The Shame of Trump's Parade
Today—250 years since the Continental Army officially formed to fight for the independence of the American colonies against the British monarchy—marks a milestone in President Donald Trump's effort to politicize the U.S. military. Though they are rare, military parades have happened before in Washington, D.C. For the most part, these have been celebrations of military achievements, such as the end of a war. But today is also Trump's birthday, and what he and his supporters have planned is a celebration of Trump himself.
A mark of a free society is that its public institutions, especially its military, represent the body politic and the freedom-enabling equal rights that structure civic life. If service members and the public begin to believe that the military is not neutral but is in fact the servant of MAGA, this will threaten the military's legitimacy and increase the likelihood of violent conflict between the military and the public. Today's events bring us one step closer to this disaster.
I have seen the politicization of the military firsthand. Last month, I resigned my tenured position as a philosophy professor at West Point in protest of the dramatic changes the Trump administration is making to academic programs at military-service academies. Following an executive order from January, the Department of Defense banned most discussions of race and gender in the classroom. West Point applied this standard to faculty scholarship as well. As a result, my research agenda—I study the relationship between masculinity and war, among other things—was effectively off limits. I consider what the Trump administration is doing to the military-service academies as a profound violation of the military's political neutrality. That destructive ethos is the same one apparent in the parade scheduled for today.
Before Trump was reelected, the Army had planned significant celebrations across the country to mark this day, including the release of a commemorative postage stamp and a visit to the International Space Station by an Army astronaut. But according to The New York Times, arrangements for today's D.C. event, unlike the other plans, began only this year.
The day is scheduled to begin with a variety of family-friendly concerts, a meet and greet with NFL players, and military-fitness competitions, all on the National Mall. If all goes to plan, the celebrations will culminate with what organizers are calling a 'grand military parade' that starts near the Pentagon, crosses the Potomac River, and ends near the White House. The parade is anticipated to involve 6,700 active-duty soldiers and a massive display of Army equipment: dozens of M1A1 Abrams tanks and Stryker armored personnel carriers, along with more than 100 other land vehicles, 50 helicopters, and a B-25 bomber. Trump is scheduled to give remarks after the parade and receive a flag delivered from the air by the U.S. Army Parachute Team known as the Golden Knights. A fireworks show is set to follow later tonight.
The organizers have made it abundantly clear that today's purpose is to directly laud Trump and his politics. In promotional materials, they tell us, 'Under President Trump's leadership, the Army has been restored to strength and readiness.' They credit his 'America First agenda' for military pay increases, enlarged weapons stockpiles, new technologies, and improvements in recruitment, declaring that he has 'ensured our soldiers have the tools and support they need to win on any battlefield.'
Monica Crowley, the State Department's chief of protocol and a former Fox News host, went on Steve Bannon's podcast WarRoom to say that the concurrence of the U.S. Army's anniversary and Trump's birthday is 'providential.' She called it 'meant to be. Hand of God, for sure.' She added, 'It is really a gift, and we want to be sure that we celebrate in a manner that is fitting, not just of this extraordinary president but of our extraordinary country.' She also expressed hope that the crowd would serenade the president with 'Happy Birthday.' Clearly, Trump isn't merely the guest of honor; he is the reason for the party.
During his first administration, members of Trump's own Cabinet often thwarted his efforts to corrupt the Pentagon. This time, Trump has appointed a secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, who is willing to tear down the boundaries separating politics and the management of national defense. Trump and Hegseth claim to be purging the military of politicization instilled by previous administrations and resetting the DOD around the nonpartisan matter of readiness for war. But in reality, they have used this rationale as a cover to insert an unprecedented level of political partisanship into the military.
Other events in recent months have pointed in this same direction. For instance, in February, the administration fired the top lawyers for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The only meaningful justification given for the move was Hegseth's claim that the fired lawyers might be roadblocks to the president's agenda—a frightening admission.
In January, the administration banned transgender people from serving in the military, not because they allegedly pose a threat to unit cohesion or because their medical treatment is unusually expensive, but because they are supposedly bad people ('not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member'). At present, transgender soldiers who have met all performance standards are being discharged simply because of the administration's bigotry against them.
The administration has also inserted its politics into all the military-service academies—the reason I left West Point last month. Trump and Hegseth have denied the validity of ideas that are taken seriously in a variety of disciplines and banned them from the classroom, including, as I noted above, matters pertaining to race and gender. Books and other works, most of which are by women and people of color, have been removed from the curriculum. The academic programs of the service academies are now structured around the Trump administration's ideological worldview. Faculty and cadets wonder if they are allowed to entertain perspectives inconsistent with the administration's politics.
In May, Hegseth led an evangelical prayer service in the Pentagon's auditorium. Standing at a lectern with the Department of Defense seal, Hegseth led the audience in prayer to 'our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ.' The main speaker at this service was Hegseth's pastor, Brooks Potteiger, of the Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. This church restricts all leadership positions to men, declares homosexuality immoral, and asserts that women should not serve in combat. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a secretary of defense acknowledging his religious faith. What's objectionable is the use of his authority to push his personal religious views on subordinates, especially as the director of a major institution of the secular state.
