'Young Washington' is the July 4 movie MAGA needs — but won’t understand

An Angry Movieogoer

Both before and after seeing "Young Washington," I spoke with members of the audience to get a sense of who was seeing the film and what they thought of it. Virtually everyone was there because they loved American history, wanted to celebrate the 4th of July and/or both. With one exception (a woman who was bored to tears), the eight people who spoke to me on the record all thought "Young Washington" was a fun, action-packed historical epic that celebrated Washington's early military career while still revealing his human side.

There was one notable exception, though, amidst this patriotic good cheer. One elderly woman, upon hearing that I'm a journalist, demanded in a loud voice, "Wait, are you MAGA?" I politely replied, "No, I am not" and said good day to her while her glaring eyes bore a small hole in the back of my head.

If anyone needed to be better informed about what Washington stood for, it was that lady.

My favorite scene from "Young Washington"

In a key scene from “Young Washington,” America’s future revolutionary leader and first president seizes the opportunity to read books with the eagerness that modern children display for video games, Instagram videos and AI slop. Reflecting the real George Washington’s interests, he intellectually imbibes the ideas of classical scholars like Plutarch and Seneca, classical heroes like Cato and Cincinnatus and the late 16th century French Jesuit text “Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour In Company and Conversation.” Through these books, which Washington reread and took extensive notes on, he developed ideals that he embraced for the rest of his life — compassion for the less fortunate, enjoyment of scholarly learning, comporting oneself with modesty and dignity, being humble and taking accountability for one’s mistakes.

Most importantly for the future country he would lead, they taught Washington to embrace republican forms of government. It is impossible to imagine the young military leader growing up into a democratically-elected president who refused to accept kingship without these ideas first being inculcated into his young mind. “Young Washington” is, at its core, the story of how these principles shaped the man who would become a great free nation’s founding father.

Because it has been released on America’s 250th birthday, and at a time when the United States is led by a president who rejects every single one of those aforementioned values, it is also inevitably a commentary about Donald Trump.

Trump Derangement Syndrome?

I can see Trump supporters rolling their eyes at this point in the review, accusing me of Trump Derangement Syndrome and asking why I must bring him up when they’re just trying to enjoy a movie. In the case of “Young Washington,” though, it is obscene to notjuxtapose the man whose courage created America and the one whose physical and moral cowardice is destroying it. The contrast is inevitable for thoughtful and honest people — and necessary to appreciate why “Young Washington” is both a masterpiece on its own terms and a vital reminder that the man whose movement says it will “Make America Great Again” has in fact done the exact opposite of that. When I listed all of the positive qualities Washington developed from his education earlier in this review, I can't avoid noticing that they are all qualities Trump has actively rejected.

“Young Washington,” which will be released on the 4th of July weekend 2026, was directed by Jon Erwin, co-written by Erwin, Tom Provost and Diederik Hoogstraten and starring William Franklyn-Miller, Ben Kingsley, Andy Serkis, Joel Smallbone, Kelsey Grammer, Mary-Louise Parker and Mia Rodgers. As the title indicates, it shows audiences Washington’s youth, focusing on the period from his father’s death (in 1743, when Washington was 11) to his personal (though not military) victory during the French and Indian War in the Battle of the Monongahela (in 1755). Instead of putting Washington on a pedestal, “Young Washington” shows him during a period when he failed over and over again — in love, in his military career, in controlling his pride and stubbornness. Long before he became “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen,” Washington was the social-climbing son of a modestly affluent planter and merchant who faced constant discrimination for being a provincial without distinguished forebears.

This is an important tale to tell, and for two big reasons. First, it obliterates the popular image of Washington as an infallible, God-like figure; we see him make foolish strategic choices, succumb to demoralization and cringe-inducingly misread social milieus. (He also chops a lot of trees, but the movie steers clear of reaffirming the famous cherry tree fable about his youth.) This is done not to tear down Washington’s image, but to make him easier to admire. Humans cannot easily relate to divine figures, but plucky and precocious youths who figuratively trip over their own feet are quite another matter. The Washington whose face appears on the $1 bill and on Mount Rushmore is a myth; the one whose incompetence inadvertently helped spark the French and Indian War was a human being. If the goal is to inspire people to emulate America’s founding fathers, it is far easier to do so when we see them as humans rather than myths.

