
America Actually Does Do Military Parades. But Not Like This One.
In 1991, when President George H.W. Bush staged a parade to celebrate victory in the first Gulf War, it was the weekend of my high school graduation. This month, as Donald Trump presides over a parade honoring the Army's 250th anniversary, my child is graduating amid identical D.C. concerns over road closures, visiting throngs, and chewed-up public streets.
That's about where the similarities end.
While Bush's parade drew a smattering of criticism — including tut-tutting about expenses and the sense that some attendees were more excited about the Patriot missiles than the actual troops — it was generally uncontroversial, even popular, despite Washington's heavily Democratic population.
'I don't remember any of the negativity that you're having right now,' said Jack Evans, a Democrat who represented downtown Washington on the city council at the time. 'People were excited. We'd won the war. It was all done.'That was then.
This year, amidst political polarization, fear of terrorism, and general chaos, the vibes are different. On Wednesday, Matt McCool, the Special Agent in Charge of the Secret Service, outlined some of the precautions around the parade, which has been classified as a National Special Security Event, enabling local cops and federal agencies to work closely together on security.
'You will see 18-and-a-half miles of the anti-scale fencing, 17 miles of bike rack concrete barriers, 175 magnetometers and officers from federal, state and local agencies standing post,' McCool said, standing alongside a half-dozen uniformed law enforcement bigwigs at the city's emergency-management office. 'You may also notice multiple drones operating in the area.' Local police leaders say their departments are on full activation.
Part of this is standard 21st century security theater. The parade coincides with an all-day festival on the National Mall where visitors can walk around a lot of pricey military hardware, making the crowd-management particularly complicated. McCool said agencies weren't aware of any specific threats or efforts to disrupt the celebration.
But Trump himself fanned the sense of tension this week when he said that protests would be met with 'very heavy force.'No wonder the criticism is a lot more pointed than the mild stuff that greeted Bush. This weekend's parade has been blasted as a sign of incipient authoritarianism, a Soviet-style spectacle, and a blatant case of politicizing the military. 'A dictator-style military parade,' said California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, all 'just to stroke his own ego,' according to Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, herself an Army veteran.
It doesn't help that it's all taking place amidst the controversial deployment of troops to Los Angeles — and in the wake of Trump's norm-busting speech at Fort Bragg on Wednesday, when he got troops cheering political refrains and booing former President Joe Biden, in apparent violation of Army regulations. And it especially doesn't help that the $45 million parade happens to take place on the president's birthday.
A counter-protest group has dubbed it 'No Kings Day.' But, remarkably, they've organized protests everywhere but the nation's capital, which reduces the odds of a showdown with Trump. In a statement, the organizers said it was meant to 'draw a clear contrast between our people-powered movement and the costly, wasteful, and un-American birthday parade in Washington.'
For their part, the military brass say they just want to celebrate the Army — and use its anniversary as a chance to invest in recruiting.
'The Army just touches so many different things,' Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said at a private event in Washington this week. 'The idea is that we get this one moment in time for so many Americans to see that. I think our marketing budget is $750 million. This marketing, this investment, is to tell upcoming young Americans, and Americans who are a little stuck in their life, about this alternative lifestyle of excellence that the Army offers them. To us, that will give us an incredible return on the investment.'As for the comparison to the over-the-top parades of hardware in North Korea or the former Soviet Union, Army Chief of Staff Randy George said it's unfair. 'I think if anybody sees this on TV, interacts with our troops, they will see that we're from every part of this country, doing every kind of thing,' he said. 'Yes, they have a parade and we have a parade. That's probably the only comparison that I would make.' He noted that the soldiers take part in local parades all the time, but just haven't done a big national one in ages.
In other words: Why all the agita over a military tribute?
It's not like Washington hasn't spent any time honoring our military in the intervening 34 years. During the endless foreign conflicts starting in 2001, we had fighter jet flyovers at football games, 'salute the troops' road races on suburban streets and color guards at Beltway banquets. Performative gestures of troop-respect are almost a Washington cliche nowadays among pols, media types, and socialites.
