Trump could help feed hungry people. Instead he's throwing a vanity parade
CONCORD, Calif. — On Saturday, on the streets of Washington, Donald Trump will throw himself a costly and ostentatious military parade, a gaudy display of waste and vainglory staged solely to inflate the president's dirigible-sized ego.
The estimated price tag: As much as $45 million.
That same day, the volunteers and staff of White Pony Express will do what they've done for nearly a dozen years, taking perfectly good food that would otherwise be tossed out and using it to feed hungry and needy people living in one of the most comfortable and affluent regions of California.
Since its founding, White Pony has processed and passed along more than 26 million pounds of food — the equivalent of about 22 million meals — thanks to such Bay Area benefactors as Whole Foods, Starbucks and Trader Joe's. That's 13,000 tons of food that would have otherwise gone to landfills, rotting and emitting 31,000 tons of CO2 emissions into our overheated atmosphere.
It's such a righteous thing, you can practically hear the angels sing.
'Our mission is to connect abundance and need,' said Eve Birge, White Pony's chief executive officer, who said the nonprofit's guiding principle is the notion 'we are one human family and when one of us moves up, we all move up.'
That mission has become more difficult of late as the Trump administration takes a scythe to the nation's social safety net.
White Pony receives most of its support from corporations, foundations, community organizations and individual donors. But a sizable chunk comes from the federal government; the nonprofit could lose up to a third of its $3-million annual budget due to cuts by the Trump administration.
'We serve 130,000 people each year,' Birge said. 'That puts in jeopardy one-third of the people we're serving, because if I don't find another way to raise that money, then we'll have to scale back programs. I'll have to consider letting go staff.' (White Pony has 17 employees and about 1,200 active volunteers.)
'We're a seven-day-a-week operation, because people are hungry seven days a week,' Birge said. 'We've talked about having to pull back to five or six days.'
She had no comment on Trump's big, braggadocious celebration of self, a Soviet-style display of military hardware — tanks, horses, mules, parachute jumpers, thousands of marching troops — celebrating the Army's 250th anniversary and, oh yes, the president's 79th birthday.
Marivel Mendoza wasn't so reticent.
'All of the programs that are being gutted and we're using taxpayer dollars to pay for a parade?' she asked after a White Pony delivery truck pulled up with several pallets of fruit, veggies and other groceries.
Mendoza's organization, which operates from a small office center in Brentwood, serves more than 500 migrant farmworkers and their families in the far eastern reaches of the Bay Area. 'We're going to see people starving at some point,' Mendoza said. 'It's unethical and immoral. I don't know how [Trump] sleeps at night.'
Certainly not lightheaded, or with his empty belly growling from hunger.
Those who work at White Pony speak of it with a spiritual reverence.
Paula Keeler, 74, took a break from her recent shift inspecting produce to discuss the organization's beneficence. (Every bit of food that comes through the door is checked for quality and freshness before being trucked from White Pony's Concord warehouse and headquarters to one of more than 100 community nonprofits.)
Keeler retired about a decade ago from a number-crunching job with a Bay Area school district. She's volunteered at White Pony for the last nine years, on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
'It's become my church, my gym and my therapist,' she said, as pulsing rhythm and blues played from a portable speaker inside the large sorting room. 'Tuesdays, I deliver to two senior homes. They're mostly little women and they can go to bed at night knowing their refrigerator is full tomorrow, and that's what touches my heart.'
Keeler hadn't heard about Trump's parade. 'I don't watch the news because it makes me want to throw up,' she said. Told of the spectacle and its cost, she responded with equanimity.
'It's kind of like the Serenity Prayer,' Keeler said. 'What can you do and what can't you do? I try to stick with what I can do.'
It's not much in vogue these days to quote Joe Biden, but the former president used to say something worth recollecting. 'Don't tell me what you value,' he often stated. 'Show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.'
Trump's priorities — I, me, mine — are the same as they've ever been. But there's something particularly stomach-turning about squandering tens of millions of dollars on a vanity parade while slashing funds that could help feed those in need.
Michael Bagby, 66, works part time at White Pony. He retired after a career piloting big rigs and started making deliveries and training White Pony drivers about three years ago. His passion is fishing — Bagby dreams of reeling in a deep-sea marlin — but no hobby can nourish his soul as much as helping others.
