respondents were first given the following background information explaining that the Geneva Conventions constrain the use of force against civilians and that the U.S. had pledged to agree to its principles:

Background information: The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, which constrain the use of force by soldiers in war in order to protect civilians and others not involved in fighting.

Respondents were then randomly posed a version of the below question. Responses were coded on the Likert scale from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” (7) (i.e., higher numbers = less restraint):

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The United States should under certain conditions ignore the Geneva Conventions [, even if it significantly increased civilian casualties/if doing so helped the U.S. defeat its enemies more quickly].

Respondents assigned to the Control only read the baseline text. In Treatment 1 (CivilianCasualtiesTreatment), respondents were informed that disregarding the Geneva Conventions would significantly increase civilian casualties. In Treatment 2 (DefeatEnemiesTreatment), respondents were told that disregarding the Geneva Conventions would help the U.S. defeat its enemies more quickly. In Treatment 3 (ComboTreatment), respondents were exposed to both caveats.Footnote ¹⁵³

Table 3.3 summarizes the main findings by ideology. The analysis starts again by restricting the data only to the Control group. Model 1 shows that conservatives are more willing than liberals to disregard the Geneva Conventions (significant at p <. 01).Footnote ¹⁵⁴ As depicted in Figure 3.4a, conservatives have a predicted value of 3.61 and liberals 2.61 on the 1–7 Likert scale of agreement. Next is an analysis of the fully interactive model with the constituent treatments.Footnote ¹⁵⁵ In line with projections, Model 2 confirms that conservatives remain more willing than liberals to disregard the Geneva Conventions under each situation (for CivilianCasualtiesTreatment, significant at p < .01; for DefeatEnemiesTreatment, significant at p < .01; for ComboTreatment, significant at p < .01).Footnote ¹⁵⁶ Predicted values are plotted in Figure 3.4b.

Table 3.3Support for disregarding the Geneva Conventions, by ideology

	OLS (1)	OLS (2)	OLS with covariates (3)	Ordered logit (4)
Constant	2.612Footnote ***	2.612Footnote ***	3.002Footnote ***
	(0.159)	(0.159)	(0.242)
Conservative	0.997Footnote ***	0.997Footnote ***	0.927Footnote ***	1.189Footnote ***
	(0.230)	(0.230)	(0.231)	(0.244)
CivilianCasualtiesTreatment		−0.300	−0.324	−0.338
		(0.209)	(0.208)	(0.229)
DefeatEnemiesTreatment		0.092	0.037	0.134
		(0.225)	(0.224)	(0.243)
ComboTreatment		−0.181	−0.175	−0.239
		(0.225)	(0.223)	(0.247)
Conservative × CivilianCasualtiesTreatment		0.315	0.363	0.317
		(0.320)	(0.319)	(0.336)
Conservative × DefeatEnemiesTreatment		0.241	0.343	0.178
		(0.334)	(0.334)	(0.350)
Conservative × ComboTreatment		0.522	0.537	0.534
		(0.338)	(0.337)	(0.357)
N	323	1,256	1,254	1,256
Adjusted R2	0.054	0.092	0.105

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. Two-tailed tests.

Model 3 includes covariates for age, gender, race, income, and education.

Larger values indicate greater support.

Moderates were included in the analysis but not shown for legibility.

Figure 3.4a

Support for disregarding the Geneva Conventions (control), by ideology

Figure 3.4b

Support for disregarding the Geneva Conventions, by ideology

Figure 3.4c again disaggregates results by moral foundations.Footnote ¹⁵⁷ As predicted, the three conservative values (in-group loyalty, authority, and purity) are positively linked to disregarding the Geneva Conventions, whereas the association is negative for the two liberal values (harm and fairness) (complete results displayed in Appendix Table 3.A.4). Overall, these findings indicate that conservatives are more inclined to violate the law of war when illegality is clear. These attitudes align with associated MFT values of in-group loyalty, authority, and purity.

Figure 3.4c

Support for disregarding the Geneva Conventions, by MFT values

Impunity Coalition Activation

The final question analyzed is whether appeals by the impunity coalition can actually activate citizens to reject the importance of IHL. This tests the prediction that, even if right-leaning voters are more receptive to challenges to IHL, elites can trigger the salience of these beliefs. To simulate impunity messaging, respondents were presented with a video of Trump endorsing waterboarding. The focus is on waterboarding because Trump supported its use, despite it being one of the most controversial techniques used by the U.S. government in recent decades.Footnote ¹⁵⁸ Additionally, it should be a difficult case on which to move attitudes because citizens are likely to already have preexisting views on it. All respondents were first provided with the following definition of waterboarding:

Those assigned to the Control group received no additional information. Respondents assigned to Treatment 1 (TrumpOnlyTreatment) watched a video of Trump advocating waterboarding. The video was taken from the March 3, 2016, GOP presidential debate in Detroit hosted by Fox News. Trump’s words were:

Respondents assigned to Treatment 2 (Trump+FoxNewsTreatment) watched the same video. However, the clip was edited to include Fox News framing. A short snippet pulled from Fox News’s debate coverage was played at the beginning of the video, which included sound, generic patriotic imagery (e.g., an animated White House, stars, and stripes), and the words “Fox News Debate.” While Trump talked, the video was zoomed out to reveal a superimposed Fox News logo at the bottom left-hand corner of the screen, with chyron text: “FOX NEWS DEBATE.” Two additional large Fox News signs flanked Trump on his back left and right. This branding, which was part of Fox News’s original programming, did not include any substantive content by Fox News advocating waterboarding. It was intended only to simulate the partisan media environment in which voters consume information about the impunity agenda.

