Three American service members were dead.

Iranian drones had reportedly struck U.S. forces in Jordan and Iraq. Families were grieving. Military communities were waiting for reassurance from the commander in chief.

For nearly two days, Donald Trump said nothing.

Instead, according to the reporting provided, the president played golf and attended a series of social events before appearing at Sunday’s World Cup final in New Jersey.

When Trump finally addressed the deaths, he described them as a “very sad thing”—then appeared to frame the losses as an unavoidable cost of war.

That response left foreign-policy analyst David Rothkopf stunned.

“It’s kind of remarkable the degree to which Trump does not know how to relate to people, does not know what a human reaction is,” Rothkopf said during an episode of The Daily Beast Podcast.

His conclusion was devastating.

“He just doesn’t care.”

The criticism followed reports that two American soldiers were killed Friday in Jordan during an Iranian drone attack.

A third service member reportedly died in northern Iraq during a controlled detonation involving another Iranian drone.

The supplied report does not identify the troops or provide full Pentagon details about the incidents. But the deaths intensified scrutiny of a conflict that has continued for months without a clearly defined public endgame.

Trump had not immediately issued a formal statement, appeared before cameras or publicly addressed the families.

By Sunday, he was preparing to attend one of the world’s largest sporting events.

That contrast became the heart of Rothkopf’s attack.

A president does not need to abandon every public engagement after a military death. National leaders continue governing, traveling and attending scheduled events during crises.

But the commander in chief carries a unique responsibility when Americans die in combat.

The first message matters.

The tone matters.

The families need to hear that their loved ones were more than statistics or routine costs.

Critics argue that Trump’s brief response failed that test.

Calling the deaths “very sad” may have acknowledged the tragedy, but the remark reportedly lacked the solemnity, detail and emotional connection Americans often expect from a president announcing battlefield losses.

Rothkopf interpreted the reaction as evidence of a deeper absence of empathy.

“If you’re the president of the United States, you started a war of choice,” he said.

He also called the conflict illegal, though that remains his legal and political characterization rather than a court ruling cited in the report.

The broader accusation was that Trump bears direct responsibility for placing American troops in danger through a war the administration chose to expand.

The president and his supporters would strongly dispute that framing.

They could argue that Iran initiated attacks, threatened American interests and left Washington with no responsible option except military action.

They may also contend that criticizing Trump’s weekend schedule politicizes the deaths before the facts are fully known.

Rothkopf’s argument was not simply that Trump attended events.

It was that he appeared detached while troops were dying in a conflict tied closely to his own decisions.

“You don’t spend the weekend partying while soldiers are dying,” he said.

According to the analyst, Trump played golf, attended an event connected to ally Mike Lindell and appeared at World Cup-related gatherings before publicly confronting the losses.

The president’s conduct created an image Rothkopf compared to Emperor Nero—the legendary Roman ruler often depicted as indulging himself while his city burned.

“I will party while America burns,” Rothkopf said, summarizing what he believed Trump’s behavior communicated.

The historical comparison was intentionally dramatic.

It did not suggest that the United States was literally collapsing or that Trump’s actions matched every aspect of the Nero legend.

It was a moral accusation.

Rothkopf believed the president was enjoying the spectacle of power while ignoring the human consequences of his policies.

That accusation lands at a particularly dangerous moment for the administration.

The Iran war has already placed pressure on global energy markets.

Oil and gasoline prices have risen amid disruptions and threats to vital shipping routes.

Military analysts have warned that Iran and its proxy forces could continue stretching U.S. defenses, opening additional fronts and imposing economic costs far beyond the battlefield.

Each new American death makes the absence of a clear endgame harder to defend.

What is the objective?

What conditions would allow troops to come home?

How many more lives and resources will the administration commit?

The White House has continued military operations, but critics say it has not provided convincing public answers.

That uncertainty makes presidential empathy even more important.

When the strategy is unclear, the public looks to the president for reassurance that the sacrifice is understood.

When Trump appeared to treat the deaths as an unfortunate but ordinary feature of war, critics saw a leader separating himself from the consequences.

Presidents have often struggled to speak about military casualties.

No words can repair the loss experienced by a family.

Ceremonial language can sound rehearsed.

Public grief can appear performative.

But silence and dismissiveness create their own message.

Trump’s critics say his history deepens the concern.

Former officials have previously accused him of speaking disrespectfully about wounded or fallen service members, allegations he has denied.

He has also repeatedly emphasized strength, victory and dominance while showing discomfort with moments that require vulnerability or mourning.

Rothkopf interpreted Sunday’s response through that established perception.

Trump, he argued, does not know how to display the instinctive human reaction expected from the commander in chief.

That is ultimately an assessment of character, not a provable medical or psychological fact.

People express grief differently.

A brief statement does not necessarily reveal everything a president feels privately.

But public leadership is judged publicly.

Americans cannot see private emotion.

They see the golf course, the parties, the stadium and the delayed response.

They hear three dead service members reduced to a “very sad thing.”

Trump’s supporters may dismiss the outrage as another attempt to attack him regardless of what he says.

They may argue that a longer statement would have been labeled theatrical and that military decisions cannot be guided by emotion alone.

Yet the criticism is not that Trump should abandon strategy for sentiment.

It is that strategy without visible humanity can make sacrifice appear disposable.

The troops killed in Jordan and Iraq were not symbols in a political debate.

They were Americans serving under orders issued through a chain of command that ends with the president.

Their families will live with the consequences long after the headlines fade and the World Cup celebrations end.

Rothkopf believes Trump’s response revealed the moral emptiness at the center of the war.

The White House may insist otherwise.

But for a president already facing questions about the conflict’s costs, the image is difficult to erase:

American soldiers died.

The president went golfing.

And when he finally spoke, his words sounded less like grief than resignation.