Tanks, thunder, and Trump: The military parade that split America
Reuters A Stryker armored vehicle is being prepared for a military parade to commemorate the U.S. Army's 250th Birthday in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 14, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard
Amid traffic jams, military flyovers, and thousands of troops marching down Constitution Avenue, the United States Army celebrated its 250th anniversary on Saturday. But it wasn't just about history. It was also President Donald Trump's 79th birthday — a detail that has split public opinion and overshadowed the event's original intent.The scale was massive: 6,700 soldiers, 150 vehicles including tanks and howitzers, and more than 50 aircraft. Fighter jets, including the Air Force's Thunderbirds — a last-minute addition at Trump's request — were among the parade's highlights.'I think it's time for us to celebrate a little bit. You know, we've had a lot of victories,' Trump said earlier in the week. 'It is my birthday, but I'm not celebrating my birthday,' he insisted, pointing instead to Flag Day.
It was the first national military parade of this scale since 1991, when troops returned home victorious from the Gulf War. Among the highlights: tanks on urban roads, a White House parachute flag-drop, and a flyover. Trump, stationed at his own reviewing stand, called it 'a celebration of our country' and 'of the Army, actually.' But protests are mounting, weather warnings loomed, and concerns about the parade's cost and purpose deepened — especially as it occurred while the U.S. military engages in controversial operations at home and abroad.
The idea took root last year. At a long-running Army pageant called the 'Twilight Tattoo,' General Randy George and Army spokesperson Col. Dave Butler were hosting media executives when one leaned over and said, 'This would make great television,' according to Butler.From there, things escalated. The Army was already looking for ways to mark its milestone. The suggestion of turning their ceremonial show into a full-blown parade landed without resistance.'We wanted to reintroduce this nation's Army to the American people,' Butler said. 'To do that, we thought we needed to be in their living rooms and on their phones. We needed something that would catch the national eye.'With Trump's interest piqued — a former media executive who had previously tried and failed to stage a military parade — the door opened. 'It was like knocking on an unlocked door,' said one planning official.Not everyone is clapping.A poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center shows nearly 60% of Americans think the parade is a poor use of government money. The Army has estimated its own logistics could cost up to $45 million. Security, air traffic closures, and city disruptions will drive the price higher.'I remain concerned about it, I have to tell you,' said Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. 'These are, for the most part, local streets, and if they're rendered unusable, we have to make them usable and then go seek our money from the feds.'The city is already bracing for road closures, suspended flights, and potential damage to infrastructure. Tanks have been spotted rolling down Rhode Island Avenue, escorted by police. Steel plates and rubber pads have been deployed along the route to mitigate damage, according to Army spokesperson Heather J. Hagan, who said the expected road damage would be 'minimal.'The backlash hasn't been limited to cost.
Democrat Senator Tammy Duckworth, a former Army officer, called the parade 'Donald Trump's birthday parade,' accusing the president of exploiting the event for his own image. 'It's to stroke his own ego and make taxpayers foot the bill,' she said. Critics have compared the event to military displays in Russia or North Korea — performative demonstrations of power under authoritarian regimes. Local advisory commissioners have passed resolutions calling for the parade's cancellation, saying it reflects 'authoritarian governments more than democracies.'Samuel Port, a former Army logistics officer and now unemployed contractor, summed up a common sentiment: 'Trump is using this as an excuse to prop himself up. It demeans the soldiers because it's using them as a political prop.'The parade comes at a sensitive time.
Just one day earlier, the United States began assisting Israel's defence against Iranian missile attacks. And earlier in the week, Trump deployed both National Guard and Marine forces to Southern California to suppress protests against immigration raids. The president bypassed state authority in doing so, drawing legal and political scrutiny.