He was aware of Trump's pretentious pageant and its heedless price tag.
'Nothing I say is going to make a difference whether the parade goes on or not,' Bagby said, settling into the cab of a 26-foot refrigerated box truck. 'But it would be better to show an interest in the true needs of the country rather than a parade.'
His route that day called for stops at a middle school and a church in working-class Antioch, then Mendoza's nonprofit in neighboring Brentwood.
As Bagby pulled up to the church, the pastor and several volunteers were waiting outside. The modest white stucco building was fringed with dead grass. Traffic from nearby Highway 4 produced an insistent, thrumming soundtrack.
'There are a lot of people in need. A lot,' said Tania Hernandez, 45, who runs the church's food pantry. Eighty percent of the food it provides comes from White Pony, helping feed around 100 families a week. 'If it wasn't for them,' Hernandez said, 'we wouldn't be able to do it.'
With help, Bagby dropped off several pallets. He raised the tailgate, battened down the latches and headed for the cab. A church member walked up and stuck out his hand. 'God bless you,' he said.
Then it was off to the next stop.

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

Wall Street Journal
31 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Europe's Exporters Feel the Chill From Trump Tariffs
Europe's exports dropped sharply in April as demand was squeezed by President Trump's tariff increases, leading to a fall in factory output that suggests economic growth has slowed after a strong start to the year. European Union exports fell by close to 10% compared with a month earlier, a dramatic reversal from the increase in March as American importers stocked up ahead of Trump's tariff announcement.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre
Ohio National Guard members with gas masks and rifles advance toward Kent State University students during an anti-war protest on May 4, 1970. More than a dozen students were killed or injured when the guard opened fire. (.) This article was originally published by The Trace. Earlier in June, President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell anti-deportation protests and secure federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles. The move, some historians say, harks back 55 years to May 4, 1970, when Ohio's Republican governor summoned the National Guard to deal with students demonstrating against the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Guard members were ordered to fire over the students' heads to disperse the crowd, but some couldn't hear because they were wearing gas masks. The troops fired at the students instead, killing four and wounding another nine. The shooting served as a cautionary tale about turning the military on civilians. 'Dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting,' Brian VanDeMark, author of the book 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' wrote this week for The Conversation. We asked VanDeMark, a history professor at the United States Naval Academy, more about the parallels between 1970 and today. His interview has been edited for length and clarity. After the Kent State shooting, it became taboo for presidents or governors to even consider authorizing military use of force against civilians. Is the shadow of Kent State looming over Los Angeles? VanDeMark: For young people today, 55 years ago seems like a very long time. For the generation that came of age during the '60s and were in college during that period, Kent State is a defining event, shaping their views of politics and the military. There are risks inherent in deploying the military to deal with crowds and protesters. At Kent State, the county prosecutor warned the governor that something terrible could happen if he didn't shut down the campus after the guard's arrival. The university's administration did not want the guard brought to campus because they understood how provocative that would be to student protesters who were very anti-war and anti-military. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The military is not trained or equipped to deal well with crowd control. It is taught to fight and kill, and to win wars. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that deploying the guard to Los Angeles is inflammatory. What do you fear most about this new era of domestic military deployment? People's sense of history probably goes back five or 10 years rather than 40 or 50. That's regrettable. The people making these decisions — I can't unpack their motivation or perceptions — but I think their sense of history in terms of the dangers inherent in deploying U.S. troops to deal with street protests is itself a problem. There are parallels between Kent State and Los Angeles. There are protesters throwing bottles at police and setting fires. The Ohio governor called the Kent State protesters dissidents and un-American; President Trump has called the Los Angeles demonstrators insurrectionists, although he appears to have walked that back. What do you make of these similarities? The parallels are rather obvious. The general point I wish to make, without directing it at a particular individual, is that the choice of words used to describe a situation has consequences. Leaders have positions of responsibility and authority. They have a responsibility to try to keep the situation under control. Are officers today more apt to use rubber bullets and other so-called less-lethal rounds than in 1970? Even though these rounds do damage, they're less likely to kill. Could that save lives today? Most likely, yes. In 1970, the guard members at Kent State, all they had were tear gas canisters and assault rifles loaded with live ammunition. Lessons have been learned between 1970 and today, and I'm almost certain that the California National Guard is equipped with batons, plastic shields, and other tools that give them a range of options between doing nothing and killing someone. I've touched one of the bullets used at Kent State. It was five and a half inches long. You can imagine the catastrophic damage that can inflict on the human body. Those bullets will kill at 1,000 yards, so the likelihood that the military personnel in Los Angeles have live ammunition is very remote. Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops not only to Los Angeles but also to wherever protests are 'occurring or are likely to occur,' leading to speculation that the presence of troops will become permanent. Was that ever a consideration in the '60s and '70s, or are we in uncharted waters here? In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidents of both parties were very reluctant to deploy military forces against protests. Has that changed? Apparently it has. I personally believe that the military being used domestically against American citizens, or even people living here illegally, is not the answer. Generally speaking, force is not the answer. The application of force is inherently unpredictable. It's inherently uncontrollable. And very often the consequences of using it are terrible human suffering. Before the Kent State shooting, the assumption by most college-aged protesters was that there weren't physical consequences to engaging in protests. Kent State demonstrated otherwise. In Los Angeles, the governor, the mayor, and all responsible public officials have essentially said they will not tolerate violence or the destruction of property. I think that most of the protesters are peaceful. What concerns me is the small minority who are unaware of our history and don't understand the risks of being aggressive toward the authorities. In Los Angeles, we have not just the guard but also the Marines. Marines, as you mentioned, are trained to fight wars. What's the worst that could happen here? People could get killed. I don't know what's being done in terms of defining rules of engagement, but I assume that the Marines have explicitly been told not to load live ammunition in their weapons because that would risk violence and loss of life. I don't think that the guard or the Marines are particularly enthusiastic about having to apply coercive force against protesters. Their training in that regard is very limited, and their understanding of crowd psychology is probably very limited. The crowd psychology is inherently unpredictable and often nonlinear. If you don't have experience with crowds, you may end up making choices based on your lack of experience that are very regrettable. Some people are imploring the Marines and guard members to refuse the orders and stay home. You interviewed guard members who were at Kent State. Do you think the troops deployed to Los Angeles will come to regret it? Very often, and social science research has corroborated this, when authorities respond to protests and interact with protesters in a respectful fashion, that tends to have a calming effect on the protesters' behavior. But that's something learned through hard experience, and these Marines and guard members don't have that experience. The National Guard was deployed in Detroit in 1967; Washington, D.C. in 1968; Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992; and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. Have the Marines ever been deployed? Or any other military branch? Yes. In 1992, in the wake of the Rodney King controversy, the California governor at the time, a Republican named Pete Wilson, asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy not only the guard but also the Marines to deal with street riots in Los Angeles. That's the last time it was done. And how did that go? I'm not an expert on this, but I assure you that the senior officers who commanded those Marines made it very clear that they were not to discharge their weapons without explicit permission from the officers themselves, and they were probably told not to load their weapons with live ammunition. In 1967, during the Detroit riots, the Michigan National Guard was called out to the streets of Detroit. When the ranking senior officer arrived, he ordered the soldiers to remove their bullets from their rifles. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Senate GOP's hard-liners are suddenly sounding softer on the megabill
