logo
Tanks, thunder, and Trump: The military parade that split America

Tanks, thunder, and Trump: The military parade that split America

Economic Times4 hours ago

Reuters A Stryker armored vehicle is being prepared for a military parade to commemorate the U.S. Army's 250th Birthday in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 14, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard
Amid traffic jams, military flyovers, and thousands of troops marching down Constitution Avenue, the United States Army celebrated its 250th anniversary on Saturday. But it wasn't just about history. It was also President Donald Trump's 79th birthday — a detail that has split public opinion and overshadowed the event's original intent.The scale was massive: 6,700 soldiers, 150 vehicles including tanks and howitzers, and more than 50 aircraft. Fighter jets, including the Air Force's Thunderbirds — a last-minute addition at Trump's request — were among the parade's highlights.'I think it's time for us to celebrate a little bit. You know, we've had a lot of victories,' Trump said earlier in the week. 'It is my birthday, but I'm not celebrating my birthday,' he insisted, pointing instead to Flag Day.
It was the first national military parade of this scale since 1991, when troops returned home victorious from the Gulf War. Among the highlights: tanks on urban roads, a White House parachute flag-drop, and a flyover. Trump, stationed at his own reviewing stand, called it 'a celebration of our country' and 'of the Army, actually.' But protests are mounting, weather warnings loomed, and concerns about the parade's cost and purpose deepened — especially as it occurred while the U.S. military engages in controversial operations at home and abroad.
The idea took root last year. At a long-running Army pageant called the 'Twilight Tattoo,' General Randy George and Army spokesperson Col. Dave Butler were hosting media executives when one leaned over and said, 'This would make great television,' according to Butler.From there, things escalated. The Army was already looking for ways to mark its milestone. The suggestion of turning their ceremonial show into a full-blown parade landed without resistance.'We wanted to reintroduce this nation's Army to the American people,' Butler said. 'To do that, we thought we needed to be in their living rooms and on their phones. We needed something that would catch the national eye.'With Trump's interest piqued — a former media executive who had previously tried and failed to stage a military parade — the door opened. 'It was like knocking on an unlocked door,' said one planning official.Not everyone is clapping.A poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center shows nearly 60% of Americans think the parade is a poor use of government money. The Army has estimated its own logistics could cost up to $45 million. Security, air traffic closures, and city disruptions will drive the price higher.'I remain concerned about it, I have to tell you,' said Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. 'These are, for the most part, local streets, and if they're rendered unusable, we have to make them usable and then go seek our money from the feds.'The city is already bracing for road closures, suspended flights, and potential damage to infrastructure. Tanks have been spotted rolling down Rhode Island Avenue, escorted by police. Steel plates and rubber pads have been deployed along the route to mitigate damage, according to Army spokesperson Heather J. Hagan, who said the expected road damage would be 'minimal.'The backlash hasn't been limited to cost.
Democrat Senator Tammy Duckworth, a former Army officer, called the parade 'Donald Trump's birthday parade,' accusing the president of exploiting the event for his own image. 'It's to stroke his own ego and make taxpayers foot the bill,' she said. Critics have compared the event to military displays in Russia or North Korea — performative demonstrations of power under authoritarian regimes. Local advisory commissioners have passed resolutions calling for the parade's cancellation, saying it reflects 'authoritarian governments more than democracies.'Samuel Port, a former Army logistics officer and now unemployed contractor, summed up a common sentiment: 'Trump is using this as an excuse to prop himself up. It demeans the soldiers because it's using them as a political prop.'The parade comes at a sensitive time.
Just one day earlier, the United States began assisting Israel's defence against Iranian missile attacks. And earlier in the week, Trump deployed both National Guard and Marine forces to Southern California to suppress protests against immigration raids. The president bypassed state authority in doing so, drawing legal and political scrutiny.
'The President is deploying the American military to police the American people,' Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.), top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, told Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth during hearings this week. 'Sending the Marines — not after foreign threats, but after American protesters... should stop every one of us cold.' According to a new NBC News/Decision Desk poll released Saturday morning, 64% of Americans disapprove of the parade. Many cite both the financial burden and the optics of military power being used domestically.'I wouldn't have done it,' said Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), likening the display to Soviet-era demonstrations. 'We were proud not to be that.'The parade also drew comparisons to past authoritarian spectacles. Trump, who has long admired large-scale military demonstrations, first pushed for a parade of this kind after visiting France's Bastille Day celebration in 2017. That effort stalled during his first term, but the 250th Army anniversary provided the perfect excuse.Critics say this was not merely about honouring service. 'It's a stupid order,' said retired Rear Admiral Ken Carodine. 'But it's a legal order. Most of the guys organising or marching in this thing, it's the last thing they want to be doing.'
Presidential historian Barbara Perry from the University of Virginia noted the personalisation of the event. 'Usually it's about the personnel,' she said. 'If [Trump] views it as 'his generals' or 'his military,' and ties it to his birthday — that's what's different.' Trump, however, insists the parade is not about him. '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.'Despite forecasts warning of heavy rain and possible thunderstorms, federal officials opted to proceed with the event as scheduled. The parade was set to begin at 6:30 p.m., following a day of commemorations along the National Mall.For Trump, the parade marks a symbolic high point following his return to the presidency in the 2024 elections. Supporters see it as a reaffirmation of strength and patriotism. But detractors view it as a diversion from failed foreign policy pledges, especially regarding the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.The president had campaigned on promises to end these conflicts. But the parade's timing — against the backdrop of ongoing deployments and incomplete missions — raises questions about whether the event is celebrating victory, or distracting from the lack of it.Demonstrations have erupted in Washington and across the country, organised under the slogan 'No Kings.' Activists accuse the president of using military force to bolster his own image.Trump has warned protesters that they 'will be met with very big force,' echoing his broader posture on dissent. That rhetoric has only intensified criticism that the commander-in-chief is merging military spectacle with authoritarian messaging.Local leaders are also frustrated. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser expressed concerns over costs and disruptions. Neighbourhood commissioners passed resolutions calling the parade 'a grotesque spectacle.' And with tanks rolling through streets that recently saw the forced removal of homeless encampments, many see the juxtaposition as deliberate.'It's appalling that we're spending $45 million on a parade after kicking out the most vulnerable residents of our neighbourhood,' said local commissioner Jim Malec.Unlike the parades following the Civil War, World Wars I and II, or even Desert Storm — all tied to clear victories — this event lacks a unifying triumph.'The U.S. is not coming off any war victory,' said Carodine. 'Nobody had a parade for the kids coming back from Afghanistan. That would have made a lot more sense than what we're doing tomorrow.'America's recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left a mixed legacy. The Afghanistan conflict formally ended in 2021 under a deal negotiated by Trump and executed by President Joe Biden. Many veterans returned home quietly, without recognition or celebration.For some, this parade is a missed opportunity — one that honours political ambition more than military service.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Judge blocks Trump administration's passport policy targeting transgender and non-binary Americans
Judge blocks Trump administration's passport policy targeting transgender and non-binary Americans