Yet a city built for mass gatherings never threw a parade — which, according to a leading historian of the subject, reflects an important tradition in American culture, and might explain some of the polarization around this weekend.
David Glassberg, a University of Massachusetts historian who studies American pageantry, says the country doesn't have the tradition of set-piece national military parades like China, Russia, or even France. 'The whole thing with Trump and the reviewing stand, I can't remember anything like that' in peacetime, Glassberg said. 'It's not something Americans have incorporated into their image. The idea that you're going to display weapons or tear up the streets with tanks, it's really rare.'
The one exception: Parades, like in 1991, that celebrated soldiers' return following a victory — something we haven't seen a lot of lately.
Glassberg said there were epic welcome-home parades after World War I and the Civil War. Since America didn't have much of a standing Army until the mid-20th century, those events were also extra poignant because many troops were going back to civilian life. 'This was really their last chance, marching in that parade,' he told me.
The notion of a president hosting a peacetime parade was sufficiently unusual that, when Trump unsuccessfully embraced the idea during his first term, stalwart supporters voiced skepticism. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham called such spectacles 'a sign of weakness' in dubious foreign regimes, adding that he wasn't 'interested in Russian-style hardware display.'
'Confidence is silent. Insecurities are loud,' Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy said back then. 'You don't have to show it off, like Russia does, and North Korea, and China.'
In fact, big commemorative parades in general have faded in American life, not just in Washington. Manhattan used to host ticker-tape parades for all kinds of people, from visiting statesmen to returning astronauts to, yes, the Fourth Infantry Division when it came home from Korea. But in the 21st century nearly all of the infrequent honorees have been championship-winning New York sports teams.
Inevitably, the unusualness of a peacetime parade is going to make people wonder why it's happening — something that, for skeptics of Trump, is going to lead them to a place of dark worries about militarism and dictatorship.What's striking is that so many of the political critics of the campaign seem to take it as a given that the optics of Saturday's spectacle will be politically good for Trump. It's why Democrats (and Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul) are griping about the price, and others are accusing him of inappropriately using soldiers as props.
But given the historic oddness of big Washington parades, there's also a not-zero chance that the spectacle could seem alien and even troubling to viewers, a PR dud.
Consider: An elderly leader, watching line after line of soldiers and hardware roll past, taking in their salutes, a potentate surrounded by courtiers. For most Americans, this kind of spectacle usually evokes military strongmen or politburo dinosaurs, and mostly involves countries we don't want to live in. It's not a great look. 'I think a lot of news media is going to be pointing that image out, running pictures of Kim Jong Un and Stalin and all that kind of stuff,' Glassberg said.
All the same, he said Democrats could maybe learn a thing or two from the instinct behind Trump's embrace of the parade, if not from the event itself: Sometimes, it's politically useful to publicly celebrate things you like — people and triumphs that the broader public might also embrace. 'There's a whole language of commemoration that Dems are just in the wrong key about,' he said. 'They don't get it.'