“Washington's experience during the French and Indian War involved learning a great deal, both about military culture and strategy, but also about his place in the complex world of the British military,” Gautham Rao, a historian at American University and editor-in-chief of the journal Law & History Review (as well as this author’s adviser when he wrote his master’s thesis about a different president, Grover Cleveland), told AlterNet. Referring to Washington’s loss in the Battle of Jumonville Glen, Rao explained that “from this Washington would learn about the delicate norms that governed the use of force. Washington also learned, in a different theater, about the difficulties of guarding advanced positions in areas not entirely under control, as the task of patrolling between disparate forts led to significant casualties. Finally, Washington learned the importance of careful planning from General John Forbes, beneath whom he worked in the effort to seize Fort Duquesne in 1758.”

Why Washington despised aristocrats

Not all of these events are depicted in “Young Washington,” but one key detail is conveyed — namely, that Washington learned about the inherent unfairness of aristocratic systems, which ultimately informed his sympathy for the American Revolution.

“The entire experience also taught Washington about the glass ceiling in the British service for a colonist, and by the time he resigned his commission, he was well aware that he would not have the ability to advance further as a military man,” Rao told AlterNet.

Second — and more relevant to the year of its release — it demonstrates why Washington grew into the man who would not become king. Although “Young Washington” does not cover this period in his life, the man’s most important legacy was repeatedlyrefusing to become a king because he sincerely believed in democracy. Washington’s “I won’t be a king, even when the opportunity presents itself” era began near the end of the American Revolution. When it was suggested in 1782 that the Army believed he could become a monarch, he replied "no occurrence in the course of the War, has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the Army as you have expressed, and I must view with abhorrence, and reprehend with severety [sic]."

This attitude continued through the end of his second term. In his Farewell Address, Washington famously warned that political partisanship might one day create the conditions for a president to become a dictator by refusing to accept the will of the people when he loses an election.

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism,” Washington (with the help of his one-time Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton) co-authored in 1796. “But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”

Washington and Trump's Big Lie

Because of Washington’s precedent, every president who served after him accepted the will of the people after it was time for them to leave power — until, that is, Donald Trump rejected his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. As conservative columnist and Ronald Reagan 1980 campaign adviser George F. Will wrote in February, Trump's loss to Biden is beyond reasonable doubt, and is only questioned by those with partisan motives.

“Someone should read to him ‘Lost, Not Stolen,’ a 2022 report by eight conservatives (two former Republican senators, three former federal appellate judges, a former Republican solicitor general, and two Republican election law specialists),” Will explain for The Washington Post. “They examined all 187 counts in the 64 court challenges filed in multiple states by Trump and his supporters. Twenty cases were dismissed before hearings on their merits, 14 were voluntarily dismissed by Trump and his supporters before hearings. Of the 30 that reached hearings on the merits, Trump’s side prevailed in only one, Pennsylvania, involving far too few votes to change the state’s result.”

Will added, “Trump’s batting average? .016. In Arizona, the most exhaustively scrutinized state, a private firm selected by Trump’s advocates confirmed Trump’s loss, finding 99 additional Biden votes and 261 fewer Trump votes.”

It is inconceivable that Washington would not have been horrified and disgusted by Trump’s manipulation of Republican partisanship to convince millions that an election he legitimately lost was stolen from him, as well as turn into a cult of personality for Trump as a man. Washington also would have opposed the idea that Trump should lead America by creating a climate of fear rather than developing a legacy that deserved respect; as one character instructs Washington in “Young Washington,” America’s first president understood that “obedience can be commanded. Respect must be earned.”

Dean Caivano, a professor of political science at Lehigh University (where this author studied for his PhD in history until his dissertation adviser died, leaving him ABD), elaborated on Washington's skepticism toward power when speaking to AlterNet.

"At several key moments, Washington accepted limits," Caivano said. "He resigned his military commission after the revolution. He accepted constitutional authority. He left the presidency after two terms. Those decisions helped establish the idea that public office is temporary and that military authority must be subordinate to civilian rule."

He added, "That lesson is very relevant in the Trump era. Contrary to his actions and rhetoric, the presidency is not personal property. The military is not a private instrument. Law enforcement is not supposed to function as an extension of personal loyalty. A constitutional republic depends on the refusal to collapse public authority into the will of one person."