'The President is deploying the American military to police the American people,' Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.), top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, told Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth during hearings this week. 'Sending the Marines — not after foreign threats, but after American protesters... should stop every one of us cold.' According to a new NBC News/Decision Desk poll released Saturday morning, 64% of Americans disapprove of the parade. Many cite both the financial burden and the optics of military power being used domestically.'I wouldn't have done it,' said Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), likening the display to Soviet-era demonstrations. 'We were proud not to be that.'The parade also drew comparisons to past authoritarian spectacles. Trump, who has long admired large-scale military demonstrations, first pushed for a parade of this kind after visiting France's Bastille Day celebration in 2017. That effort stalled during his first term, but the 250th Army anniversary provided the perfect excuse.Critics say this was not merely about honouring service. 'It's a stupid order,' said retired Rear Admiral Ken Carodine. 'But it's a legal order. Most of the guys organising or marching in this thing, it's the last thing they want to be doing.'
Presidential historian Barbara Perry from the University of Virginia noted the personalisation of the event. 'Usually it's about the personnel,' she said. 'If [Trump] views it as 'his generals' or 'his military,' and ties it to his birthday — that's what's different.' Trump, however, insists the parade is not about him. 'It will be a parade like we haven't had in many, many decades here,' he said this week. 'And it's a celebration of our country.'Despite forecasts warning of heavy rain and possible thunderstorms, federal officials opted to proceed with the event as scheduled. The parade was set to begin at 6:30 p.m., following a day of commemorations along the National Mall.For Trump, the parade marks a symbolic high point following his return to the presidency in the 2024 elections. Supporters see it as a reaffirmation of strength and patriotism. But detractors view it as a diversion from failed foreign policy pledges, especially regarding the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.The president had campaigned on promises to end these conflicts. But the parade's timing — against the backdrop of ongoing deployments and incomplete missions — raises questions about whether the event is celebrating victory, or distracting from the lack of it.Demonstrations have erupted in Washington and across the country, organised under the slogan 'No Kings.' Activists accuse the president of using military force to bolster his own image.Trump has warned protesters that they 'will be met with very big force,' echoing his broader posture on dissent. That rhetoric has only intensified criticism that the commander-in-chief is merging military spectacle with authoritarian messaging.Local leaders are also frustrated. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser expressed concerns over costs and disruptions. Neighbourhood commissioners passed resolutions calling the parade 'a grotesque spectacle.' And with tanks rolling through streets that recently saw the forced removal of homeless encampments, many see the juxtaposition as deliberate.'It's appalling that we're spending $45 million on a parade after kicking out the most vulnerable residents of our neighbourhood,' said local commissioner Jim Malec.Unlike the parades following the Civil War, World Wars I and II, or even Desert Storm — all tied to clear victories — this event lacks a unifying triumph.'The U.S. is not coming off any war victory,' said Carodine. 'Nobody had a parade for the kids coming back from Afghanistan. That would have made a lot more sense than what we're doing tomorrow.'America's recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left a mixed legacy. The Afghanistan conflict formally ended in 2021 under a deal negotiated by Trump and executed by President Joe Biden. Many veterans returned home quietly, without recognition or celebration.For some, this parade is a missed opportunity — one that honours political ambition more than military service.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
36 minutes ago
- First Post
Iran must tread carefully in framing post-ceasefire strategy
As a Persian proverb warns, 'Bravado without power is like a lion's roar from a sheep's throat,' Iran's defiance may echo loudly, but it risks being drowned out by the consequences of its own overreach read more The ceasefire notwithstanding, Iran has a brand new strategic mix for the near future. The first part of Iran's war strategy includes threatening traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which a fifth of the world's oil flows. This is a high-stakes gamble rooted in the sea denial principles of the British naval theorist Julian Corbett. Yet, despite its calculated bravado, Iran's approach is likely to lead to a protracted conflict it cannot win, exposing its strategic vulnerabilities and risking regional escalation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Corbett's sea denial theory, which emphasises disrupting an adversary's control of maritime routes without seeking outright naval dominance, is evident in three facets of Iran's strategy. First, Iran deploys fast-attack boats armed with anti-ship missiles, designed to harass and deter larger naval forces through asymmetric hit-and-run tactics. Second, its naval assets, including submarines and mine-laying vessels, aim to create uncertainty and raise the costs