In contrast, respondents assigned to Treatment 3 (ObamaTreatment) watched a video of Barack Obama expressing disapproval of waterboarding in 2011, with no media branding.Footnote ¹⁵⁹ Obama’s words were as follows:

The dependent variable was based on the question: “To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The United States should under certain conditions use interrogation methods involving waterboarding on captured terrorists.” Respondents could answer on a standard 7-point Likert scale, ranging from “Strongly disagree” (coded 1) to “Strongly agree” (coded 7).

Table 3.4 presents the main results by ideology. To begin, data are again restricted only to respondents who received the Control. Consistent with expectations, Model 1 shows that conservatives support waterboarding more than liberals (significant at p < .01).Footnote ¹⁶⁰ As displayed in Figure 3.5a, the predicted level of agreement on the 1–7 Likert scale is 4.31 for conservatives and 2.82 for liberals. Presented next is the fully interactive estimation.Footnote ¹⁶¹ Model 2 reports that, relative to the Control, receiving the TrumpOnlyTreatment raises support for waterboarding among conservatives (significant at p < .01), and the Trump+FoxNewsTreatment raises it directionally more.

Figure 3.5a

Support for use of waterboarding (control), by ideology

The ObamaTreatment is correlated with reduced support for waterboarding among both conservatives and liberals, but again, the effects are not significant. Predicted values are illustrated in Figure 3.5b. Overall, results align with the expectation that conservatives express greater support for waterboarding as a baseline. Trump’s advocacy further boosts favorability for this policy. Directionally, conservatives are more apt to support waterboarding when this message is filtered through Fox News.

Figure 3.5b

Support for use of waterboarding, by ideology

Figure 3.5c disaggregates the findings by MFT values.Footnote ¹⁶² As anticipated, in each condition, support for waterboarding is positively linked to the conservative values of in-group loyalty, authority, and purity. By comparison, it is negatively linked to the liberal values of harm and fairness (full results presented in Appendix Table 3.A.5). To see more clearly the activation effects of the impunity coalition, Figure 3.5d shows the impact of receiving the Trump+FoxNewsTreatment on support for waterboarding relative to the Control, by MFT values.Footnote ¹⁶³ For readability, the three conservative and two liberal MFT values are averaged out, respectively. The graph illustrates that the more respondents prioritize conservative MFT values, the more their support for waterboarding is increased by seeing the Trump+FoxNewsTreatment. Conversely, the more that respondents prioritize liberal MFT values, the less this impact. The implication is that higher conservative support for waterboarding tracks MFT values of in-group loyalty, authority, and purity. Respondents who score higher on these associated values are more activated by impunity cues.

Figure 3.5c

Support for use of waterboarding, by MFT values

Figure 3.5d

Support for use of waterboarding (Trump + Fox News treatment vs. control), combining MFT values

Follow-up, free-response questions also asked respondents to explain why they answered the waterboarding question how they did. Recurring themes implicated key conservative MFT values, which were coded and categorized in Table 3.5. Answers broadly included believing that waterboarding is acceptable because it protects fellow Americans (in-group loyalty), deferring to Trump’s judgment about waterboarding (authority), and feeling that waterboarding is justified when it promotes a morally upright cause (purity). Although many of the strongest responses came from self-identified conservatives, several moderate and liberal respondents also unequivocally favored the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique.

In the miscellaneous category, some respondents displayed not just a willingness to discount IHL, but an eagerness to do so. For example, an ideologically moderate respondent stated, “Personally, with a terrorist, think I’d start with a power drill first. Drill holes in the knee caps for starters.” Another respondent, who identified as slightly conservative, felt that the survey options did not go far enough in gauging support for waterboarding, declaring, “I would have chosen ‘strongly agree’ if you had available the option to consider harsher methods…” One extremely conservative respondent suggested that America should not have any rules at all in combat, pronouncing, “War is war, ‘rules of engagement’ are bullshit and for LOSERS!…”

Notably, across several of the categories, respondents either explicitly referenced Trump or paraphrased his words about “chop[ping] off heads” in justifying their answers. A conservative respondent, for instance, said that “President Trump’s point about them beheading POW is very true” and declared that, by comparison, “waterboarding is almost a compassionate alternative.” Another conservative respondent remarked that “people … cutting off heads and laughing about it” is “disgusting” and that “[w]aterboarding is nothing compared to that.” Even a slightly liberal respondent called Trump “so right,” saying that it was time to “make amercan graet again” because “iraq killing people … [is] not fucking right” [sic].

Overall, the evidence presented in this chapter suggests that Trump’s motive for openly challenging IHL was to appeal to conservative voters. The foundational moral values that conservatives prioritize – in-group loyalty, authority, and purity – tend to make them less supportive of the law in wart contexts than in domestic criminal justice. Trump’s messaging effectively activated and reinforced these values. The findings indicate that many conservatives are open to violating IHL in practice. However, even if Trump’s core base abandoned attachments to law and order, conservative support could still have been jeopardized if the military itself pushed back against the impunity agenda. Chapter 4 explores Trump’s efforts to secure the military’s backing.