And even if the day is a smashing political success for Trump, it's not exactly certain that it heralds some permanent shift in either his standing or the politics of the military. After all, the popular president who hosted the joyous 1991 parade was turfed out of office less than 18 months later.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Chicago Tribune
22 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Trump administration to keep DC police chief in place, but under immigration enforcement order
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Friday reversed course and agreed to leave the Washington, D.C., police chief in control of the department, while Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a new memo, directed the District's police to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law. The order from Bondi came after officials in the nation's capital sued Friday to block President Donald Trump's takeover of the Washington police. The night before, his administration had escalated its intervention into the city's law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department, essentially placing the police force under the full control of the federal government. The attorney general's new order represents a partial retreat for the Trump administration in the face of intense skepticism from a judge over the legality of Bondi's earlier directive. But Bondi also signaled the administration would continue to pressure D.C. leaders to help federal authorities aggressively pursue immigrants in the country illegally, despite city laws on the books that limit cooperation between police and immigration authorities. In a social media post Friday evening, Bondi criticized D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, saying he 'continues to oppose our efforts to improve public safety.' But she added, 'We remain committed to working closely with Mayor Bowser.' Mayor Muriel Bowser's office said late Friday that it was still evaluating how it can comply with the new Bondi order on immigration enforcement operations. The police department already eased some restrictions on cooperating with federal officials facilitating Trump's mass-deportation campaign but reaffirmed that it would follow the district's sanctuary city laws. In a letter sent Friday night to D.C. citizens, Bowser wrote: 'It has been an unsettling and unprecedented week in our city. Over the course of a week, the surge in federal law enforcement across D.C. has created waves of anxiety.' She added that 'our limited self-government has never faced the type of test we are facing right now,' but added that if Washingtonians stick together, 'we will show the entire nation what it looks like to fight for American democracy – even when we don't have full access to it.' The legal battle was the latest evidence of the escalating tensions in a mostly Democratic city that now has its police department largely under the control of the Republican president's administration. Trump's takeover is historic, yet it had played out with a slow ramp-up in federal law enforcement officials and National Guard troops to start the week. As the weekend approached, though, signs across the city — from the streets to the legal system — suggested a deepening crisis over who controls the city's immigration and policing policies, the district's right to govern itself and daily life for the millions of people who live and work in the metro area. The two sides sparred in court for hours Friday before U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who is overseeing the district's lawsuit. She indicated the law likely doesn't grant the Trump administration power to fully take over city police, but it probably does give the president more power than the city might like. 'The way I read the statute, the president can ask, the mayor must provide, but the president can't control,' said Reyes, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden. The judge pushed the two sides to make a compromise. An attorney for the Trump administration, Yaakov Roth, said the move to sideline Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith came after an immigration order that still held back some aid to federal authorities. He argued that the president has broad authority to determine what kind of help police in Washington must provide. The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally. It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city's homicide rate ranks below those of several other major U.S. cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the Trump administration has portrayed. The president has more power over the nation's capital than other cities, but D.C. has elected its own mayor and city council since the Home Rule Act was signed in 1973. Trump is the first president to exert control over the city's police force since it was passed. The law limits that control to 30 days without congressional approval, though Trump has suggested he'd seek to extend it. Bondi's Thursday night directive to place the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Terry Cole, in charge of the police department came even after Smith had told MPD officers hours earlier to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, such as someone involved in a traffic stop or checkpoint. The Justice Department said Bondi disagreed with the police chief's instructions because they allowed for continued practice of 'sanctuary policies,' which generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers. Meanwhile, advocates in Washington were trying to advise immigrants on how to respond. Anusce Sanai, associate legal director for the Washington-based immigrant nonprofit Ayuda, said they're still parsing the legal aspects of the policies. 'Even with the most anti-immigrant administration, we would always tell our clients that they must call the police, that they should call the police,' Sanai said. 'But now we find ourselves that we have to be very careful on what we advise.' Amy Fischer, an organizer with Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid, said that before the federal takeover, most of what they had seen in the nation's capital was Immigration and Customs Enforcement targeting specific individuals. But since last Friday night they've seen a 'really significant change,' she said, with ICE and federal officers doing roving patrols around the city. She said a hotline set up by immigration advocates to report ICE activity 'is receiving calls almost off the hook.' ICE said in a post on X that their teams had arrested 'several' people in Washington Friday. A video posted on X showed two uniformed personnel putting handcuffs on someone while standing outside a white transport van. A population already tense from days of ramp-up has begun seeing more significant shows of force across the city. National Guard troops watched over some of the world's most renowned landmarks, and Humvees took position in front of the busy main train station. Volunteers helped homeless people leave long-standing encampments — to where was often unclear. Friday night along the district's U Street, a popular nightlife corridor, an Associated Press photographer saw officers from the FBI, the DEA, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Park Police, U.S. Marshals and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. As the District challenged the Trump administration in court Friday, more than 100 protesters gathered less than a block away in front of police headquarters, chanting 'Protect home rule!' and waving signs saying 'Resist!'


