On August 8, 2025, the U.S. Army marked the 13th anniversary of an act of extraordinary bravery by Florent Groberg, a Medal of Honor recipient who, in 2012, tackled a suicide bomber in Afghanistan, saving the lives of his fellow soldiers but suffering catastrophic injuries. The Army’s tribute, meant to honor Groberg’s sacrifice, instead ignited a political firestorm when right-wing activist and Trump adviser Laura Loomer lashed out at Army Secretary Dan Driscoll for spotlighting Groberg—a French-born immigrant who once spoke at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
Loomer’s criticism, delivered in a lengthy post on X (formerly Twitter) on August 9, quickly drew widespread backlash. She questioned the Army’s choice, writing: “There are probably so many people who the Army could honor who have received the Medal of Honor. But who did the Army choose to honor instead on their social media page under the Trump admin?” Loomer continued, “They chose Groberg, an immigrant who voted for Hillary Clinton and spoke at the DNC as Obama’s guest. Are we supposed to believe the Army couldn’t find a Republican and US born soldier?” According to The Washington Post, she further accused Driscoll and the Army of “promoting anti-Trump Leftists on their official social media channels.”
The Army’s post, commemorating Groberg’s heroics, highlighted the events of August 8, 2012, when Groberg sprinted toward a suicide bomber, pushing him back and minimizing the blast. The explosion, however, killed four men: Army Command Sgt. Maj. Kevin J. Griffin, Army Maj. Thomas E. Kennedy, Air Force Maj. Walter D. Gray, and Foreign Service officer Ragaei Abdelfattah. Groberg himself suffered the loss of 50 percent of his lower calf, deafness in his left ear, and a traumatic brain injury. President Barack Obama awarded him the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military honor, on November 12, 2015.
Loomer’s attack on Groberg and Driscoll was swiftly condemned by military officials, veterans, and members of both major political parties. An anonymous Army official, speaking to The Washington Post, called Loomer’s comments “despicable” and emphasized, “The Army is not going to check the political affiliation of our soldiers before we recognize them. A man or woman serving is not a Democrat or Republican, they are an American. Their political affiliation has nothing to do with their service.” The official also described Groberg as a “national hero” and noted that the Army, as it approaches its 250th anniversary, plans to spotlight many such stories of heroism, regardless of the soldiers’ backgrounds.
Groberg himself responded to Loomer’s criticism with dignity and focus on those who made the ultimate sacrifice. “Thirteen years ago today is my Alive Day, the day I nearly lost my life, and four of my brothers, including three Army leaders, never came home,” he wrote in a widely shared social media post. “I’ve served under presidents from both parties and will always honor my oath to this country. Yes, I spoke for 60 seconds at the DNC when asked about service and sacrifice, not politics. For me, 8/8 isn’t about parties. It’s about the lives we lost.”
Groberg’s appearance at the 2016 Democratic National Convention had drawn attention before, but he has consistently maintained that his participation was not political. In an interview with The Washington Post in 2016, Groberg clarified, “I saw an opportunity for me to go in, not as a Republican, not as a Democrat, not as a political figure, but as a veteran. As an immigrant. As an American.” He added, “I made a choice. I stood up. I knew I would take the heat. But guess what? I still go to sleep at night like a baby. I’m okay with it.” During his DNC speech, Groberg described himself as “a proud immigrant to this country, a proud veteran of the United States Army, and a proud recipient of our nation’s highest military honor.”
Loomer, for her part, doubled down on her criticism when contacted by The Washington Post. She insisted, “It is very important that the secretary of the Army does not push out Democratic propaganda. I just laid out the facts.” Loomer also claimed this was the third time the Army, under Driscoll’s leadership, had highlighted individuals she regards as opposing the Trump administration. She cited Driscoll’s public gratitude for Rep. Eugene Vindman, who testified against Trump during his first impeachment trial, and the brief appointment of retired officer and Biden official Jennifer Easterly to West Point’s faculty—an appointment Driscoll later withdrew following backlash from Loomer and others.
The controversy drew responses from several former Trump administration officials who defended Groberg and the Army’s nonpartisan traditions. Chris Miller, who served as acting defense secretary during Trump’s first term, told The Washington Post, “One of the first things my drill sergeant told us at Army Basic Training in 1983 was, ‘You all bleed Army green now — no one cares about the color of your skin, where you came from, or what religion you are.’ He didn’t have to add, ‘or your political affiliation’ because it was taken for granted that our oath was to the Constitution and not any political party or person.” Miller went further, calling Loomer an “agent provocateur” and labeling her attack on Driscoll as “an abomination and disreputable.”
Robert Wilkie, who served as Veterans Affairs secretary under Trump, echoed this sentiment. “The Medal of Honor knows no political affiliation,” Wilkie said. “I am a Trump supporter and I am the son of a distinguished combat officer. My service was modest. I was raised to believe that that medal is sacred. No matter what the holder believes or where he came from, he is worthy of the respect and thanks of all Americans.”
Other veterans and Medal of Honor recipients also spoke out. Dakota Meyer, himself a Medal of Honor recipient, was blunt: “If anyone has earned the right to free speech… it’s a man who threw himself in front of a suicide bomber to save lives. What have you done?”
The incident has reignited debate over the politicization of military honors and the role of political affiliation in recognizing service and sacrifice. While Loomer’s critics argue that military valor transcends party and nationality, her supporters maintain that the Army’s choices for public recognition should reflect the values of the current administration. The Army, for its part, appears resolute in its stance that heroism is not defined by birthplace or political leanings.
As the Army approaches its 250th anniversary, the story of Florent Groberg stands as a testament to selfless service—and as a reminder that, at least for many Americans, the values of sacrifice and honor are not the exclusive property of one party or another.
