Trump, a president who was too cowardly to serve, says the USS Lincoln deployment was “not nearly long enough.” Combat veteran Gov. Wes Moore delivers the response military families deserve.
Summary
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore delivered the response that military families deserved after President Donald Trump dismissed concerns about the sailors and Marines aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Wes Moore—a combat veteran who served with the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan—condemned a commander in chief who answered reports of exhausting conditions and mental-health strain not with concern, but by saying the deployment had gone “not nearly long enough.” Moore’s criticism carries particular weight because he has personally led soldiers in combat.
- The sailors have endured an extraordinary deployment. The Navy itself says the Lincoln has been deployed for 266 days, including 200 days in a combat zone, while acknowledging that meal plans had to be adjusted, communications home were restricted, and some sailors required mental-health treatment.
- Trump dismissed legitimate family concerns. When asked whether the deployment had gone on too long amid reports of deteriorating conditions and mental-health problems, Trump answered, “Not nearly long enough.”
-
Moore called the response morally unacceptable. He argued that a president who had never deployed or worn the uniform should show greater compassion toward those making sacrifices he had never personally made.
-
Congress is demanding answers. Sen. Richard Blumenthal cited reports involving supply shortages, plumbing problems, water contamination, deteriorating mental health, and more than 200 consecutive days without a port call. House members and other senators have also demanded accountability from the Pentagon.
-
Trump’s history makes the episode more troubling. He received multiple Vietnam-era draft deferments and later publicly demeaned John McCain’s status as a war hero. Former White House chief of staff John Kelly also confirmed that Trump privately disparaged service members, allegations Trump has denied.
Supporting the troops cannot mean treating them as expendable props for presidential bravado. A progressive foreign policy demands something more serious: defend service members, respect their families, demand clearly defined missions, scrutinize unnecessary wars, and never confuse cruelty with strength.
PLEASE BECOME A PAID SUBSCRIBER TODAY
Countering billionaires—and soon trillionaires—is hard, probing work. They flood the zone with propaganda, policy distortions, and economic fallacies rooted in the Powell Memo and financed by concentrated wealth. We work every day to answer that machinery with truth, context, and critical thinking. But independent media cannot survive on conviction alone. It needs support from people who understand the stakes. Please become a paid subscriber today. Your support keeps this work alive, expands its reach, and helps build a media ecosystem that serves people, not plutocrats. This is not charity. It is an investment in truth, democracy, and the public good.
Premium Content (Complimentary)
Wes Moore Exposes the Cruelty Behind Trump’s Treatment of America’s Troops
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said what far too many politicians have been unwilling to say: a commander in chief owes the people he sends into danger something more than chest-thumping rhetoric. He owes them judgment, compassion, a coherent mission, and a commitment to bring them home when that mission is complete.
That standard becomes especially important as disturbing reports emerge from the USS Abraham Lincoln. The Navy acknowledges that the carrier has been deployed for 266 days, including 200 days in a combat zone. It says sailors have flown more than 10,000 sorties and dropped 1.5 million pounds of ordnance. The Navy acknowledges that meal plans required adjustments when fresh supplies became unavailable—a problem aggravated by Iranian missile and drone attacks that damaged the Navy’s Bahrain logistics hub and disrupted normal resupply operations. Calls home were restricted partly for operational security during active combat, while the extraordinary deployment length, combat stress, and uncertain return dates contributed to sailors requiring mental-health treatment.
Congressional concerns go even further. Sen. Richard Blumenthal says the carrier has gone more than 200 consecutive days without a port call and cites reports of supply shortages, water contamination, plumbing failures, deteriorating mental health, deck-safety problems, and disrupted mail.
Against that backdrop, Donald Trump received a straightforward question: Had the deployment gone on too long?
His answer was stunning.
“Not nearly long enough.”
That response captures the central moral problem. These sailors and Marines are not pieces on a Risk board. They are human beings with spouses, children, parents, bodies that require rest, and minds that absorb accumulated stress. Roughly 5,000 personnel serve aboard the carrier, and some have endured more than 200 days without a port call.
Moore responded as someone who understands military sacrifice from experience. He served in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne Division, leading soldiers in combat. He said Trump’s reaction “pisses me off,” arguing that a president who never experienced forward deployment should show more compassion toward those who did. Moore is demanding missions that are explainable, understandable, and winnable—not open-ended deployments imposed by politicians insulated from their consequences.
That criticism becomes more potent when placed beside Trump’s history. Trump never served in the military and received several Vietnam-era deferments, including a medical deferment associated with bone spurs. He later mocked Sen. John McCain, who survived more than five years as a prisoner of war, declaring that he preferred “people who weren’t captured.” Former chief of staff John Kelly subsequently confirmed accounts that Trump privately disparaged Americans killed or wounded in military service, although Trump has denied those allegations.
None of that means a president must have served in uniform to command the military responsibly. Many presidents have not. The issue is empathy, judgment, and accountability.
And that is where progressives should make the broader argument.
Real support for the troops does not mean reflexively supporting every war. In fact, the opposite is true. Respecting military personnel requires politicians to exhaust diplomacy, clearly define objectives, fund adequate staffing and maintenance, protect physical and mental health, and refuse to trap American service members in endless conflicts whose purposes keep shifting.
The Pentagon can dispute some of the most severe characterizations of conditions aboard the Lincoln, and those disputes deserve acknowledgment. But even its own statement says the crew has been “pushed to their limits.” That admission should end the debate over whether concern is warranted.
Wes Moore understands a basic truth that Donald Trump’s response missed: military strength does not come from grinding human beings down until they break. Strength comes from valuing them enough not to waste their courage.
