Lt. Gen. Dan Caine Denies Wearing MAGA Hat During 2018 Iraq Meeting with Trump

During his confirmation hearing for the role of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lt. Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine, nominated by President Donald Trump, firmly denied claims that he had worn a red “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) cap during a meeting with Trump in Iraq in 2018.

The anecdote, often shared by the former president, sparked controversy and raised questions about the appropriateness of such political symbolism within the military context.

However, Caine’s testimony during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday set the record straight, refuting the claims and emphasizing his commitment to maintaining a neutral and apolitical stance throughout his military career.

The story first emerged from President Trump’s recounting of a meeting with a soldier named “Razin’ Caine” during a 2018 trip to Iraq, where Trump was visiting U.S. troops stationed there. In these retellings, Trump described his conversation with Caine as an eye-opening discussion about the best way to defeat ISIS, with Caine reportedly suggesting that the terrorist group could be quickly eradicated with the right kind of military authority.

Trump has often praised Caine for his strong stance on military strategy, recounting the interaction as one of the more memorable moments of his trip.

However, what raised eyebrows was Trump’s additional claim during the 2024 Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) gathering that Caine had been wearing a red MAGA hat during their interaction. This detail immediately attracted attention, given the military’s strict policies about political paraphernalia.

According to Department of Defense regulations, service members are prohibited from wearing political merchandise or engaging in partisan political activity while on active duty. The apparent contradiction between Trump’s story and the military rules led to further scrutiny, prompting questions about the accuracy of the anecdote.

Caine, during his Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing, was directly confronted with the claims made by Trump about their 2018 meeting. Caine, who served for over three decades in the U.S. Army, was quick to clarify that he had never worn a MAGA hat or engaged in any political expression while on active duty.

“For 34 years, I’ve upheld my oath of office and the responsibilities of my commission,” Caine stated confidently. He further emphasized that he had reviewed tapes of the President’s story and was convinced that Trump had mistakenly referred to someone else.

“I went back and listened to those tapes, and I think the president was actually talking about somebody else,” Caine said. The general’s firm stance sought to dispel any confusion surrounding the incident, reinforcing his dedication to military neutrality and adherence to the regulations governing active-duty personnel.

Caine continued to address the issue by asserting that he had never worn any political merchandise during his service. “I’ve never worn any political merchandise or said anything to that effect,” he added, distancing himself from any involvement in partisan politics during his military career.

The suggestion that Caine had worn a MAGA hat during a military deployment in Iraq highlights the ongoing tension between politics and the military. The U.S. military is bound by strict rules that prohibit service members from engaging in political activities while on duty.

This ensures that the military remains neutral and focused on its mission, without the influence of partisan politics. Military personnel are also discouraged from wearing or displaying any political symbols, including campaign hats, which could be seen as a violation of the Department of Defense’s regulations.

The controversy surrounding Trump’s claims raised concerns among military observers, who wondered whether the president’s retelling of the story could undermine the integrity of the military’s apolitical stance. Many pointed out that military members are expected to embody professionalism and impartiality, especially when interacting with political leaders.

Caine’s denial of the MAGA hat claim served as a reminder that, regardless of Trump’s narrative, the military holds itself to high standards of conduct and political neutrality.

In a broader sense, the issue raised important questions about the role of politics in military leadership. As members of the armed forces are held to a higher standard of political neutrality, the public perception of political influence on military personnel can be a sensitive matter.

Caine’s confirmation hearing provided an opportunity for the general to reaffirm his commitment to professionalism, distancing himself from any partisan associations that could cloud his judgment as a potential Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The claim that Caine had worn a MAGA hat was also countered by military officials who had served alongside him. A senior official who worked with Caine during his career, speaking on the condition of anonymity, asserted that Caine had never worn such a hat or engaged in any partisan activity during his time in the military.

“He’s never touched a MAGA hat,” the official stated. “I’ve known him for a decade. Never heard him say anything political or partisan.”

This corroboration from a colleague who had worked closely with Caine for years further supported the general’s version of events, suggesting that Trump’s recounting of the meeting may have been embellished or misremembered. For many, this revelation confirmed that Caine’s professional reputation remained intact and free from any political affiliations.

As Caine’s nomination to lead the Joint Chiefs of Staff moves forward, the controversy surrounding the MAGA hat anecdote has raised questions about the relationship between the military and politics. Caine, who has been nominated by President Trump, is poised to assume one of the most influential military positions in the country.

As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he would be responsible for advising the president on military strategy and national security issues. Given the high-profile nature of the role, Caine’s ability to maintain political neutrality is crucial to his effectiveness as a leader.

The confirmation process is likely to include further scrutiny of Caine’s record and his ability to remain independent of political pressures. The Senate Armed Services Committee will play a pivotal role in determining whether Caine’s background and character align with the requirements of the position.

As the nomination progresses, the conversation about military neutrality and the relationship between politics and the armed forces will undoubtedly remain at the forefront of discussions.

Trump’s relationship with the military has been a point of contention throughout his presidency. His administration’s policies on defense spending, military readiness, and leadership appointments have often been met with both praise and criticism.

While some military leaders have expressed support for Trump’s approach to defense, others have raised concerns about the potential politicization of the armed forces.

Caine’s confirmation as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would further solidify Trump’s influence over the military establishment. However, the controversy surrounding the MAGA hat anecdote serves as a reminder of the potential challenges that can arise when political narratives intersect with military professionalism.

It remains to be seen how this issue will impact Caine’s confirmation, but his clear rejection of any political affiliations may help ease concerns about his impartiality and commitment to upholding the integrity of the military.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the highest-ranking military officer in the U.S. military and serves as the principal military advisor to the president, the National Security Council, and the secretary of defense. The position is critical to shaping the country’s military strategy and ensuring that the armed forces are prepared to meet national security challenges.

The Chairman’s ability to maintain a nonpartisan stance is essential to the effectiveness of the role, as military advice must be grounded in objective analysis rather than political considerations.

Caine’s nomination to this prestigious position represents an important moment in the relationship between military leadership and political leadership. As the confirmation process unfolds, it will be important for Caine to demonstrate that he can rise above the political fray and serve the best interests of the country, rather than being swayed by partisan pressures.