The president now routinely speaks to uniformed service members in his red MAGA hat, using his trademark rhetoric centering himself and belittling, even demonizing, his critics. He openly suggests a special alliance between him and the military. At Fort Bragg on Tuesday, for instance, Trump encouraged uniformed soldiers to cheer his political agenda and boo his enemies.
This is all extremely dangerous. Keeping the military a politically neutral servant of the constitutional order, not of the president or his political ideology, is vital to ensuring the security of civil society.
Up until a week ago, the blurring of the boundaries between the administration's ideology and the military had not yet manifested as an attempt to employ the military directly on Trump's—or the Republican Party's—behalf. The steps taken until that point had been mostly symbolic. (The one possible exception was the deployment of the military at the southern border in what is essentially a law-enforcement matter.)
But these symbolic expressions of military politicization have paved the way for that endgame—presidential orders that deploy the military for directly partisan ends. In just the past week, the Trump administration responded to protests against the enforcement of his immigration policies with military deployments. The likelihood that the administration will try to use the military against its political opponents is now very high. If that comes to pass, we will then learn just how successful Trump's efforts to politicize the military have been.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
32 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
History, schmistory — MAGA has its eyes on the future
Advertisement However, if the issues that MAGA Americans find most vexing are either solved or substantially improved (by data and objective sources), their continued contempt for history will be justified and little attention will be given to precedent. In this scenario, all established American institutions will be in some form of jeopardy. I attribute the continued success of the MAGA ideology and its practices to a desire of many to deal with problems simply and in a straightforward manner. I also contend that this methodology is itself too simple and lacks the depth needed to solve complex problems. Advertisement As our Framers taught us all those years ago, successful outcomes are the result of intelligent, detailed, and informed compromise, which, sadly, is in short supply these days. Peter Vangsness Medway
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A shadow Fed chief could lead to a ‘revolt' on the FOMC against Powell's successor, former vice chair warns
Former Federal Reserve Vice Chair Alan Blinder said naming a so-called shadow Fed chief well before Jerome Powell's term is up would sow confusion in financial markets and even set up a potential revolt against the eventual chair. Wall Street analysts also it is a self-defeating idea that would sink the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds. Naming a so-called shadow chair for the Federal Reserve well before Jerome Powell is due to step down as the top central banker could blow up spectacularly. President Donald Trump said earlier this month his pick to replace Powell is coming 'very soon,' and on Friday even vowed to tap someone who will do what he has been pressuring the Fed to do for months. 'If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are or whatever, I'm not going to put them in,' Trump said. 'I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates.' That's after repeated insults and name-calling directed at Powell, who has held off on lowering rates, citing the resilient economy and the risk that Trump's own tariffs could reaccelerate inflation. Powell's term as chair expires in May 2026, and the typical transition to a new one is about three to four months, meaning a replacement pick would be named as soon as January under normal circumstances. By naming a new chair well before that, the nominee could in theory jawbone markets into easing financial conditions, such as lowering bond yields, before taking office and undermine Powell's messaging in his final months. But in practice, the result could be chaos. Princeton professor Alan Blinder, who served as the Fed's vice chair in the 1990s, told CNN that a shadow chair is 'an absolutely horrible idea' because markets would have to sort through potentially very different stances at the same time. 'If they're not singing from the same playbook, which seems likely, this is just going to cause confusion in markets,' he warned. Similarly, Michael Brown, senior research strategist at Pepperstone, said in a note that a shadow chair would be self-defeating and create 'chaotic policy rhetoric, thus further weakening policy transmission.' And the perception of greater political influence over the Fed is likely to result in accelerated outflows from both the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds, pushing yields and other borrowing costs higher. 'Lastly, and probably of most annoyance for Trump, is that all of this nonsense actually makes the bar for the Fed to deliver a rate cut even higher, given mounting external pressure, and a desire to preserve policy independence,' Brown added. Fed officials make a point of sticking to central banking and not opining on politics, White House policies, or bills in Congress. On the flip side, they carefully guard the Fed's reputation for being independent from political pressure. Blinder flagged the risk that a shadow Fed chair would set up a big showdown in the usually consensus-driven Federal Open Market Committee, which sets rates. 'If he or she contradicts what Powell is saying, that will aggravate the FOMC, almost all of whose members will still be there when the new chair takes over,' he explained to CNN. 'It opens the door to an open or silent revolt against the chair, which is a rare thing in Fed history.' A schism is already emerging at the Fed. Trump-appointed governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman have said a rate cut in July could be justified, while Powell and other policymakers have said more months of data are necessary to make such a call. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed the idea of a shadow Fed chair in an interview on CNBC on Friday, but also pointed out that Adriana Kugler's term as Fed governor expires in early 2026. 'So there is a chance that the person who is going to become the chair could be appointed in January, which would probably mean an October, November nomination,' he said. This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4. It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators. Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise. 'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure. 'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent. When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged. 'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition. Sen. Jim Justice ( said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline. 'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.' Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016. Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes. 'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.' Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap. 'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters. Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included. 'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
