Trump praises military service, and his return to office, in Memorial Day remarks
He also used the occasion, traditionally a solemn day of tributes, to indirectly criticize his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, for his border policies while valorizing his own return to office.
Advertisement
'We're doing so very well right now, considering the circumstances,' Trump said. 'And we'll do record-setting better with time. We will do better than we've ever done as a nation, better than ever before. I promise you that.'
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Trump delivered the speech after taking part in the presidential tradition of laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns to honor America's war dead. He was joined by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Vice President JD Vance, both of whom served in the military.
Trump, who has had a complex and sometimes hostile relationship with the military, has sought to recast himself as its biggest booster in his second term.
During his first presidential campaign, he attacked a Gold Star family who criticized him during the 2016 Democratic National Convention. During his first term, he disparaged veterans and military service members -- questioning what they got out of putting their lives on the line, and calling those who died in wars 'suckers' and 'losers.' He even suggested that Gold Star families had spread COVID-19 inside the White House.
Advertisement
In his speech Monday, Trump praised fallen soldiers who 'picked up the mantle of duty and service, knowing that to live for others meant always that they might die for others.'
He also detailed the service and deaths of soldiers, and spoke directly to some of their children.
'For the families of the fallen, you feel the absence of your heroes every day in the familiar laugh no longer heard, the empty space at Sunday dinner, or the want of a hug or a pat on the back that will never come again,' Trump said.
'Every Gold Star family fights a battle long after the victory is won,' he said, 'and today, we lift you up and we hold you high.'
It was a starkly different tone than he used on social media before the remarks. On Truth Social, he posted a message that did not mention veterans but wished a 'HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE SCUM THAT SPENT THE LAST FOUR YEARS TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY THROUGH WARPED RADICAL LEFT MINDS.' Trump also railed against what he called 'USA HATING JUDGES.'
In his remarks, he largely stuck to his efforts in recent weeks to connect his return to office to a restoration of the nation's military might.
In a politically charged commencement speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on Saturday, Trump told cadets that they were entering 'the greatest and most powerful army the world has ever known.' He added: 'And I know, because I rebuilt that army, and I rebuilt the military.'
Advertisement
Earlier this month, he announced that he would rename May 8, which is widely celebrated in Europe as 'Victory in Europe' or 'V-E Day,' as 'Victory Day for World War II,' so that the United States could celebrate its achievements in that conflict.
He also said he would rename Veterans Day, celebrated on Nov. 11, as 'Victory Day for World War I,' drawing pushback from veterans groups because it would champion conquest over sacrifice, and leave most living veterans without a holiday commemorating their service.
Next month, he is set to host a military parade in Washington, billed as the 'Army's birthday celebration,' to commemorate the Army's 250th anniversary. The event, on June 14, also falls on Trump's 79th birthday.
During his remarks Monday, after musing about returning to office for a second term in time to host soccer's World Cup and the Summer Olympics -- a quirk of timing he attributed to divine intervention -- Trump highlighted the upcoming anniversary celebration, which he said 'blows everything away.'
Trump said that in some ways he was glad that he didn't have a consecutive second term in the White House because he would have otherwise missed hosting all three events.
'Can you imagine?' he said. 'I missed that four years, and now look what I have. I have everything. Amazing the way things work out.'
