Weather, war and protests threaten to rain on Trump's military parade
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's military parade here on Saturday — a celebration of the Army's 250th birthday that happens to coincide with the commander in chief's 79th birthday — comes at a time when American forces are supporting domestic deportation efforts and Israel's defense against Iranian missiles.
The first such parade since Washington welcomed victorious U.S. troops home from the first Gulf War in 1991 — and an echo of similar extravaganzas following the Civil War and World Wars I and II — Saturday's affair will feature more than 6,000 troops, a procession of various types of armored vehicles alongside the National Mall on Constitution Avenue, and dozens of military aircraft cruising overhead.
Trump, who relishes pomp, will have his own reviewing stand.
But he runs the risk, literally and metaphorically, of watching rain drench his parade. Weather forecasts show a significant chance of precipitation and the possibility of evening thunderstorms. More substantively, the demonstrative show of American force will play out against the backdrop of Trump's inability to leverage U.S. power to fulfill campaign promises to end wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
In a twist of timing, the long-planned exercises come the day after the U.S. began providing aid to Israel in shooting down Iranian missiles and days after Trump deployed National Guard and Marine troops to southern California to quell protests against immigration raids.
Military parades have a long history in the United States, both at the national level and in local communities, said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia's Miller Center.
"Humans are drawn to pageantry," Perry said, but she noted a difference between traditional military expositions and Trump's birthday version.
"It's usually about the personnel," she said. "Now we know that this president has political issues all around the world, and wanting to show off the might. And if he views it, as in his first term, 'his generals,' and, if he views it as 'his military,' then you tie it to your personal special day of your birthday — that's what's different."
Trump critics say he is exploiting the military to nurture his own ego — at a cost of as much as $45 million to taxpayers — and, as he claims sweeping executive powers, presenting himself in the manner of a dictator. For decades, Americans have associated heavily armed military parades with Cold War-era authoritarianism in the former Soviet Union and other countries.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also made that comparison this week and said he didn't think the parade was the best idea.
"I wouldn't have done it," Paul said Tuesday. "The images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea, we were proud not to be that."
That may help explain why most American adults are sour on the idea. New NBC News Decision Desk polling, released Saturday morning, shows that 64% of adults surveyed say they disapprove of the parade. Protests are planned in Washington and across the country, organized under the slogan "No kings."
Trump, who promised to meet protesters with "very big force," has sought to rebut the notion that he is celebrating himself.
"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. It's a celebration of the Army, actually."
Democratic lawmakers pushed back on Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was on Capitol Hill for a round of hearings this week, over their choices in how to use the military.
"You are deploying the American military to police the American people. Sending the National Guard into California without the governor's request. Sending the Marines — not after foreign threats, but after American protesters," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, told Hegseth.
"And now President Trump is promising heavy force against peaceful protesters at his D.C. military parade," she said. "Those sorts of actions, and that sort of rhetoric from the president, should stop every one of us cold. Threatening to use our own troops — on our own citizens — at such scale is unprecedented, it is unconstitutional, and it is downright un-American."
Ken Carodine, a retired Navy rear admiral, said in a telephone interview with NBC News that the parade is not just "a terrible idea" but one that many of the servicemembers may not be excited about.
"Most of the guys that are involved in either organizing or participating in this thing, it's the last thing they want to be doing. But they can't say anything," he said, explaining that they must follow the orders of their superiors, right up to the commander in chief.
"It's a stupid order," Carodine said. "But it's a legal order."
Some Republican lawmakers, including those who routinely back the president's actions, said this week that they are not enamored of the idea of the display.
"The United States of America is the most powerful country in all of human history," Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said Tuesday. "We're a lion, and a lion doesn't have to tell you it's a lion. Everybody else in the jungle knows. And we're a lion."
Federal officials held discussions Friday afternoon about whether to move the start of the parade, scheduled for 6:30 p.m. after a day of festivities around the National Mall, to try to avoid the dangers and discomfort of possible thunderstorms. They ultimately decided to move ahead as planned.