Time of India

time10 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Judge blocks Trump administration's passport policy targeting transgender and non-binary Americans

A federal judge, has issued a sweeping injunction against the Trump administration's policy that restricted passport gender markers, marking a major victory for transgender and non-binary Americans seeking accurate identification. U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick's ruling, delivered Tuesday in Boston, prevents the State Department from enforcing an executive order that required passport applicants to select only the gender assigned at birth-male or female-on their documents. The order, signed by President Trump in January, reversed a 2022 policy that had allowed Americans to self-select their gender marker, including an 'X' option for non-binary individuals. Judge Kobick's preliminary injunction expands an earlier, narrower order that applied to just six plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Now, the protection covers all transgender and nonbinary Americans who need to obtain a new passport, renew an expiring one, or update their name or sex designation due to loss, theft, or personal changes. In her decision, Kobick found that the government's policy likely violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause. She wrote, 'The Executive Order and the Passport Policy inherently categorize passport applicants based on sex and consequently must undergo intermediate judicial scrutiny. The government has not met this criterion'. Kobick emphasized that the administration failed to show that halting the policy would harm the executive branch or U.S. foreign relations, while affected individuals demonstrated clear constitutional harm. The ACLU's lawsuit highlighted real-world impacts: one woman received her passport with a male designation, and others reported fears of delays or confiscation if their applications didn't align with the new policy. Another applicant, who requested a change from male to female, was still awaiting her passport months later, risking missing family and professional events. Live Events The Trump administration argued that the policy did not violate constitutional protections and asserted broad presidential authority over passport regulations . However, Kobick's ruling ensures that, for now, transgender and nonbinary Americans retain the right to accurate federal identification as the legal battle continues. The White House has not yet commented on the ruling.