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board
Then multiple Democratic governors promised new districts in their own states to neutralize potential Republican gains in Washington. Their counter has been buoyed by national fundraising, media blitzes and public demonstrations, including rallies scheduled around the country Saturday. 'For everyone that's been asking, 'Where are the Democrats?' -- well, here they are,' said U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, one of several Democrats who could be ousted under her state's new maps. 'For everyone who's been asking, 'Where is the fight?' – well, here it is.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up There is no guarantee Democrats can prevent the Republican-powered redistricting, just as Democrats on Capitol Hill have not been able to stop Trump's moves. But it's a notable turn for a party that, by its own leaders' admissions, has honored conventional rules and bypassed bare-knuckled tactics. Advertisement So far, progressive and establishment Democrats are aligned, uniting what has often been a fragmented opposition since Republicans led by Trump took control of the federal government with their election sweep in November. Leaders on the left say the approach gives them a more effective way to confront him. They can challenge his redistricting ploy with tangible moves as they also push back against the Republicans' tax and spending law and press the case that he is shredding American democracy. Advertisement 'We've been imploring Democrats where they have power on the state and local level to flex that power,' said Maurice Mitchell, who leads the Working Families Party at the left flank of mainstream U.S. politics. 'There's been this overwrought talk about fighters and largely performative actions to suggest that they're in the fight.' This time, he said, Democrats are 'taking real risks in protecting all of our rights' against 'an authoritarian president who only understands the fight.' Texas made sense for Republicans as the place to start a redistricting scuffle. They dominate the Statehouse, and Gov. Greg Abbott is a Trump loyalist. But when the president's allies announced a new political map intended to send five more Republicans to the U.S. House, state Democratic representatives fled Texas, denying the GOP the numbers to conduct business in the Legislature and approve the reworked districts. Those legislators surfaced in Illinois, New York, California and elsewhere, joined by governors, senators, state party chairs, other states' legislators and activists. All promised action. The response was Trumpian. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York welcomed Texas Democrats and pledged retaliatory redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who says 'yes, sir' to Trump orders. Hochul dismissed Texas Republicans as 'lawbreaking cowboys.' Newsom's press office directed all-caps social media posts at Trump, mimicking his signature sign off: 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.' U.S. Rep. Al Green, another Texas Democrat who could lose his seat, called Trump 'egomaniacal.' Yet many Democrats also claimed moral high ground, comparing their cause to the Civil Rights Movement. Advertisement State Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., invoked another Texas Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson, who was 'willing to stand up and fight' for civil rights laws in the 1960s. Then, with Texas bravado, Romero reached further into history: 'We're asking for help, maybe just as they did back in the days of the Alamo.' A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 15% of Democrats' own voters described the party using words like 'weak' or 'apathetic.' An additional 10% called it 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Beto O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman who is raising money to support Texas Democrats, has encouraged Democratic-run statehouses to redraw districts now rather than wait for GOP states to act. On Friday, California Democrats released a plan that would give the party an additional five U.S. House seats. It would require voter approval in a November election. 'Maximize Democratic Party advantage,' O'Rourke said at a recent rally. 'You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules.' There are no refs in this game. F--- the rules. ... Whatever it takes.' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin acknowledged the shift. 'This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to a knife fight,' he said. Andrew O'Neill, an executive at the progressive group Indivisible, contrasted that response with the record-long speeches by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. and the Democratic leader of the U.S. House, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, in eviscerating Trump and his package of tax breaks and spending cuts. The left 'had its hair on fire' cheering those moments, O'Neill recalled, but were 'left even more frustrated in the aftermath.' Advertisement Trump still secured tax cuts for the wealthy, accelerated deportations and cut safety net programs, just as some of his controversial nominees were confirmed over vocal Democratic opposition. 