Report: Army drafts plan for parade with 6,600 troops on Trump's birthday
Detailed Army planning documents obtained by the Associated Press show just how far along discussions have come for a potential military parade on June 14 — a date that marks both the Army's 250th birthday and former President Donald Trump's 79th.
The plans call for a full-scale display of military power on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., featuring more than 6,600 troops, 150 vehicles, 50 helicopters, seven Army bands, and fireworks. The proposed parade — still pending final White House approval — would be the first of its kind in the U.S. in decades.
If it happens, it would be the realization of a spectacle Trump has long wanted: a show of American military might on his birthday. But it also carries high logistical hurdles and an unclear price tag — though similar proposals in 2018 were scrapped over cost estimates nearing $92 million.
By the numbers
According to the April 29–30 planning documents, the Army is preparing for:
6,600+ soldiers involved
150 military vehicles, including tanks, Bradleys, Strykers, and Paladins
50 helicopters
Seven Army bands
A Golden Knights parachute jump
A fireworks finale
Participation from 11 corps and divisions across the country
Officials also anticipate up to 2,000 civilian participants, including military colleges, reenactor groups, veterans organizations, and historic vehicles.
Roughly 6,300 of the soldiers would be marching, while the rest would support logistics and operations. Some of the equipment was already part of the Army's birthday festival — but the proposed parade would significantly scale up the event.
The backstory
The original Army birthday event, long in the works, was intended as a public celebration of the institution's 250-year legacy. But as plans evolved this spring, a new component entered the discussion: a military parade timed to Trump's birthday.
White House approval is still pending, but Trump has long expressed interest in holding a massive military parade in Washington. After witnessing France's Bastille Day parade in 2017, he said he wanted one "even grander" down Pennsylvania Avenue. That idea was ultimately abandoned in 2018, with Trump blaming high costs and "local politicians" in D.C. for blocking it.
The new parade plans echo that original vision, complete with armored vehicles and flyovers — features that D.C. officials previously rejected over fears of street damage.
The other side
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said in April that federal officials had contacted her office about a parade stretching from Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac River into downtown Washington. Though she stopped short of calling it a "military parade," she warned, "Tanks rolling through the city's streets would not be good," adding, "If military tanks were used, they should be accompanied with many millions of dollars to repair the roads."
An earlier Pentagon memo from 2018 backed that concern, recommending only wheeled vehicles and no tanks to avoid tearing up infrastructure.
The planning documents reviewed by the AP also reveal a number of unknowns. The largest is which Army units would be selected to participate, and where exactly those troops would be housed. Some equipment would need to be flown or transported by train into the region.
The event would likely be designated a National Special Security Event, placing it under the jurisdiction of the Secret Service and involving high levels of federal coordination. That request is currently under review.
Big picture view
The parade — if it moves forward — would represent the largest public military display in Washington in decades. It also comes during Trump's second term, with his administration pushing to reshape federal agencies, including efforts to dismantle the Department of Education.
While the Army has emphasized that the event is a birthday celebration for the service, the political symbolism of aligning it with Trump's birthday is hard to ignore.
Army spokesperson Col. Dave Butler said the Army wants the public to "celebrate with us," adding, "We want Americans to know their Army and their soldiers. A parade might become part of that."
What's next
Final approval for the parade is still pending. As of May 1, the Army and White House have not announced a decision. If greenlit, the parade would occur the evening of Friday, June 14 — featuring a concert and fireworks to follow.
The Source
This report is based on internal Army planning documents dated April 29–30 and obtained by the Associated Press. Additional quotes and context come from AP reporting by Lolita C. Baldor and prior coverage from FOX 5 DC. Official statements from the Army and D.C. government are also included.
The Source
This report is based on internal Army planning documents dated April 29–30 and obtained by the Associated Press. Additional quotes and context come from AP reporting by Lolita C. Baldor and prior coverage from FOX 5 DC. Official statements from the Army and D.C. government are also included. This story was reported from Los Angeles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
‘Come and get me': Gavin Newsom has entered the meme war
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has found himself in the center of the internet's spotlight after squaring off with President Donald Trump on social media over the deployment of military troops to counter protesters in Los Angeles. While police deployed tear gas and shot at protesters in Los Angeles with rubber bullets on Monday, Newsom shared a screenshot on TikTok of a Washington Post headline reporting that California would sue Trump over the National Guard's presence, paired with a trending sound sampled from the movie 'Mean Girls. ' The video was captioned 'We will not stand while Donald Trump illegally federalizes the National Guard' and was liked more than 255,000 times.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides
By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati
Associated Press
26 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. An attorney for Brehm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Another lawsuit over the dismantling of the agency is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required. Leon's ruling in Brehm's case did not address whether the Trump administration had the power to install Marocco as board chair on a temporary basis.