UK authorities concealed ethnicity of grooming gangs to avoid ‘appearing racist', audit finds
UK authorities concealed ethnicity of grooming gangs to avoid ‘appearing racist', audit finds

First Post

time11 minutes ago

  • First Post

UK authorities concealed ethnicity of grooming gangs to avoid ‘appearing racist', audit finds

The audit revealed that the ethnicity of the grooming gangs was not even collected by the UK authorities in 'two-thirds' of the cases to avoid 'appearing racist' read more A woman poses at her home in England, Britain, January 8, 2025. She was 14 when she was sexually abused by a grooming gang in Rochdale. Source: Reuters The UK authorities deliberately concealed the ethnicity of perpetrators in cases related to notorious grooming gangs to avoid 'raising community tensions' and 'appearing racist,' an audit report, published Monday (June 16), revealed. The rapid national audit of the grooming gangs was ordered by PM Keir Starmer in February this year. The report revealed that the ethnicity of the perpetrators was not even collected by the authorities in 'two-thirds' of the cases. It further revealed that a 2020 home office report, which claimed the majority of the perpetrators were white, was based on flawed data. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Baroness Casey, who headed the audit, said investigators found over-representation of men with 'Asian ethnicity' upon examination of data from three police forces that had registered the ethnicity. 'More often than not, the official reports do not discuss the perpetrators, let alone their ethnicity or any cultural drivers. There is a palpable discomfort in any discussion of ethnicity in most of them. Where ethnicity is mentioned, it is referred to in euphemisms such as 'the local community', or it is buried deep in the report,' she wrote in the report. She wrote that it was 'not racist' to examine the ethnicity of sexual offenders. The audit report urged the authorities to make it mandatory for police forces to record the ethnicity of the accused. 'White girls not the only victims' She revealed that white girls were not the only victims of these grooming gangs but also children belonging to Sikh and Hindu cultures. 'This audit received representations about the need to examine further cultural and religious drivers behind child sexual exploitation, including concerns that Sikh and Hindu children had been targeted for abuse because they were 'easy targets' and who would never tell anyone about being exploited because of the shame,' Casey wrote. She also suggested that the National Crime Agency should take charge of investigations, a national inquiry be launched, adults engaging in penetrative sex with children under 16 always face rape charges, and the government commission research into the drivers and cultural factors. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In January, Labour MPs had opposed a national inquiry into grooming gangs, with Starmer labelling those advocating for it as 'jumping on a bandwagon of the far-right.' The audit prompted UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to make a dramatic U-turn, announcing a national inquiry over the weekend before the report's release, agreeing to adopt all 12 recommendations. The report further revealed that in ongoing cases, a 'significant number' of men involved in grooming gangs are non-UK nationals and asylum seekers.

Zelenskyy returning to Ukraine from G7 summit: Reports
Zelenskyy returning to Ukraine from G7 summit: Reports

United News of India

time11 minutes ago

  • United News of India

Zelenskyy returning to Ukraine from G7 summit: Reports

Kyiv, June 18 (UNI) Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has cut his scheduled G7 program short and is returning to Ukraine, Ukrainian broadcaster Hromadske reported, citing an unnamed source. G7 has failed to adopt a joint "strong" statement on Ukraine during the summit in Canada over US reluctance, Reuters reported earlier. Hromadske reported late on Tuesday night that Zelenskyy was cutting his scheduled G7 program short and was returning to Ukraine from Canada. The exact reason behind the decision remains unknown. The UK government said in a statement on Tuesday that UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Zelenskyy met at the G7 summit and agreed to "drive forward the next stage of military support" and to convene the next "coalition of the willing" meeting in the coming weeks. Zelenskyy said in an address at the G7 summit, as broadcast on his Telegram channel, that Ukraine needed $40 billion annually in support from Western countries, something that should be agreed by G7 leaders, including the US. US President Donald Trump said on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada on Monday that there would not have been a conflict in Ukraine if Russia had not been expelled from the group. French President Emmanuel Macron said after hosting a summit of the "coalition of the willing" in Paris on March 27 that a number of countries wanted to send troops to Ukraine as "deterrent forces." He said that the UK-French initiative would be neither a replacement for Ukrainian troops nor a peacekeeping force. UNI SPUTNIK ARN

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store