In a campaign in which Donald Trump has ignored advice and precedent, turned conventional wisdom on its head and flouted the basic bylaws of politics and societal norms, he may be proving that at least one thing remains sacrosanct: the sacrifices of those who have died for this country.

More than any of his controversies to date, Trump’s feud with the parents of a deceased soldier has undermined his status within his own party. Beyond ceding the moral high ground, Trump is threatening his own standing with the flag-waving pro-military voters who’ve long been a solidly Republican bloc. And Trump’s newest feud plays right into Democratic hands. His willingness to attack a family that has sacrificed so much for the country gives greater definition to the argument articulated by Hillary Clinton and Democrats last week: that he is temperamentally unfit to be president, and that there is something wholly unAmerican about his candidacy and vision for the country.


Trump’s inability to quietly absorb last week’s stinging criticism from the parents of Humayun Khan — a Muslim born to Pakistani immigrants who was killed 12 years ago while serving as an Army captain in Iraq — and Trump's persistence in punching back are in keeping with the approach that has propelled him to the Republican presidential nomination. But this protracted battle, now entering a fourth day, is testing the limits of his bullying, no-apologies political approach in a way no other self-inflicted wound or crisis has.

“There’s just no sense of decency from this man,” said Rick Tyler, a GOP operative who worked for Ted Cruz’s campaign. “I understand they challenged him, but there’s some things you just can’t win and you shouldn’t engage in. [Trump] wanted to change the subject to radical Islamic terrorism — which is what this guy died fighting. He just can’t win the argument and needs to shut up about it, but his personality won’t allow him to do that. He just can’t be quiet, especially when he gets attacked."

None of Trump’s prior targets — not a senator and former prisoner of war, not a journalist mocked for his disability, not a federal judge deemed unable to preside over a case due to his ethnicity — has had as much moral authority as Khizr and Ghazala Khan, Muslim Americans whose son received the Bronze Star and Purple Heart after being killed in Iraq in 2004. And unlike Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who the judicial code of ethics prevented from responding to Trump, the Khans have answered back, blanketing the cable TV airwaves to counter Trump's criticism and insinuations with further exhortations of outrage and grief that ensure the story continues.

“No one — no one has given more for our freedom and our security than our Gold Star families,” said President Barack Obama during a speech in Atlanta Monday.

Eleven Gold Star families rebuked Trump in an open letter calling his response to the Khan family “repugnant and personally offensive” and demanding an apology. “When you question a mother's pain, by implying that her religion, not her grief, kept her from addressing an arena of people, you are attacking us,” they wrote. “When you say your job building buildings is akin to our sacrifice, you are attacking our sacrifice. You are not just attacking us, you are cheapening the sacrifice made by those we lost. You are minimizing the risk our service members make for all of us.”

And the Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a statement from its director, Brian Duffy, that the organization “will not tolerate anyone berating a Gold Star family member for exercising his or her right of speech or expression.”

In this reductive, zero-sum political culture, it was almost inevitable that some Trump supporters would quickly engage in attempting to discredit the Khans themselves. Over the weekend, longtime Trump ally Roger Stone suggested that a link between the Khans and the Muslim Brotherhood. (In a later Tweet, Stone issued a "correction" to instead accused Khizr Khan of being linked to a Saudi financier of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.) In television interviews Monday, campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis lamented that the Khans had “politicized” their son’s death. Trump supporters are likely to take their candidate’s side, but this ongoing back-and-forth and Trump’s impulsive escalation of the fight isn’t likely to broaden his appeal with general election swing voters.

“His supporters are still willing to make excuses for whatever he does, but it does hinder his chance to expand his standing in the polls, and he’s going to need to bring in more people if he wants to win,” said Ryan Williams, a GOP operative who worked on Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign. “I don’t think it’s going to peel people off of him, because they’re with him despite his already having said so many crazy and offensive things. But by doing this, he’s really hurting himself in his efforts to woo undecided voters.”

Once again, Trump has left fellow Republicans rushing to craft another round of forlorn but cautious statements, chastising their party’s presidential nominee for again failing to represent their individual and collective values but stopping short of withdrawing their support of his campaign.

John McCain, the senator and former POW whose war record Trump disparaged last summer shortly after his campaign began, issued a forceful statement Monday morning taking the Khans’ side in the ongoing dispute. “I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump’s statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates," McCain said. "I’d like to say to Mr. and Mrs. Khan: thank you for immigrating to America. We’re a better country because of you. And you are certainly right; your son was the best of America, and the memory of his sacrifice will make us a better nation – and he will never be forgotten."

Republican Sen. Roy Blunt also chided Trump. “The Khans have made the greatest possible sacrifice for our country; they deserve to be heard and respected," he said in a statement. "My advice to Donald Trump has been and will continue to be to focus on jobs and national security and stop responding to every criticism — whether it's from a grieving family or Hillary Clinton."

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, didn’t even mention Trump by name in his statement criticizing the candidate’s behavior. “I am dismayed at the attacks Khizr and Ghazala Khan have endured after the spoke about their son’s service and sacrifice,” he said. “There is never enough honor we can show to the families of those whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Service to our country is above politics. I believe that each of us are called every day to show our deepest respect and gratitude to all of those who protect our freedom and their families.”

But with a few exceptions — Jeb Bush’s campaign chairwoman, Sally Bradshaw, left the Republican Party on Monday, registering as an independent in Florida and saying she might vote for Clinton over a GOP nominee that she called “a total narcissist, a misogynist, a bigot” — Trump’s chorus of prominent Republican critics includes few leaders who are ready to rescind their endorsements of him altogether. And they may hold firm until Trump begins to hurt their own reelection chances or standing with constituents.

“Obviously, Republican senators and governors don’t support what he says but they have to walk a tightrope distancing themselves,” Williams said. “But if they flat-out reject him, they risk alienating a significant portion of their base.”

In what may be a sign of redirection, though certainly not retreat, Trump avoided the controversy altogether when he took the stage for a rally in Columbus, Ohio, on Monday afternoon. His pivot, however, was not to attacking Clinton, but rather to a lengthy riff in which he bragged about winning the GOP primary, slammed CNN and spoke angrily about his supposed mistreatment by the media.

He also suggested, for the first time, that November’s election will be “rigged” against him.

