Trump's West Point speech brought partisanship to the home of the US military − 3 essential reads
President Donald Trump's speech at the graduation of the class of 2025 from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point included segments that were clearly scripted and portions that were obviously not.
During the unscripted portions, Trump, who wore a bright red 'Make America Great Again' campaign hat during his entire appearance on May 24, 2025, delivered remarks that hit many of his frequent partisan political talking points. That included attacking presidential predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden, describing immigrants to the U.S. as 'criminals' and trumpeting other policy accomplishments in his first and second terms.
That level of partisanship in a military setting – on the campus of the nation's first military academy, and before an audience of cadets and their families, many of whom are veterans – is unusual in the United States.
The Conversation U.S. has published several articles discussing the importance to democracy of keeping the military and partisan politics separate. Here are three highlights from that coverage.
During the West Point ceremony, the graduates themselves took an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' And all of them had studied the significance of that oath, including in classes like those taught by Joseph G. Amoroso and Lee Robinson, active-duty Army officers who graduated from West Point and later served as professors there.
As Amoroso and Robinson wrote, those classes teach cadets that, like all military personnel, they serve the Constitution and the American people, not a particular person or political party:
'(O)ur oath forms the basis of a nonpartisan ethic. In the U.S., unlike in many other countries, the oath implies military leaders should be trusted for their expertise and judgment, not for their loyalty to an individual or political party. We emphasize to cadets the rules and professional expectations associated with this profound responsibility.'
Read more:
Retired U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Samuel C. Mahaney, who teaches history, national security and constitutional law at Missouri University of Science and Technology, observed:
'(S)ince the days of George Washington, the military has been dedicated to serving the nation, not a specific person or political agenda. … (N)onpartisanship is central to the military's primary mission of defending the country.'
Mahaney wrote that if Trump's actions during his second term meant a change from the centuries of precedent, 'military personnel at all levels would face a crucial question: Would they stand up for the military's independent role in maintaining the integrity and stability of American democracy or follow the president's orders – even if those orders crossed a line that made them illegal or unconstitutional?'
Read more:
Marcus Hedahl and Bradley Jay Strawser, professors of philosophy who teach military ethics at the U.S. Naval Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School, respectively, explain the reason for this long-standing focus on keeping politicians and politics separate from military action.
'To minimize the chance of the kind of military occupation they suffered during the Revolutionary War, the country's founders wrote the Constitution requiring that the president, an elected civilian, would be the commander in chief of the military. In the wake of World War II, Congress went even further, restructuring the military and requiring that the secretary of defense be a civilian as well.'
As they observed, '… the framers always intended it to be the people's military – not the president's.'
Read more:
This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation's archives.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
41 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
43 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.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘All the crypto cowboys are gone': Kevin O'Leary says the sector is safe now and is backing stablecoins
Despite big bets by financial giants like BlackRock, many investors still have trouble taking cryptocurrency seriously. And it's not just the memes and quirky fans pushing people away. In 2022, about 8% of U.S. adults called cryptocurrency the best long-term investment around. That number has been cut in half ever since the collapse of crypto exchange FTX wiped out nearly $9 billion in customer funds. Now, just a few years later, crypto bull Kevin O'Leary says those kinds of debacles are a thing of the past. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) 'All the crypto cowboys are gone. They're all gone. They're all in jail, they're felons, or whatever it is,' he told the press in mid-May at the Consensus cryptocurrency conference in Toronto. 'They were the pioneers (but) they've got arrows in their backs … They didn't play by the rules. And the regulators proved who won that fight.' Mr. Wonderful says he has reserved nearly 20% of his portfolio for crypto-related assets, including stablecoins, tokens and exchanges. His confidence is infectious, but curious investors still have to ask: Is the sun really setting on the Wild West era? O'Leary is intimately familiar with crypto scams. He was a paid spokesman for FTX, and he claims the entire fiasco cost him millions. 'Now that that's over, we can move ahead, and I think everyone understands the potential of this market,' he said. While O'Leary likely didn't mean to imply all crypto scams are finished — he seemed to be referring to embezzlement and fraud at trusted firms like FTX — he's optimistic about the impact of two bills coming before Congress. One is the GENIUS Act, which would require stablecoin issuers to hold a 1:1 reserve of cash or another liquid asset, amid other protections. Stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency that is pegged to another asset, usually the U.S. dollar. That's why these digital currencies are considered more 'stable' than other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. Proponents like O'Leary believe they will make global digital payments faster and cheaper. The other piece of legislation is the market infrastructure bill that would define each individual asset as a security or commodity so that the appropriate regulator — either the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission — can oversee it. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong blamed the FTX debacle on 'the lack of regulatory clarity here in the U.S.' forcing American investors to use an exchange based in the Bahamas. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse agreed: 'Brian is right — to protect consumers, we need regulatory guidance for companies that ensures trust and transparency. There's a reason why most crypto trading is offshore — companies have 0 guidance on how to comply here in the U.S.' But if Congress's new regulations don't end up being strong enough, they may just provide a veneer of legitimacy. 'While a strong stablecoin bill is the best possible outcome, this weak bill is worse than no bill at all,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren said of the GENIUS Act. Safety also relies on consistent enforcement, and the Trump administration has made a number of turbulent changes as it tries to make the U.S. the 'crypto capital of the planet.' Read more: Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says — and that 'anyone' can do it On stage at another crypto conference, Vice President JD Vance recently promised, 'We fired Gary Gensler — and we're going to fire everyone like him.' Gensler was the last chair of the SEC, and in the absence of laws and regulations governing crypto, he strove to make the space safer for investors by suing companies for apparent wrongdoing. Under new management, the agency reportedly moved its top crypto litigator to the IT department and has dropped cases against several major crypto firms. The Justice Department has disbanded its National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team and told prosecutors to only focus crypto investigations on drug cartels and terrorist groups. The Labor Department has told employers that they no longer have to exercise "extreme care' before they consider adding a cryptocurrency option to a 401(k) menu. Other regulators like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have also rescinded crypto guidance. As advocates for light and heavy regulation compete to push the sector forward in their own ways, critics are pointing out the potential dangers of an unleashed crypto industry on financial stability. 'Stablecoin legislation risks sowing seeds of a financial crisis,' said Alexandra Thornton, the senior director for financial regulation policy at the Center for American Progress, in an op-ed for Fortune. 'Stablecoins were supposed to leverage dollars to stabilize the chaotic universe of crypto. Instead, they seem set to infect the dollar-dominated financial system with the unique combined chaos of crypto and Mr. Trump,' wrote former Bank of England economist Dan Davies and Johns Hopkins professor Henry J. Farrell in an op-ed for The New York Times. 'The GENIUS Act folds stablecoins directly into the traditional financial system, while applying weaker safeguards than banks or investment companies must adhere to,' said Sen. Warren in her speech on the Senate floor. 'Make no mistake. We are likely to see another financial crisis in the coming years.' Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now This is how American car dealers use the '4-square method' to make big profits off you — and how you can ensure you pay a fair price for all your vehicle costs Like what you read? Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise straight to your inbox every week. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Sign in to access your portfolio