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
For universities, Trump's punishments far exceed the alleged crimes
The adage 'let the punishment fit the crime,' articulated by the Roman philosopher Cicero some 2,060 years ago, reflects a principle fundamental to every modern legal system. The notion of reciprocal justice — 'an eye for an eye' and not 'two eyes for an eye' — also appears in the Code of Hammurabi and the Book of Exodus. The Magna Carta in 1215 mandated that an offender should be fined 'only in proportion to the degree of his offence,' a concept later reflected in the English Bill of Rights, the Common Law tradition and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of proportionality to the rule of law, often framing it in terms of balancing tests or 'levels of scrutiny.' Perhaps more important, proportionality is central to Americans' sense of fundamental fairness, from the playground to the courtroom. In the Trump administration, however, scorched earth warfare has replaced the idea that punishment should fit the crime. Accusing Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism, the administration has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status and terminated its ability to enroll international students. While inflicting enormous damage, these sanctions are not tied to any discernible gain. Harvard has sued the government, and its legal case is strong. A judge recently issued a temporary restraining order securing its right to enroll international students. But even if Harvard prevails in the courts, the cost will be exorbitant. And Harvard is just one of many universities under attack. People of good will can differ about whether Harvard and its peer universities have met their legal obligations to Jewish students. But, by any standard, the Trump administration's response has been grotesquely disproportionate. Proportionality analysis in law takes different forms. Common elements intended to constrain excessive government actions include such phrases as 'legitimate goal' — as in, government sanctions should be designed to further a legitimate goal, with a rational connection between the sanction and that goal. Another is 'necessity,' meaning sanctions should be necessary to achieve the goal and the least restrictive means available. A third is 'undue burden,' meaning that penalties should be commensurate with the moral culpability of the person or institution sanctioned and should not cause society more harm than good. These principles are reflected in Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the main anti-discrimination statute the government is relying on to justify its attacks on higher education. Title VI contains multiple procedural safeguards 'designed to spur agencies into seeking consensual resolutions with recipients.' The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, which oversees most Title VI cases, may only seek to terminate federal funding as 'a last resort, to be used only if all else fails,' because 'cutoffs of Federal funds would defeat important objectives of Federal legislation, without commensurate gains in eliminating' discrimination. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White once explained, 'to ensure that this intent would be respected, Congress included an explicit provision … that requires that any administrative enforcement action be 'consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken.''' And as the Justice Department's guidelines for the enforcement of Title VI make clear, 'in each case, the objective should be to secure prompt and full compliance so that needed Federal assistance may commence or continue.' In the early years of Title VI, the Office of Civil Rights did ultimately terminate federal funding for Southern schools that refused to desegregate. But as Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the lead author of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, observed, 'it is not expected that funds would be cut off so long as reasonable steps were being taken in good faith to end unconstitutional segregation.' During the 30 years before the Trump administration's decision in March to cancel $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University — taken without a hearing or any semblance of due process — no college or university was stripped of federal funding under Title VI. The administration's slash-and-burn approach fails every conceivable proportionality test. Combating antisemitism is, of course, a legitimate goal. But even assuming that the administration is not using antisemitism as a pretext to pursue a broader political agenda of undermining critics, democratic institutions and the rule of law, there is no rational connection between terminating research on cancer, artificial intelligence or nanotechnology and ending antisemitism. Nor has the administration even tried to demonstrate how barring Harvard from enrolling all international students, as opposed to students proven to have engaged in antisemitic activity, advances its supposed objectives. If implemented, the Trump administration's sanctions would devastate Harvard's ability to remain one of the world's leading research universities. And the sanctions are hardly the least restrictive means available to address campus antisemitism. Harvard has acknowledged the challenges it faces in ensuring a safe and supportive environment for its Jewish community. And, unlike the Southern schools whose continued resistance to Title VI's antidiscrimination mandate in the 1960s was clear, Harvard had already taken significant steps to combat antisemitism and indicated a willingness to address the government's concerns before officials sent it an extravagant list of demands. (Many of those demands, such as plagiarism reviews for all faculty, bore little or no connection to antisemitism.) Whether Harvard has done enough, quickly enough, is a matter that can be debated. But the administration has certainly not proven that Harvard displayed the 'deliberate indifference' that warrants a finding of institutional responsibility for the harassment of Jewish students under Title VI, much less a degree of culpability to justify the penalties the government continues to pile on. Nor is it possible to conclude that slashing funding for scientific and medical research, banning all international students or revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status do more good than harm. The Trump administration is imposing crushing penalties wholly incommensurate with any fault of the targeted institutions simply because it can — or thinks it can — and because it believes that 'shock and awe' will compel all institutions of higher education and their faculty to fall in line. Abandoning the principle that the punishment must fit the crime would set our democratic standard of justice back to the 'might makes right,' Sticks and Stone Age. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College.
