A U.S. Army drill sergeant stationed in Georgia is being investigated after a viral video appeared to show soldiers performing exercises beneath a politically charged flag on a military base.
According to the Daily Mail, Staff Sgt. Thomas Mitchell allegedly led soldiers through physical training under a pro-Trump “Ultra MAGA Country” banner in violation of military rules, prompting an official investigation into the incident and broader concerns about partisanship within Army ranks.
The initial video, posted to the TikTok account @11chuckduece and later removed, reportedly showed soldiers at Fort Benning engaging in exercise routines such as pushups and burpees beneath a flag that prominently displayed a political slogan associated with former President Donald Trump’s supporters.
Army officials were alerted to the footage, leading them to open an investigation into possible violations of regulations that prohibit partisan activity while in uniform or on federal property. The Department of Defense strictly bars the display of political banners in official military settings, both to preserve neutrality and uphold public trust in the armed forces. A second video, also removed, was posted with the caption “Cry about it,” escalating concerns that Mitchell was aware the first video had sparked controversy but doubled down instead of retracting his actions.
Army Responds With Focus on Neutrality and Justice
Mitchell currently serves as a drill sergeant with B Company, 2-19th Infantry Battalion, 198th Infantry Training Brigade. His specific role involves shaping the conduct and discipline of trainees at Fort Benning, one of the Army’s key basic training installations.
The Army has yet to release a statement regarding Mitchell’s status during the ongoing investigation. However, officials confirmed the matter is being pursued internally and will be handled in line with the military’s policies and code of conduct. Spokesperson Jennifer Gunn reaffirmed that the Army does not endorse political favoritism. “The US Army is an apolitical organization,” she said. Gunn also emphasized the prohibition of political displays within any military facility, including training areas.
Event Sparks Larger Conversation on Military Partisanship
The incident has drawn comparisons to a separate controversy a month earlier, when soldiers appeared behind President Trump during a speech at Fort Bragg for the Army’s 250th anniversary. Observers noted political undertones in how the audience was arranged and behaved during the event. Internal messages from the 82nd Airborne Division, which took part in the Fort Bragg ceremony, revealed alleged efforts to select troops based on perceived physical appeal and ideological alignment. Some of these communications included body-shaming comments like “No fat soldiers.”
In one message, soldiers were reportedly allowed to request a reassignment if they disagreed with the political leanings of the occasion. This, combined with the crowd’s behavior—booing Democratic politicians and laughing at jokes aimed at President Joe Biden—raised questions about whether the event crossed ethical lines.
Military Guidelines Clearly Define Expected Conduct
Army policy, as outlined in official manuals, carries a clear message: soldiers in uniform must not promote or oppose political movements. One passage states that soldiers can participate in political activities as private citizens, but are expected to avoid any public behavior that may appear partisan while in uniform.
“Being nonpartisan means not favoring any specific political party or group,” the manual notes. “Nonpartisanship assures the public that our Army will always serve the Constitution and our people loyally and responsively.” Joe Cole, the Garrison Public Affairs Director, acknowledged the seriousness of the issue. “The investigation would take some time,” he said, as Army leadership works to determine whether regulations were breached and what consequences, if any, will result.
Debate Emerges Over Accountability and Awareness
A noncommissioned officer from the 82nd Airborne Division offered insight into the complexity of holding service members accountable in politically sensitive situations. The officer suggested that some soldiers may not have even recognized the names or faces of the individuals they booed. “They didn’t even know the mayor’s name or could identify them in a lineup,” the officer said, raising the possibility that reactions attributed to political bias may have come from peer pressure or lack of context rather than ideological conviction. Despite these nuances, the Army’s approach to discipline remains consistent: leaders are not permitted to use their authority to sway subordinates politically, intentionally, or not. Mitchell’s case, in particular, is receiving close attention because of its visibility and setting during basic training.
Pentagon Officials Push Back on Political Criticism
The Pentagon has denied that wrongdoing occurred during the Trump event and has dismissed some of the fallout as political opportunism. Spokesman Sean Parnell made a pointed statement regarding inquiries into the event’s legitimacy. “Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media,” Parnell said. “Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers.” This remark has drawn both support and criticism, as debates continue over the balance between free expression and professional responsibility within the military.
Army Leadership Takes Steps to Reinforce Standards
Officials, while tight-lipped about disciplinary actions, indicated that the Army remains committed to its institutional values. “We will investigate this matter and address it by established policies to ensure compliance with standards of conduct,” Gunn said, “and to maintain an environment free from political influence.” Mitchell’s case may not be the last of its kind, as social media and troop behavior intersect in ways the military must manage carefully. Veterans and active service members alike are renewing the conversation around how to maintain professionalism in an increasingly polarized political climate.
For now, Fort Benning awaits the outcome of the investigation. As more facts become available, the Army’s dedication to remaining above politics will be tested both within the ranks and in the public eye.