The seeds of Washington's refusal to believe himself superior to others, and therefore worthy of being a king, were planted as he was humbled during the 1750s. A direct line can be drawn from the flawed youth in "Young Washington" and the great man who became America's first president — not a grandiose king, but a humble, intellectually curious and democratically-elected leader of finite duration.

Washington Derangement Syndrome?

I'm not without criticisms of this movie, or of Washington the man. “Young Washington” is imperfect in its depiction of American history. In addition to a host of smaller details, the movie inaccurately depicts the death of his close friend Christopher Gist for dramatic effect and glosses over Washington's racist views toward African Americans and Native Americans, likely to avoid offending right-wingers who refuse to acknowledge Washington's moral warts.

“Washington is historically significant, having helped establish norms of restraint and peaceful transfer of power. But he was also part of a political world built through slavery, Indigenous dispossession, and exclusion," Caivano told AlterNet. "This, of course, does not make Washington useless for the present. In fact, I think it makes him more useful if we read him honestly. His career helps us see one of the central problems of American politics: how a republic born through war and exclusion could also produce real principles of constitutional restraint, public responsibility, and limits on executive power.”

That is why, despite these shortcomings, “Young Washington” still soars as a movie. It depicts its protagonist as a relatable person, and relays this part of his biography with much gusto. While my review up to this point might make “Young Washington” seem like a somber affair, it has the atmosphere of high fantasy epics like the TV series “Game of Thrones” or the film trilogy “The Lord of the Rings,” all of which combined sweeping scores, beautiful cinematography, strong character development and top-notch acting to make distant worlds feel paradoxically immediate and yet worthy of being escaped into. Set both in colonial Virginia and the Ohio Country (which today includes Ohio, northwestern West Virginia, western Pennsylvania and eastern Indiana), “Young Washington” brings this bygone era to vivid life. It also moves at a brisk clip, feeling far more like an action-packed epic than a stodgy period piece.

In short, "Young Washington" is the best kind of history film — entertaining as well as edifying.

The greatness of "Young Washington" — and America

The educational aspect, as said before, could not be better timed. Before seeing “Young Washington,” I reached out to former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who defended President Donald Trump during his first impeachment trial. When I spoke with Dershowitz for a 2019 Salon interview, he guaranteed that the then-first termer would never refuse to step down if he lost the 2020 election.

"No president will refuse to step down if his opponent is elected in his place,” Dershowitz told me at Salon at the time. “It just will not happen, and the American public would never tolerate it.”

Similarly, in response to my question in advance of "Young Washington" about how his earlier quote holds up in light of Trump's coup attempt and talk of staying in power after his second term ends, Dershowitz told AlterNet that Washington “would be distressed if Trump were to try for a third term, even if it were constitutionally permissible.” Washington, after all, set the precedent which held that presidents should only serve for two terms, more than a century and a half before the 22nd Amendment made it law. Aside from Ulysses Grant in 1880 and Franklin Roosevelt in 1940 and 1944, no president before Trump has ever tried to get elected more than twice.

Dershowitz wasn't alone in saying Trump could learn from Washington's approach to power. Caivano, when asked what lessons Trump should draw from Washington, said that Trump should realize “the presidency is temporary. It is not owned by the person who occupies it. The basic lesson I would draw from Washington is that power has to be limited to remain republican.”

He added, “Strength is not the same thing as domination. Executive power is not legitimate because a single person can command attention or loyalty. It is legitimate only when it remains bound by law, constitutional limits, and public accountability. That is the message Trump should take from Washington.”

Rao similarly observed that Washington, unlike Trump, learned from his past poor decisions to be measured, cautious and studied, even when it aggravated his allies.

"Washington at his best was a deliberate and careful decision-maker," Rao told AlterNet. "This applied as much to his time at the helm of the Continental Army as it did to his time as Commander-in-Chief."

Since I doubt Trump will ever pay attention to what anyone has to tell him, even the first occupant of the office he now holds, I instead urge Trump supporters and those who wish to persuade Trump supporters to pay attention to the message of “Young Washington.” For all of his shortcomings, Washington personified and implemented ideals involving freedom, scholarship and decency that allowed America to contribute massively to the welfare of both its own citizens and humanity overall. Trump has put all of that into jeopardy, and the main question one has after finishing “Young Washington” is whether the Washingtonian philosophy has merely been wounded by Trumpism or outright murdered.