The Senate's conservative hard-liners vowed to wage holy war against the 'big, beautiful bill.' Now they appear to be coming to Jesus. The recent rhetorical downshift from some of the loudest GOP critics of the pending megabill underscores the political reality for conservatives: As much as they want to rail publicly about the legislation and the need to address any number of pressing national emergencies in it, very few are willing to buck President Donald Trump on his biggest priority. None of them are ready to cave just yet. But the White House and their GOP colleagues increasingly believe that three senators in particular — Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah and Rick Scott of Florida — are now on track to support the bill. Johnson, in particular, has softened his once-fierce criticism of the legislation in recent days. 'We all want to see President Trump succeed,' he said in a brief interview this week. 'Everybody is trying to help. That's why, if I seem to have been striking a more hopeful tone, it's because I am more hopeful.' Just a couple of weeks ago, Johnson was demanding near-unworkable levels of spending cuts and warning that the bill would drive the nation off a fiscal cliff. Then the Trump administration and members of Republican leadership went to work. Johnson made a pitch to Trump during a recent one-on-one phone call to let him work with administration officials on his deficit reduction plan. That led to a meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council. A person with knowledge of the meeting, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said afterward that the White House is 'optimistic that there's a path to getting Johnson to yes.' Trump also privately urged Johnson during a meeting with other Finance Committee Republicans last week to speak more positively about the bill. The callout came after Trump officials — and Trump himself — grew annoyed watching Johnson savage the bill on television. His message: You should be out there selling this bill proudly, he told Johnson, according to two White House officials granted anonymity to describe the meeting — arguing that even if he doesn't love every detail, there was plenty in the bill for Republicans to be proud of. 'When the president says, 'Ron, you've been so negative, that's just not even helpful,' I want to be helpful,' Johnson said, acknowledging Trump's message in the meeting and admitting he has 'downplayed what is good in the bill.' One of the White House officials summarized the approach to Johnson: 'Don't be negative to create leverage for yourself,' the person said. 'If you want to negotiate, like, we can negotiate in private. We're all reasonable people.' The hands-on efforts to win over Johnson are part of a larger effort to try to help the fiscal hawks find a soft landing — and at least the semblance of some concessions that will be able to hold up as wins in the end. That's played out in face-to-face meetings with administration officials, negotiations over pet provisions and discussions about how to continue the fight to cut budget deficits down the road. Being able to win over their deficit hawks would be a huge boon to Majority Leader John Thune, who has acknowledged that he's got one hard 'no' vote in Sen. Rand Paul, who firmly opposes the bill's debt-ceiling hike. Thune can only afford to lose three GOP senators, with Vance breaking a tie. That has given the fiscal hawks leverage, since the GOP leaders can't afford to lose all of them, and that's on top of the other potential headaches they have to navigate elsewhere in the conference. To hear the fiscal hawks tell it, they are sounding a more positive note about their ability to support the bill because the administration is starting to take their demands seriously. To help appease their holdouts, GOP leaders have tried to scrounge up additional savings beyond what is included in the House bill. 'I believe we'll get a deal done. I'm doing everything I can to represent my state,' Scott said in a brief interview. GOP leaders are working to assuage Lee by tucking one of his top priorities into the bill. The deregulatory proposal, known as the REINS Act, was initially expected to run afoul of Senate rules for the party-line reconciliation process, but leaders have been working to try to find a version that could pass muster. House conservatives, meanwhile, have grown increasingly worried that the Senate, with the blessing of their fiscal-hawk allies, will send back a bill that waters down some of their hard-fought victories. The House Freedom Caucus has laid out public demands, while its members have met privately with Lee, Scott and Johnson to strategize about additional spending reductions and maintaining their policy wins. The Senate hard-liners aren't ready to concede just yet. Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has promised Johnson he will advance a second reconciliation bill, giving conservatives another chance to enact cuts. But Johnson said that wouldn't be enough to get him on board. Instead he wants a 'forcing mechanism' to maintain a longer-term push to return to 2019 spending levels. He's letting the White House brainstorm other ideas and described himself as 'reasonably flexible.' Lee said in a statement he's 'been working with my colleagues and the White House to make the Big Bill Beautiful.' But added: 'It's not where it needs to be yet.' 'We need to sell federal land to help fix the housing crisis, terminate benefits that flow to illegals, end the Green New Scam, and get rid of the Medicaid provider tax. I want to see this effort cross the finish line, but we need to do more,' he added. Even as they continue to push, their colleagues see the signs of late softening — and aren't surprised whatsoever. 'They'll fold,' said a GOP colleague who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said that Republicans have 'made progress' with Johnson and 'I wouldn't count him out.' And two others, Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and John Kennedy (R-La.), said they expect Lee, Scott and Johnson to come around when the bill comes up for a final vote, even if they don't ultimately love every provision. 'They're very gettable,' Kennedy said. 'At some point people are just going to have to decide, is this good enough?' Rachael Bade and Meredith Lee Hill contributed reporting.