For Trump, it promises to be another moment of triumph, an exclamation point on the 2024 election victory that brought him back to the helm of the most powerful nation on the planet.
But while the U.S. military has executed many successful missions in the years since Operation Desert Storm pushed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991, the more memorable wars for most Americans are the drawn out engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. is not fighting any war abroad right now, and it is not coming off of any recent victory.
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, once supported by the American public, became unpopular over time as they cost the nation dearly in blood and treasure. The U.S. retreated from Afghanistan in 2021 — after 20 years — under an agreement negotiated by Trump and fulfilled by President Joe Biden.
"Nobody had a parade for the kids coming back from Afghanistan," Carodine said. "That would have made a lot more sense than what we're doing tomorrow."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Israeli Ambassador: ‘Objective is not to contain the war' but ‘win the war' against Iran
Israeli ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, said the goal in the war against Iran is not to contain it but to win it, as the two countries continue to exchange strikes for a third day. During an appearance on ABC's 'This Week,' host Martha Raddatz asked Leiter how Israel would avoid escalating and attempt to contain the war. 'Martha, the objective is not to contain the war,' Leiter responded. 'The objective is to win the war.' 'Eighty years ago, we had a little man with a mustache running around Europe that nobody believed him when he said he was going to destroy the Jewish people,' he continued. 'We lost 6 million. Now we've got a crazed new Hitler running around the Middle East saying he's going to destroy us. 'We have to take him at face value… He's got a concrete plan to destroy us.' Her comments come after Israel and Iran continued to exchange airstrikes on Sunday. Another round of U.S.-Iranian nuclear talks was scheduled in Muscat, Oman, but was cancelled amid the fighting. When Raddatz mentioned that Trump did not want Israel to strike Iran because it would 'blow it,' Leiter said Trump was 'congratulatory about our strike,' noting that he had been given a 'heads-up' by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. When pushed further on whether Israel would accept a deal between Iran and Israel, Leiter said not unless Iran is willing to halt the nuclear program entirely. 'He wants the nuclear program in Iran to be halted in its entirety,' Leiter said. 'He said it very clearly: dismantle the centrifuges, dismantle the infrastructure, and stop in total the enrichment of uranium. So, if that can be achieved through negotiation, so be it. We'll be very happy. But it hasn't been.'
28 minutes ago
Trump says 'it's possible' US gets involved in Israel-Iran conflict
President Donald Trump said Sunday that the US is not involved in Israel 's military strikes but "it's possible we could get involved." In an interview with ABC News' Rachel Scott, Trump said he's open to Russian President Vladimir Putin serving as a mediator in the conflict -- something he said the Russian president pitched in their phone call on Saturday. Here are highlights from the interview: On Israel's latest attack on Iran:"I think they were very devastating. It was very devastating. They were hit also, but it was a very devastating into Iran, primarily" the president said. On a deadline for Iran to come to the negotiating table:"No, there's no deadline. But they are talking. They'd like to make a deal. They're talking. They continue to talk," he said. "Something like this had to happen because I think even from both sides, but something like this had to happen. They want to talk, and they will be talking." Asked again about the talks being called off, the president said he's confident it may help the deal -- "May have forced a deal to go quicker, actually." Will the U.S. get more involved in the conflict?:"We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved," the president said. Putin as a mediator in the conflict:"Yeah, I would be open to it. He is ready. He called me about it. We had a long talk about it. We talked about this more than his situation. This is something I believe is going to get resolved."
