Trump’s Fort Bragg backdrop tied to ‘no fat soldiers’ memo: Report


This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

Memo shows handpicked troops

An internal memo suggests troops seated behind President Trump at Fort Bragg were chosen based on appearance and political views, not rank or position.

Based on political, physical attributes

Messages reportedly told soldiers with opposing views to ask for reassignment and specified that “no fat soldiers” should be in the audience.

Law, policy goes against partisan displays

The military’s political neutrality policy goes against partisan displays during presidential speeches.


Full story

An internal memo suggested the seating behind President Donald Trump during his visit to Fort Bragg this week wasn’t based on military rank or position. Instead, the service members selected to appear behind him were reportedly chosen for their physical appearance and political alignment as he marked the Army’s 250th birthday on Tuesday.

What was included in the obtained memos?

Military.com first reported the story and reviewed a message from the 82nd Airborne Division, which helped coordinate President Trump’s visit alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The notes reviewed handpicked the soldiers sitting behind Trump.

“If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don’t want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out,” the note read.

The outlet also reported that messages to troops included guidance on physical appearance, stating that “no fat soldiers” should be selected for the audience.

Military.com said service officials didn’t comment on the screening of troops or if any would be disciplined for cheering and applauding during Trump’s speech.

Was it wrong for service members to cheer and boo?

It is considered against military policy for troops to show partisan support during a presidential speech. The U.S. military is meant to remain politically neutral and serve under civilian leadership, regardless of party or personal beliefs.

Regulations such as the Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 prohibit active-duty service members from engaging in partisan political activities to protect the military’s integrity and public trust. Public displays of political alignment risk undermining the perception of neutrality and can erode confidence in the military as a nonpartisan institution.

The Hatch Act, while primarily applying to civilian federal employees, reflects a broader principle that government institutions must avoid the appearance of political bias. Although a president may be warmly received with applause and cheering as the commander-in-chief, using uniformed troops as backdrops for political messaging may go against federal law and policy.

Sean Parnell, a spokesman for the Pentagon, spoke on the behavior of the service members. In a statement, he said, “Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media,” Sean Parnell, a top Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement to Military.com. “Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers.”

Recap of Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg

Trump opened his speech and explained why he wanted to celebrate the Army in a big way. He said U.S. soldiers had shaped the nation for centuries, standing on the front lines of American history. Trump also credited his leadership for the military’s success and pointed to the funding increases during his first term, aiding their fight for American freedom.

The president spoke about the Biden Administration and the media, garnering boos from the troops gathered behind Trump.

He then touched on the current protests in Los Angeles against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Trump deployed both the National Guard and Marines to the city to aid local police and bring an aggressive approach.

“Well, if we didn’t do it, there wouldn’t be a Los Angeles. We’d be burning today just like their houses were burning a number of months ago,” he said.

Alex Delia (Deputy Managing Editor ), Lawrence Banton (Digital Producer), and Zachary Hill (Video Editor) contributed to this report.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Why this story matters

The incident raises questions about military neutrality, the politicization of troops and the boundaries of appropriate conduct during political events.

Get the big picture

Synthesized coverage insights across 13 media outlets

Context corner

The military in the United States has a longstanding tradition, codified in regulations, of political neutrality to prevent the armed forces from being seen as aligned with any party or candidate. Historically, violations of these norms are rare and typically draw strong rebukes from military and civilian leaders to preserve public trust in military institutions.

History lesson

There is mention that previous presidents have faced criticism for appearing to politicize the military, with a note that President Biden faced similar accusations for a speech featuring Marines in uniform. However, the orchestrated screening of military personnel based on political affiliations during a high-profile event is described as unprecedented in the sources reviewed.

Policy impact

Allowing partisan displays and merchandise sales at a military event, as well as orchestrated audience selection, are cited as possible violations of regulations aimed at preserving the military’s nonpartisan character. The incident raises questions about the enforcement of such policies and the potential impact on trust in military leadership and public institutions.

Media landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

12 total sources

Key points from the Center

No summary available because of a lack of coverage.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Right

No summary available because of a lack of coverage.

Report an issue with this summary

  • No coverage from Lean Right sources 0 sources
  • No coverage from Right sources 0 sources
  • No coverage from Far Right sources 0 sources

Powered by Ground News™