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries says Americans ‘aren't interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king'
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that Americans 'aren't interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king,' referring to President Trump. 'Donald Trump has learned an important lesson, the American people aren't interested in bending the knee to a wannabe king,' Jeffries said on CNN's 'State of the Union' to the outlet's Dana Bash. 'It's the reason why Donald Trump actually is the most unpopular president at this point of a presidency in American history,' he added. The president's approval rating currently sits at 45.9 percent in the Decision Desk/The Hill polling average, with 51.7 percent in the average not backing the president. The president recently went through consistent drops in his approval ratings, but his approval rating in the Decision Desk/The Hill average now sits above 2 points higher than it was at the start of May. Trump and his administration have taken swift action on issues such as how the federal government functions, immigration, trade policy, and LGBTQ rights in his first few months since returning to Washington. The action has drawn pushback from those on the American left and Democrats, but Democrats have also been criticized for a perceived lack of response to Trump administration moves. 'Democrats, of course, are the party that is determined to make life more affordable for everyday Americans, for hardworking American taxpayers,' Jeffries said Sunday. Republican strategist Karl Rove said in a recent opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal that President Trump's tariff rhetoric could cost the GOP its majorities in Congress. 'Republicans should hope the president really believes in reciprocity—the policy that if countries lower their tariffs, we'll lower ours. He should have confidence that America can compete if the playing field is level,' he added. The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.
American Military News
37 minutes ago
- American Military News
Video: Top Democrat exposes major secret behind Biden White House
A new video shows Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) David Hogg telling an undercover journalist that Anthony Bernal, former First Lady Jill Biden's chief of staff, had 'an enormous amount of power' in the White House during former President Joe Biden's administration. In a video published Wednesday on X, formerly Twitter, by Project Veritas, Hogg was asked by an undercover reporter how corrupt he believed the DNC was. In response, Hogg said, 'I think the fact of the matter is the DNC is always going to be like a campaign arm of the president ultimately. The bigger issue was like the inner circle that was around Biden.' READ MORE: Video: Trump questions cover-up of Biden's cancer diagnosis, cognitive issues 'Like, Jill Biden's chief of staff had an enormous amount of power,' Hogg added. Deterrian Jones, a former staff member for the White House Office of Digital Strategy, told the undercover journalist that the 'enormous amount of power' wielded by Anthony Bernal during the Biden administration 'was an open secret' and that the former first lady's chief of staff was a 'shadowy, Wizard of Oz-type figure.' 'I would avoid him,' Jones added. 'He was scary.' After explaining that Bernal worked behind the scenes out of view of the American people, Jones told the undercover Project Veritas journalist, 'He wielded an enormous amount of power, and I can't stress to you enough how much power he had at the White House.' Sharing the first video of a two-part series on Hogg's revelations regarding the DNC, Project Veritas tweeted, 'Undercover Meeting with DNC Leader @davidhogg111 Reveals who REALLY ran the Biden White House.' BREAKING: Undercover Meeting with DNC Leader @davidhogg111 Reveals who REALLY ran the Biden White House 'He wielded an enormous amount of power… I can't stress to you enough how much power he had at the White House.' "It was an open secret… I would avoid him, he was… — Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) May 28, 2025 In a new book titled 'Original Sin,' CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios political correspondent Alex Thompson explained that Bernal and Biden aide Annie Tomasini helped guide the former president's campaign during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown and had significant influence in the Biden White House. 'The significance of Bernal and Tomasini is the degree to which their rise in the Biden White House signaled the success of people whose allegiance was to the Biden family – not to the presidency, not to the American people, not to the country, but to the Biden theology,' Tapper and Thompson wrote, according to Fox News. Anonymous sources previously told The New York Post last year that Bernal had allegedly 'bullied and verbally sexually harassed colleagues' for over 10 years but was considered to be 'untouchable' due to his close relationship with Jill Biden. 'I don't think people understand how much power and influence he has,' one of the sources said.
