PATRIOTIC STAND OR CULTURE WAR? Kid Rock and Lee Greenwood want Veterans Month to take Pride Month’s place—igniting fierce backlash and unexpected support. Here’s what’s really behind their controversial proposal.

In a bold and controversial move timed to coincide with Independence Day, music stars Kid Rock and Lee Greenwood have ignited a fierce national debate by proposing that June—currently celebrated as Pride Month—be replaced with a new designation: Veterans Month.

The outspoken entertainers, both known for their deep patriotism and connections to conservative politics, argue that U.S. military veterans deserve a full month of national recognition, particularly as the country grapples with cultural and political polarization. But their proposal has set off a firestorm of backlash, with critics accusing them of using veterans as a wedge in the ongoing culture war.

“Honor Those Who Gave Us Freedom”

Kid Rock, never one to shy away from political controversy, made the statement during a July 3rd interview, stating, “It’s time this country honors the people who fought and bled for our freedom—not just for a day, but for a month. Veterans deserve more than lip service. Let’s stop catering to every group and start standing up for our heroes.”

Lee Greenwood, whose patriotic anthem God Bless the USA has become a staple of military ceremonies, echoed the sentiment in an interview with a Nashville radio station. “I’m not saying we shouldn’t recognize other groups,” Greenwood said. “But without our veterans, we wouldn’t have the freedom to celebrate anything—including Pride Month. Let’s not forget who gave us that right.”

Immediate and Divided Reaction

Their comments drew instant reaction online, with hashtags like #VeteransMonthNow and #PrideStays trending within hours. Supporters of the proposed change applauded the musicians for “saying what many Americans feel but are too afraid to say,” claiming that veterans are too often honored only symbolically.

“I’m gay and a veteran,” wrote one user on X. “But I can tell you—our country does need to do more for vets. That said, we don’t need to cancel Pride to do it.”

Others weren’t as nuanced.

 

“Kid Rock and Greenwood are spot on,” wrote conservative commentator Tomi Lahren. “America has gone too far down the path of woke virtue signaling. It’s time to refocus our values.”

Meanwhile, LGBTQ+ advocates pushed back forcefully, accusing the artists of trying to pit communities against one another. “This isn’t about honoring veterans,” said GLAAD spokesperson Ari Phillips. “It’s about erasing a community that has fought for its rights for decades. We can—and should—celebrate both.”

Veterans Groups Speak Out

Several veterans’ organizations responded with statements urging unity and perspective. American Veterans (AMVETS), a nonpartisan group, acknowledged the need for more recognition but rejected the notion that it should come at the cost of other communities.

“Honoring veterans is always welcome,” said AMVETS National Commander Greg Heun. “But we shouldn’t be used as a political tool to diminish the recognition of others. Many LGBTQ+ people serve in uniform. Let’s not forget that.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs also weighed in unofficially, pointing to Veterans Day in November and the month-long observance of Military Appreciation Month each May. Still, the department acknowledged that a dedicated Veterans Month could be discussed—provided it doesn’t come at the expense of inclusion or civil rights.

Culture War Flashpoint

This latest controversy reflects deeper divisions in America’s cultural landscape, where debates over which groups deserve national attention have become a recurring flashpoint. From school curriculums to public celebrations, identity and patriotism are increasingly weaponized in political rhetoric.

Dr. Carla Monroe, a sociologist at the University of Michigan, notes that the timing of the proposal—just after Pride Month and on the eve of Independence Day—is no coincidence. “This taps into a broader political strategy that seeks to recenter American values through a narrow, often exclusionary lens,” she said. “But it also speaks to genuine frustrations about how veterans are treated post-service—something that deserves real attention, not just symbolic gestures.”