Trump coveted a military spectacle but his parade proved underwhelming: ‘Just kind of lame'
A protester, Nicky Sundt, kept a lonely and mostly silent vigil at the side of the road. She held a sign depicting a cartoon Trump brushing back his comb-over to reveal a swastika emblazoned on his forehead. The placard said 'Save our democracy'. Standing near her – as a 'counterprotest to the counterprotest to the protest, or something,' as one of them put it – a group of pro-Trump men held court. One was draped in an American flag. Another had a giant picture of Trump, in a crown, with the exhortation 'Trump for king'.
Related: Gathering stormclouds can't wipe smile from Trump's face as long-held dream of military parade is realised
For the next couple of hours, in heat and occasional drizzle, spectators watched as the US army celebrated its 250th birthday – and, although he claims it is a coincidence, Trump's 79th – with America's largest and most controversial military parade in decades. Troops marched. Tanks and armored personnel carriers rolled. Helicopters clattered. Paratroopers plunged out of the overcast sky.
Yet, for all of it, the parade was somehow neither the totalitarian North Korean spectacle that critics had grimly predicted, nor the triumph of Maga nationalism that Trump's most diehard fans craved. It was just a parade – and a parade that was, for all its millions of dollars spent, controversy engendered, and exhausting security precautions, a little underwhelming.
Since his first term, when he saw and was deeply impressed by a Bastille Day parade in Paris, Trump made no secret of his desire to hold a grand military review of his own. Military leaders, cognizant of the high costs and reputational issues of the idea, have in the past been resistant. Now, no longer.
The event was not without problems, however. For one, the weather kept threatening to literally rain on the parade. For another, recent news developments have both distracted the world's attention from the parade and cast an ugly pall on it.
In California, national guardsmen and US marines have been deployed against the will of state authorities after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) deportation raids have sparked widespread protests. In the Middle East, Israel's attack on Iran has led to deadly retaliation. And early Saturday morning, an assassin impersonating a police officer shot two Democratic lawmakers and their families at their homes in Minnesota, killing a state representative and her husband and wounding a state senator and his wife.
Trump's plans for a military parade also sparked protests in many cities, including in Washington DC, where a few hundred gathered to chant, 'Deportations, we say no / Now's the time for Trump to go / Ice Gestapo, we say no / Now's the time for Trump to go…'
Armed with signs declaring 'All hail Commander Bone Spur' (Trump was medically excused from serving in the Vietnam war) and 'History is watching', they marched to the White House. Trump's attitude to the rule of law 'is scary', explained one marcher in her 20s, who asked to be identified only as Madison. 'I would like to see Donald Trump impeached and imprisoned.'
As she and the other leftists marched, a young man, bare chested and wearing a bucket hat, approached a demonstration marshal. He seemed confused. He wanted to know where the protest for the opposite point of view could be found.
Downtown Washington was, in fact, thronged with people representing both points of view, and they could be distinguished, much of the time, on sight – with preppy attire and the occasional Maga accessory marking Trump's fans, and Covid masks, dark clothing, and a general glower designating anti-Trumpers.
The mood at the actual army parade was cordial enough, in part because the overwhelming majority of attendees seemed to be either Trump supporters, military families or mostly apolitical daytrippers who just wanted to see a parade. Yet the crowd was on the smaller side, given the magnitude of the event.
Similarly, although the army's marching went smoothly, the larger public event seemed less than well-planned. The garbage cans, few and far between, were overflowing. There weren't enough exits. The only food source for thousands of people was a handful of food trucks with lines of 40 or 50 people waiting at each. Because the parade closed down blocks and blocks and there was a dearth of signs with clear directions, it was also extraordinarily difficult to find one's way in or out.
A secret service officer, trying to explain the general confusion, just sighed. 'Nobody knows what's going on.'
A tent managed by a beverage company handed out room-temperature bottles of an energy drink, Phorm. The flavor, called Screamin' Freedom, tasted like hard candies dissolved in water, and an advisory on the cans warned that they were not to be consumed by minors or pregnant women.
Although the military has agreed to cover the estimated $25m to $45m price of the parade, including the costs of reinforcing streets to protect them against so much heavy machinery, residents of Washington have been less than thrilled. The parade's attendees seemed to be tilted toward people who had traveled from suburban Virginia or Maryland or even further afield. At one point a young girl walked by wearing a Mennonite bonnet. It wasn't quite Maga Woodstock, but it was close.
