By John Q. Hosedrinker 
At West Point’s 2025 graduation, President Trump delivered a lengthy speech deviating significantly from its intended focus. He used the address to celebrate his administration’s dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs within the military and to boast about his crackdown on immigration. The speech also included tangential anecdotes about golf, real estate, and comparisons to Al Capone, highlighting his perceived persecution. Trump’s departure from the stage via a staircase, rather than the ramp that previously sparked controversy, concluded the event.
Read the original article here
Trump’s recent address at West Point was, to put it mildly, unconventional. Instead of delivering a speech befitting the solemnity of the occasion and the accomplishments of the graduating cadets, he embarked on a rambling discourse that veered wildly off course, touching upon topics as disparate as trophy wives, his prowess (or lack thereof) on the golf course, and his admiration for the late Al Capone. The entire presentation felt more like a bizarre stand-up routine than a commencement address from a former Commander-in-Chief.
The meandering nature of his speech was striking. He transitioned seamlessly—or rather, jarringly—from one topic to another, leaving the audience seemingly adrift in a sea of disconnected anecdotes and unsubstantiated claims. His comments about “trophy wives,” for example, were both jarring and oddly personal, injected into a speech intended to inspire future military leaders. It felt out of place, inappropriate, and frankly, unprofessional.
His references to golf were equally perplexing. The seemingly endless stream of self-aggrandizing stories about his golfing abilities, or rather, his self-proclaimed victories, felt strangely out of sync with the gravity of the setting. While anecdotes can be effective in speeches, Trump’s golf tales seemed more designed to boost his ego than to impart any meaningful message to the cadets. It lacked the gravitas expected from a figure addressing future officers.
Even more disconcerting was his repeated praise of Al Capone, whom he referred to as “the great late Al Capone.” This choice of words, especially considering the context of a military academy commencement, was profoundly unsettling. Capone was a notorious gangster, responsible for numerous crimes, and glorifying such a figure seemed to fly in the face of the values typically associated with military service and leadership.
Beyond the specific content of his speech, the overall tone was equally disturbing. The rambling, disjointed nature of his remarks suggested a lack of focus and preparation, and raised concerns about his cognitive abilities. This was not a carefully crafted address; it was a stream of consciousness delivered to a captive audience of impressionable young officers. The lack of coherent structure and the bizarre juxtaposition of topics further fueled concerns about his mental state.
Furthermore, the political undertones of his speech were inescapable. His comments about immigration and the election seemed inserted almost as an afterthought, yet they further highlighted the disconnect between the occasion and his message. These political asides, interwoven with the already disorienting flow of the speech, left many questioning the intent and appropriateness of his address. The political rhetoric felt forced and inappropriate, undermining the respect traditionally afforded to such events.
The choice of wearing a red baseball cap added another layer of bizarre to the already unusual presentation. It projected an image that was more akin to a campaign rally than a military commencement ceremony, again diminishing the gravity of the occasion. The sartorial choice, combined with the speech’s bizarre content, created an overall image that was both disrespectful and profoundly unprofessional.
In conclusion, Trump’s West Point address stands as a stark reminder of the challenges presented by political figures who prioritize self-promotion and personal narratives over reasoned discourse and responsible leadership. The rambling nature of his speech, the incongruous choice of topics, and the overall tone left a lasting impression of incoherence and inappropriateness, raising serious questions about his fitness for public office and the impact of such a performance on future generations of military leaders. The cadets, embarking on their careers, deserved a far more inspiring, coherent, and dignified commencement address. Instead, they received a spectacle that was both deeply unsettling and strangely unforgettable.