What to know about Trump's Army anniversary parade on June 14
The Army is commemorating its 250th anniversary with a festival and parade in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, June 14, which is also President Trump's 79th birthday. The event, according to Army officials, is expected to include about 6,600 soldiers, as well as about 150 vehicles and over 50 aircraft in the celebration.
Hundreds of thousands are expected to attend the festivities, D.C. officials told reporters in a briefing Monday.
Here's what else to know:
Why is the festival and parade being held on June 14?
The Second Continental Congress, on June 14, 1775, voted to establish official companies following the fighting at Lexington and Concord against British troops. Congress voted to create the Continental Army and then on June 15 put George Washington as commander in chief.
Planning has been in the works for almost two years to commemorate the anniversary with a festival, according to Army officials, but a parade was only added earlier this year. Army officials said the Army is not expected to officially recognize President Trump's birthday.
How much will the event cost?
Army officials estimate the entire festival and parade could cost between $25-45 million but did not disclose the cost before the parade was added to the schedule.
When asked by members of Congress about the justification for the cost as the Trump administration has sought cuts across the federal government, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said the United States has an "an amazing opportunity" to tell a story about the Army.
"I believe very specifically that telling that story will directly lead to a recruiting boom that will fill up our pipeline for the coming years." Driscoll told the House Armed Services Committee.
What is the parade route?
On June 14, the festival will take place on the National Mall in D.C. from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. The parade will start at 6:30 p.m., running from 23rd Street, NW, along Constitution Avenue to 15th Street, NW,and wrap up around 7:30 pm. A fireworks show will follow the parade at 9:45 p.m.
Army parade route map for June 14, 2025.
Army
When was the last time D.C. hosted a military parade?
The most recent time D.C. hosted a military parade was in 1991, to mark the end of the Gulf War. The National Victory parade featured around 8,000 service members, and about 200,000 people watched the parade. According to The Washington Post, the event cost $8 million.
How has the military prepared for the event?
The Army has been laying down metal plates to prevent damage to D.C. roads by some of the heavier equipment like M1A1 Abrams tanks, which can weigh over 60 tons. If there is any damage to the roads, the Army has committed to pay for the repair.
An Army spokesperson said the military will strategically place 1" steel plates – in sizes ranging from 4 x 8 feet to 8 x 20 feet – at points where the equipment will turn.
U.S. Army Col. Jesse Curry, director of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, said during a security briefing on Monday that in addition to the plates, "the tanks all have brand new rubber track pads placed on them, which increase the padding that they have underneath each track to minimize that potential damage, and it's a parade, so they're going to be moving slowly."
What soldiers and equipment will participate?
About 6,600 soldiers representing every era of the Army's 250 years of history are expected to participate in the parade, according to Army officials. In addition, the Army anticipates about 150 vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft will participate in the celebration.
The parade will feature different eras of the Army's history, from the Revolutionary War to the modern era and into the future with corresponding uniforms and equipment.
Army officials say among the equipment included will be 26 M1A1 Abrams tanks, 27 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, two World War II Sherman tanks, a World War I-era Renault tank, eight CH-47 helicopters, 16 UH-60 Black Hawks, and four WWII-era P-51 aircraft.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
5 minutes ago
Hearing on California's challenge to Trump's deployment of troops to LA set for Thursday
A federal hearing is scheduled Thursday over whether the Trump administration can deploy National Guardsmen and Marines to the Los Angeles area to assist with enforcing federal immigration laws. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an emergency request on Tuesday to block expansion of what they called President Donald Trump and the Department of Defense's "unnecessary" and "unlawful militarization." The request, which was filed as part of Newsom and Bonta's lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeks to prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active duty Marines beyond protecting federal buildings and property. To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which allows a federal deployment in response to a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions. Bonta argued in the filing that Trump failed to meet the legal requirements for such a federal deployment. "To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together," Bonta wrote. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer declined California's request to issue a temporary restraining order immediately and instead set the hearing for Thursday afternoon and gave the Trump administration the time they requested to file a response. In their response, Department of Justice lawyers asked the judge to deny Newsom's request for a temporary restraining order that would limit the military to protecting federal buildings, arguing such an order would amount to a "rioters' veto to enforcement of federal law." "The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives -- and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous," they wrote. They also argued California should not "second-guess the President's judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary" and that a federal court should defer to the president's discretion on military matters. Some 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines have been deployed to the Los Angeles area following protests over immigration raids. California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary. Protests have since spread to other cities, including Boston, Chicago and Seattle. Trump on Tuesday defended his decision to send in the National Guard and Marines, saying the situation in LA was "out of control." "All I want is safety. I just want a safe area," he told reporters. "Los Angeles was under siege until we got there. The police were unable to handle it." Trump went on to suggest that he sent in the National Guard and the Marines to send a message to other cities not to interfere with ICE operations or they will be met with equal or greater force. "If we didn't attack this one very strongly, you'd have them all over the country," he said. "But I can inform the rest of the country that when they do it, if they do it, they're going to be met with equal or greater force than we met right here."