Chelsea, a woman in her 30s wearing a Maga hat, came all the way from New Jersey. Asked what she thought of Trump's decision to deploy the military in LA, she said, 'You don't have leadership in that state. The [Democratic politicians there] don't seem to have a fire in them.' Trump, she argued, was taking a risk to try to help California out of a lawlessness created by the cowardice of its local politicians. This was a common sentiment.
A group of women from Pennsylvania were sitting on the grass. One wore a red-white-and-blue blouse, the other a flag-printed dress. 'Trump wants to keep us safe,' she said. 'He's not Hitler.'
Related: Trump's military parade taps an ancient tradition of power: from Mesopotamia to Maga
'Or a king!' one of her friends said. She defended Trump's decision to ban transgender troops from the military, and complained that Biden had subjected the military to political correctness and DEI initiatives. 'The military is not a social experiment.'
A little over an hour into the parade, which was still going strong, the crowd was beginning to show some signs of restlessness. Even a few people in Maga hats appeared to be packing up their things and heading home. The first wave of hundreds of people slowly funneled through the gates, and past entrepreneurs hawking Maga gear and baseball caps with Ice written on them.
A young man, asked what he thought of the parade, remarked that he was not impressed. He felt that Trump's close association with the celebration had politicized it and 'made a mockery' of the army, though it wasn't the army's fault.
More to the point, he added, the event was 'just kind of … lame'.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Solve the daily Crossword


Politico
41 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump issues order imposing new global tariff rates effective Aug. 7
According to the text of the first order, the Trump administration is maintaining its 10 percent so-called baseline tariff on countries where the U.S. has a trade surplus — i.e. it sells more American products to those countries than it imports from them. And it officially imposes the 15 percent rate that Trump agreed to set as part of negotiations with leading trading partners like the European Union, Japan and South Korea. The Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia also reached tentative agreements with the administration that set their duties at 19-20 percent. Other countries, mainly smaller economies, face far higher rates, topping out at 41 percent for Syria, which is emerging from a civil war, and 40 percent for Myanmar, which is still in the midst of one. The Southeast Asian nation of Laos also faces a 40 percent tariff, and Iraq will be hit with a 35 percent duty. Bigger trading partners like Switzerland also face a significant tariff hike — to 39 percent. Trump also signed a second order raising tariffs on Canada, one of the country's biggest trading partners, from 25 to 35 percent for goods that are not compliant with an existing North American trade deal known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The senior official told reporters that Canada hasn't 'shown the same level of constructiveness that we've seen from the Mexican side.' Trump announced earlier Thursday that he was maintaining the 25 percent tariff on Mexico for another 90 days after a phone call with their president, Claudia Sheinbaum. Higher tariffs on Canada take effect Friday. The executive actions suggests that Trump decided to punish countries that he did not believe offered enough concessions since the president first threatened to impose his 'reciprocal' tariffs on April 2. 'Some trading partners have agreed to, or are on the verge of agreeing to, meaningful trade and security commitments with the United States, thus signaling their sincere intentions to permanently remedy the trade barriers,' the global order says. 'Other trading partners, despite having engaged in negotiations, have offered terms that, in my judgment, do not sufficiently address imbalances in our trading relationship or have failed to align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national-security matters,' 'There are also some trading partners that have failed to engage in negotiations with the United States or to take adequate steps to align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters,' it continues. White House officials said Thursday night that they expect to strike additional agreements with countries ahead of the new Aug. 7 implementation date for the tariffs. 'We have some deals, and I don't want to get ahead of the president on those deals,' the senior administration official told reporters. 'I'll just say generally, we have more to come.' Taiwan is hoping to be one of those countries. The semiconductor powerhouse faces a 20 percent tariff in a week's time, but in a statement released late Thursday, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te suggested the rate was 'provisional.' 'Due to the procedural arrangement of the negotiations, the Taiwan-U.S. sides have not yet concluded the final meeting. Therefore, the U.S. has temporarily announced a 20% tariff rate for Taiwan,' President Lai said. 'Once an agreement is reached in the future, there is hope that the tariff rate can be further lowered. Both sides will also continue negotiations on supply chain cooperation and issues related to Section 232 tariffs.'
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?'