'Now,' O'Neill said, 'there is some marriage of the rhetoric we've been seeing since Trump's inauguration with some actual action.' O'Neill looked back wistfully to the decision by Senate Democrats not to eliminate the filibuster 'when our side had the trifecta,' so a simple majority could pass major legislation. Democratic President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, he said, was too timid in prosecuting Trump and top associates over the Capitol riot. In 2016, Democratic President Barack Obama opted against hardball as the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, refused to consider Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. 'These unspoken rules of propriety, especially on the Democratic side, have created the conditions' that enabled Trump, Mitchell said. Even on redistricting, Democrats would have to ignore their previous good-government efforts and bypass independent commissions that draw boundaries in several states, including California. Party leaders and activists rationalize that the broader fights tie together piecemeal skirmishes that may not, by themselves, sway voters. Arguing that Trump diminishes democracy stirs people who already support Democrats, O'Neill said. By contrast, he said, the GOP 'power grab,' can be connected to unpopular policies that affect voters' lives. Green noted that Trump's big package bill cleared the Senate 'by one vote' and the House by a few, demonstrating why redistricting matters. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said Democrats must make unseemly, short-term power plays so they can later pass legislation that 'bans gerrymandering nationwide ... bans super PACs (political action committees) and gets rid of that kind of big money and special interest that helped get us to this place.' U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, added that a Democratic majority would wield subpoena power over Trump's administration. Advertisement In the meantime, said U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Texas, voters are grasping a stark reality. 'They say, 'Well, I don't know. Politics doesn't affect me,'' she said of constituents she meets. 'I say, 'Honey, it does' If you don't do politics, politics will do you.''


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
West Virginia sends hundreds of National Guard members to Washington at Trump team's request
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hundreds of West Virginia National Guard members will deploy across the nation's capital as part of the Trump administration's effort to overhaul policing in the District of Columbia through a federal crackdown on crime and homelessness. Gov. Patrick Morrisey, announced Saturday that he was sending a contingent of 300 to 400 to nearby Washington at the Republican administration's request. They will arrive in the district along with equipment and specialized training services, his office said in a statement. 'West Virginia is proud to stand with President Trump in his effort to restore pride and beauty to our nation's capital,' Morrisey said. 'The men and women of our National Guard represent the best of our state, and this mission reflects our shared commitment to a strong and secure America.' The move comes as federal agents and National Guard troops have begun to appear across the heavily Democratic city after Trump's executive order Monday federalizing local police forces and activating about 800 D.C. National Guard troops. Maj. Gen. James Seward, West Virginia's adjutant general, said in a statement that members of the state's National Guard 'stand ready to support our partners in the National Capital Region' and that the Guard's 'unique capabilities and preparedness make it an invaluable partner in this important undertaking.' Federal agents have appeared in some of the city's most highly trafficked neighborhoods, garnering praise, pushback and alarm from local residents and leaders across the country. City leaders, who are obliged to cooperate with the president's order under the federal laws that direct the district's local governance, have sought to work with the administration though have bristled at the scope of the president's takeover. On Friday the administration reversed course on an order that aimed to place the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration as an 'emergency police commissioner' after the district's top lawyer sued to contest. After a court hearing, Trump's attorney general, Pam Bond, issued a memo that directed the Metropolitan Police Department to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law. District officials say they are evaluating how to best comply. In his order Monday, Trump declared an emergency due to the 'city government's failure to maintain public order.' He said that impeded the 'federal government's ability to operate efficiently to address the nation's broader interests without fear of our workers being subjected to rampant violence.' In a letter to city residents, Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, wrote that 'our limited self-government has never faced the type of test we are facing right now." She added that if Washingtonians stick together, 'we will show the entire nation what it looks like to fight for American democracy -– even when we don't have full access to it.'