Politico
6 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump administration appears to be pausing plans to ramp up Guantanamo transfers
The Trump administration appears to have put on hold plans to dramatically ramp up transfers of undocumented migrants to Guantanamo Bay. As of Monday, the transfers were expected to happen later in the week but were delayed in part because unrest related to immigration crackdowns in Los Angeles 'got in the way,' said an administration official. The official said it's unclear how long the plan may be shelved. The person and others were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the discussions. At the State Department, where many officials have urged the Department of Homeland Security to abandon the plan, there's now confusion about what comes next, according to a U.S. diplomat familiar with the situation. State Department officials have been told that clarification about the Guantanamo transfer process is coming at some point and not to use previous guidance on what to tell reporters, the U.S. diplomat said. The apparent delay comes after POLITICO reported Tuesday that the administration was vetting at least 9,000 migrants for transfer to the base. The proposal, if it becomes a reality, would be an exponential increase from the roughly 500 migrants who have been held for short periods at the base since February. It would also be a major step toward realizing a plan President Donald Trump announced in January to use the facility to hold as many as 30,000 migrants found to be in the U.S. illegally. On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X that reports of the plan were incorrect. 'Not happening,' she said. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, when asked Thursday about the apparent delay, said: 'That's not true. It was never a plan to begin with.' The proposal was designed primarily to free up bed space at detention facilities on domestic American soil, as the White House pushes Immigration and Customs Enforcement for higher arrest and deportation numbers. The agency is also tight on detention space and pressing Congress for additional funding to hire more agents and expand domestic detention capacity. Documents obtained by POLITICO on Tuesday noted that the plan had come together only recently and could still change. The expectation was that the detainees would be at Guantanamo Bay temporarily before being deported to their countries of origin, though it's not clear how long they would be held at the U.S. naval base. U.S. diplomats have been particularly worried about plans to include some 800 Europeans in the group to be transferred. They worry it could strain alliances with European nations that are typically cooperative in taking back deportees. Many European officials have been blindsided by the plans. Italy's foreign minister has said his country is doing 'everything' it can to prevent its citizens from being sent there. According to documents seen by POLITICO, at least two Italians are under consideration for a transfer to Guantanamo. The U.S. facility at Guantanamo, which is on Cuban soil but has been a U.S. naval base for many years, grew notorious because it has been used to hold terrorism suspects detained after the 9/11 attacks. Immigrant rights groups have sued the Trump administration in recent months in a bid to block its use of Guantanamo to house immigrant detainees. A federal class-action lawsuit pending in Washington indicates that there are roughly 70 immigrant detainees currently held there and facing 'punitive' conditions, such as insufficient food, weekly changes of clothes and rodent infestation.
Bloomberg
7 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Investor Anxiety Over ‘Revenge Tax' Is Overblown, Barclays Says
A controversial provision in President Donald Trump's tax-and-spending bill aimed at penalizing countries with 'unfair' tax regimes is unlikely to disrupt US bond and stock markets, according to Barclays Capital. Dubbed a 'revenge tax' by the finance community, Section 899 of the budget bill calls for increasing levies for individuals and companies whose home countries' tax policies the US deems 'discriminatory.' The proposal – which received House approval in May and is now under consideration in the Senate as part of the so-called One, Big Beautiful bill — has raised concerns on Wall Street that it may drive away foreign investors at a time when their confidence in US capital markets has already been shaken by the Trump administration's policies.