CNN
28 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump wary of increasing US involvement as Israel-Iran conflict escalates
Amid ongoing waves of tit-for-tat strikes between Israel and Iran, President Donald Trump is publicly and privately making clear his desire to keep the United States out of the fray for now, wary of becoming bogged in another Middle East war and highly attuned to the changing politics of his party. Sources familiar with the matter say Israel has spoken with the US about possibly increasing its level of involvement, though one Israeli official cautioned those conversation have not yet included 'practical' discussions of the finer details. And while Trump hopes to avoid a prolonged conflict that could further destabilize the Middle East, some in the administration recognize that American military assistance may help Israel conclude its objectives more quickly, the sources said. 'We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved,' Trump told ABC News on Sunday morning. The competing interests have created a complicated dynamic for a president eager to make good on his pledge to bring peace to the world's troubled regions. Since Israel launched its first attack early Friday morning, the US has offered defensive support to Israel intercepting an onslaught of Iranian reprisal strikes. But Trump has stopped well short of joining Israel's military in its attempts to dismantle Iran's nuclear facilities, resisting pressure from fellow Republicans to join the fight. He said in a social media post Saturday that he felt the conflict 'should end' as he continues to hold out hope for a negotiated agreement that would curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions, even after planned talks this weekend in Oman between the US and Iranian negotiating teams were called off. At stake is Trump's promise to act as a global peacemaker — or, as he told his inaugural crowd in January, to 'bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent and totally unpredictable.' That vow has already been tested by his inability to bring about an end to the Ukraine conflict and halting efforts to stop the fighting in Gaza. Now, as a new flashpoint is threatening to spiral out of control on Trump's watch, the commander-in-chief is attempting to limit US involvement. 'The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight,' Trump wrote on Truth Social late Saturday amid a fresh round of attacks in the region. 'If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before. However, we can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict!!!' The post sent the message that Trump's line for getting more directly involved in Israel's assaults would be an attack on American facilities or personnel in the region. Short of that, the US role in the conflict so far has largely been defensive. The Israeli operation against Iran is expected to take 'weeks, not days' and is moving forward with implicit US approval, according to White House and Israeli officials. The Trump administration has not critiqued the weeks-long timeframe in private discussions, an Israeli official told CNN. A White House official said the administration was aware and implicitly supportive of Israel's plans. When asked about how long the conflict could continue, the official said it depended on Iran's response. 'The Trump administration firmly believes this can be solved by continuing negotiations with the US,' the official said, adding that the US was not going to direct Israel to do anything but defend itself. American military planners have long had prepared options for joint US-Israeli actions against Iranian facilities should a US president ultimately decide to try taking out Iran's nuclear facilities, some of which are buried deep underground. There is little to indicate Trump has come close to approving such options, however, and according to an Israeli official, the possibility of offensive US support for Israel's strikes inside Iran had not been discussed on a 'practical basis.' 'We are not there, on a practical basis,' the Israeli official said. 'If at some point, the United States decides to take an offensive role, I don't think we'll be in a position to try and talk them out of it – but that's not our ask,' the official said, adding that such a move would be a sovereign decision of the US. The official explained that the endgame is to make sure that Iran is 'no longer an existential threat' to Israel, with both its nuclear and ballistic missiles program. 'If it's done in conjunction with allies, fine, but if it's not done in conjunction with allies, we have to do it ourselves,' the official said. Inside the White House, there continues to be heavy skepticism about getting involved in the conflict further, according to multiple officials familiar with the matter. Trump remains concerned about getting dragged into a war he didn't start and wanted to avoid, and is acutely aware of the complicated politics at play, those officials said. Though he publicly warned Israel against launching an attack on Iran ahead of Friday's strikes, he said afterward he was supportive of the effort and well aware that it was being planned. Prev Next Trump has long promised not to engage in 'nation building' adventurism overseas, decrying his predecessors for sending American troops to die in wars that generated little benefit back home. 'For at least two decades, political leaders from both parties have dragged our military into missions it was never meant to be' a part of, said Trump told graduating cadets at West Point last month. 'They sent our warriors on nation-building crusades to nations that wanted nothing to do with us, led by leaders that didn't have a clue in distant lands,' he said, vowing to never repeat the mistake. Now, however, he is under pressure from some of his Republican allies to take a more interventionist role. 'If diplomacy fails, going all in for Israel shows that America is back as a reliable ally and a strong force against oppression. It would strengthen our hand in all corners of the world, as well as all other conflicts we face,' Sen. Lindsey Graham wrote on X last week.
