The United States military holds a unique place in our society, and it has since its creation.
It is not only an organization that is designed to serve and defend the U.S., but it is also beholden to political factors. The military relies on the federal government for funding and instruction.
Given this close political connection, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Trump administration has made the military another front in its culture war.
In a September speech to assembled military officers, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth railed against political correctness in the military. He announced reforms that included eliminating anonymous internal complaints and holding combat troops to the “highest male standards.”
University political science professor Ron Krebs said while American politicians on both sides have tried to wrap themselves in the military for decades, their focus on image politics is unique to President Donald Trump, and Hegseth by extension.
“It is quite striking that Donald Trump in particular often speaks of people’s image and if they look good,” Krebs said. “Whether they are ‘out of central casting’ or not.”
The Trump administration has been particularly focused on the rhetoric of “restoring” the military to a time of perceived greatness, with Hegseth comparing himself to World War II military leaders in an address to military officers and Trump renaming the Defense Department to the Department of War, despite calling himself the “President of Peace.”
While this rhetoric may align with the idea of “Make America Great Again,” the claims of supposed military restoration fall flat in the face of the Trump administration’s attempts to conceal important parts of military history.
Numerous online websites and articles, including those on the Navajo Code Talkers and Jackie Robinson, were taken off the Defense Department’s website in an effort to remove materials that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.
While some of the pages have since been restored, the administration’s anti-DEI crusade continues. More than 26,000 images were flagged for removal, often dealing with service members who broke institutional barriers.
Minnesota Military and Veterans Museum deputy director Kevin Olson said when we try to erase personal stories instead of working to understand them, we risk losing the lessons gained from uncomfortable history.
“History should not be rewritten to fit a single perspective,” Olson said. “You’ve just got to present history truthfully, even if it challenges comfort zones.”
Krebs said the stories of marginalized groups in the military bring the issue of historical racism to the forefront and, therefore, are not convenient for the Trump administration.
“This is part of a larger politics, with the presumption very common on the political right that concern with issues of diversity, equity and inclusion comes at the expense of merit,” Krebs said. “So any effort to highlight the accomplishments and achievements of people of color, or of women, runs afoul of that larger political vision.”
Hegseth frequently uses the idea that the military is no longer merit-based to justify the administration’s attacks on what they deem DEI history and policies, as if these efforts are restoring the military to how it used to be.
Retired Army Colonel Yee Hang, president of the Minnesota Asian American and Pacific Islander Veterans Association, said the military is still merit-based in his experience, but that meritocracy relies on mentors and leaders being aware of prejudice and other issues.
“For that to work, people have to be of the right mentality and foresight to make sure that [merit-based factors] are the only factors used against you,” Hang said.
The idea that the military is not merit-based because of DEI also undermines senior military officers from marginalized groups who are beyond qualified for their positions.
Hang said that when he was a young officer, he didn’t have many senior Asian officers to look up to. He added that further erasing the accomplishments of historically marginalized groups diminishes their contribution to the military.
“If that phenomenon of erasing history continues, you’ll have less people in those higher positions who can mentor and advocate for younger, future leaders,” Hang said.
Erasing the accomplishments of soldiers who broke down barriers to serve their country, including some who won the Medal of Honor for their heroism, is incredibly disrespectful and prevents us from truly understanding our own history.
Olson, a retired colonel and former communications director for the Minnesota National Guard, said educating people about the personal stories behind military service is the main mission of his museum. It grants us a more nuanced understanding of military history, especially in states with rich military histories like Minnesota.
“This revisionist nostalgia that you’re talking about can make history look simple, but it’s not simple,” Olson said. “You have to teach your truth, and encourage people to ask those hard questions and see the people behind the uniforms.”
Trying to justify defense policy decisions with military history while misrepresenting that very history is disingenuous and downright dangerous.
This revisionist nostalgia comes at a time when Trump is planning to send even more National Guard troops into various cities across the nation.
Even within the military, the U.S. is facing a significant overhaul. Trump fired several senior officers at the start of his term, and the U.S Navy recently replaced the head of the Office of Naval Research with a civilian who was reportedly a Department of Government Efficiency staffer.
Krebs said political biases are gradually eroding the military’s remarkably nonpartisan political stance, which can decrease performance due to loyalty to an individual instead of the Constitution and soldiers’ fear of speaking up.
“The more you treat the military as a partisan political actor serving out partisan political agendas, the more the military will start to see itself as simply one partisan actor among others,” Krebs said. “And that’s what you don’t want to see.”
History is not convenient or comfortable, nor should it be. History is not a tool for partisan gain that can be edited to your liking. If we try to pick and choose the lessons we want to learn from history, we will inevitably end up worse off because of it.
Now is not the time to be unaware of our past.
