Staff Reports
Military recruitment ads under the Biden and Trump administrations have showcased two vastly different visions for attracting young Americans to serve. The Biden-era campaign, epitomized by the animated story of Corporal Emma Malonelord, focuses on themes of diversity, inclusion, and personal growth. Emma’s journey—from a childhood raised by two moms in California to her decision to join the Army—highlights the idea that military service can be a path to self-discovery and breaking stereotypes. While this approach aims to appeal to a broader demographic, critics argue that it softens the image of the military, prioritizing social messaging over its traditional mission of defending the nation.
In stark contrast, Trump’s recruitment ads return to the fundamentals of military strength and valor. With taglines like “Stronger people are harder to kill,” these ads emphasize combat readiness, power, and the warrior ethos. Featuring tanks, fighter jets, and drill sergeants barking commands, Trump’s campaign paints a picture of the military as a force for national defense rather than a platform for social experimentation. Conservatives have praised this approach as a much-needed departure from what they view as “woke nonsense” under Biden—a sentiment echoed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s commitment to abolishing diversity and equity initiatives within the armed forces.
The effectiveness of these contrasting strategies has sparked debate. Biden’s ads attempt to modernize recruitment by appealing to younger generations who value inclusivity and personal narratives. However, critics argue that this focus risks alienating traditional recruits who are drawn to the military’s core values of discipline, patriotism, and sacrifice. Trump’s ads, on the other hand, aim to inspire through raw imagery of strength and heroism—an approach that aligns with conservative ideals but may not resonate with all segments of today’s youth.
Recruitment numbers provide some insight into these approaches. Under Biden’s administration, military recruitment saw a 12.5% increase from 2023 to 2024, driven by initiatives like prep courses for lower-performing recruits and targeted outreach to women and Hispanic communities. However, Trump has claimed credit for record-breaking recruitment months early in his second term, attributing the surge to his rollback of “woke” policies and emphasis on traditional military values. While experts caution against attributing recruitment trends solely to presidential policies—pointing instead to factors like economic conditions and updated marketing strategies—the ideological divide remains evident.
Ultimately, these recruitment campaigns reflect deeper cultural tensions about what the military represents in modern America. Biden’s ads portray service as an inclusive opportunity for personal growth, while Trump’s emphasize strength and duty above all else. For conservatives, Trump’s approach better preserves the military’s identity as a fighting force dedicated to national defense rather than a vehicle for progressive ideals. As both administrations grapple with how best to inspire young Americans to enlist, the debate over messaging underscores broader questions about the role of the armed forces in an increasingly divided society.