of operating in the Strait. Third, Iran leverages its coastal geography, studded with missile batteries and radar stations, to project power over the narrow waterway, threatening commercial and military shipping alike. These tactics align with Corbett's vision of a weaker navy frustrating a stronger opponent's freedom of movement. Yet Iran's strategy extends beyond the Strait. It is likely to be flanked by the continued threat of missile strikes on American air bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and Iraq, targeting the US military presence that underpins regional security. These attacks, however, are unlikely to yield decisive results. US bases are fortified, with advanced missile defence systems like Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) capable of intercepting most threats. Moreover, such strikes risk galvanising American resolve and international condemnation without significantly degrading US operational capacity. A critical flaw in Iran's plan lies in the geography of the strait itself. Iran controls only the northern half; the southern half is Oman's jurisdiction. This bilateral control severely limits Iran's ability to enforce a complete blockade without provoking Oman or other Gulf states, which would escalate the conflict into a broader regional war. The US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, further tilts the balance. With its carrier strike groups, destroyers, and air superiority, the fleet possesses overwhelming firepower to counter Iran's naval and missile threats. While Iran's asymmetric tactics may cause temporary disruptions, they cannot match the sustained power projection of the US Navy. The Fifth Fleet's ability to secure the Strait, supported by allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, ensures that any Iranian blockade would be short-lived. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran's strategy also risks self-inflicted wounds. By threatening to close the Strait, Iran endangers its own energy exports, which account for a significant portion of its revenue. China, Iran's largest oil buyer, would view such disruptions with alarm, as Beijing relies on stable Gulf energy supplies. Unlike Saddam Hussein, who recklessly attacked oil infrastructure during the Iran-Iraq War, Iran is unlikely to repeat this mistake, aware that alienating China and other trading partners would compound its economic woes. Compounding Iran's challenges is its weakened regional position. Its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, are diminished, with the former reeling from Israel's campaigns and the latter constrained by Lebanon's internal chaos. Iran's influence in Syria and Iraq has waned, eroded by local resistance and external pressures. Domestically, Iran's military is hamstrung by sanctions, outdated equipment, and a lack of air superiority—a critical disadvantage against the US and its allies. Yet this weakness makes Iran dangerous. With its prestige at stake, Tehran may feel compelled to double down and break the ceasefire at the earliest. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran's gambit in the Strait of Hormuz is thus a paradox: a bold strategy born of vulnerability. As a Persian proverb warns, 'Bravado without power is like a lion's roar from a sheep's throat.' Iran's defiance may echo loudly, but it risks being drowned out by the consequences of its own overreach. The writer is a senior journalist with expertise in defence. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
36 minutes ago
- First Post
Supreme Court ruling sparks confusion over US birthright citizenship
On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship read more The U.S. Supreme Court's decision related to birthright citizenship led to confusion and calls to attorneys as individuals potentially impacted worked to understand a complex legal ruling with significant humanitarian consequences. On Friday, the court's conservative majority approved President Donald Trump's request to limit the authority of federal judges but did not rule on the legality of his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. This outcome has created more uncertainty than clarity around a right long interpreted as protected by the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Worried calls Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?'
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
At Least 13 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Suicide Attack
New Delhi: At least 13 Pakistani soldiers were killed in a suicide attack in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province today (June 28). While Reuters has reported a toll of 13, other outlets have reported a higher number – 16. A local government official told the news agency AFP that a suicide bomber drove an explosive-laden vehicle into a military convoy. The attack took place in the province's North Waziristan district. As many as 29 people – 10 army personnel and 19 civilians – are reportedly injured. Six children are among those injured. Some outlets have reported that the Pakistani Taliban has taken responsibility for the attack. The Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), also known as the Pakistan Taliban, is an alliance of formerly disparate militant groups that came together in 2007 following Pakistan military operations against Al-Qaida-related militants. The group operates along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This comes days after Pakistan was appointed chair of the UN Security Council's 1988 Sanctions Committee, which monitors sanctions targeting the Taliban, and vice-chair of the 1373 Counter-Terrorism Committee.
