GOP Senators Freak Out When Asked About Trump's Military Parade Costing $45 Million
WASHINGTON – They snapped. They stared off into space. They zipped into Senate elevators and smiled as the doors closed with them safely inside.
This is how nearly a dozen Senate Republicans reacted Wednesday when asked the simplest question: Do you plan to attend President Donald Trump's military parade in D.C. on Saturday, and are you comfortable with its estimated $45 million price tag?
HuffPost is committed to fearlessly covering the Trump administration. and become a member today.
'I won't be here in town, but I wish I was,' lamented Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.).
Asked about the tens of millions of dollars the event is going to cost taxpayers, Fischer walked into a nearby Senate elevator and gazed into nothingness as the doors closed.
At least the Nebraska senator spoke. Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) clocked in at eight seconds of silence in response to HuffPost asking the same question. With a big grin, Budd slipped into another elevator and stood there, waiting for the doors to close.
'Nope,' Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) said, fidgeting on his phone, when asked if he planned to attend. He let out a big sigh when asked about the parade's price tag, and started talking about unrelated legislation.
'I'm focused on the trillions right now, which is the reconciliation bill,' Young said. 'So I think my constituents would assess that my priorities are appropriate.'
Asked if that means he is comfortable with how much Trump's military event will cost taxpayers, he snapped: 'I answered the question.'
When HuffPost pointed out he didn't actually answer the question, Young interrupted, 'I answered the question I wanted to answer!'
Alrighty then, sir!
Saturday's parade is being billed as a celebration of the Army's 250th anniversary, but it's also timed with Trump's 79th birthday. The event will feature thousands of soldiers, 150 military vehicles and more than 50 aircraft being rolled around the streets of D.C.
Millions of people nationwide will be protesting Trump at the same time as his parade, in response to his harsh crackdown on immigration enforcement and his decision to deploy the U.S. military to Los Angeles to respond to unrest there. The 'No Kings Day' protests are happening in all 50 states and in more than 1,500 cities, though not in D.C.
An obvious reason Senate Republicans don't want to talk about the cost of this parade is that they've been on a tear about slashing so-called government waste since Trump took office, and a massive military parade for the president isn't exactly essential.
'I might be,' Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said of attending the parade. As for its costs? 'Uh, I have not looked into the price.'
But GOP senators also don't want to say anything that will anger the president, even if deep down, they're not happy about spending tens of millions of dollars on something that the second-highest-ranking U.S. general told Trump in his first term is 'what dictators do.' So they seem to be opting for going silent or fleeing the scene.
'I am committed in Boise,' Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) said of his plans for Saturday. 'I appreciate the Army and the fact that they're 250 years old.'
As for the cost of the military parade, he just walked away, saying, 'That's all you're going to get.'
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) dismissed any conversation at all about it, saying she doesn't 'do hallway interviews.' (Most conversations with the press happen in Senate hallways.)
'No comment,' said Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). 'No comment.'
To be sure, a few Republicans said they were fine with the costs to put on the event.
'Listen, the Army has done a lot for us,' said Sen. Markwayne Mullen (R-Okla.). 'The idea that we get to celebrate their 250th birthday, I think they deserve to have a good celebration.'
He won't be there, though. 'It is my 28th wedding anniversary,' he said. 'I choose marriage.'
Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.) said he's very supportive of 'a celebration of our president's birthday,' and the costs of the parade don't bother him because he wants it to look impressive to people in other countries.
'I mean, if you go out there with, you know, two jeeps and an M-16, you know, how does the world perceive that?' Justice said. 'Come on now, this is America, you know?… If we're going to do it, let's put on a big show.'
Out of 14 GOP senators, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was the only one HuffPost talked to who criticized holding the parade. It's not just because of its hefty costs, he said, but also because he doesn't think 'the symbolism of tanks and missiles' represents what the United States is all about.
'If you ask me about a military parade, all the images that come to mind, the first images, are of the Soviet Union and North Korea,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
19 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
The gift Trump never meant to give: the spotlight to Democratic adversary Gavin Newsom
SACRAMENTO — President Trump craves attention and will stoop to any depth to grab it — even pour gasoline on a kindling fire in Los Angeles. But this time he unwittingly provided priceless attention for an adversary. Because Trump needlessly deployed National Guard troops and — more ridiculous, a Marine battalion to L.A. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was granted a prime-time speaking slot on national cable television to respond. 'We honor their service. We honor their bravery,' Newsom said of the troops. 'But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere … . 'California may be first — but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we've feared has arrived.' I'm not sure the 'democracy is under assault' message has much traction, but keeping armed combat forces off our streets must be a salable pitch. Regardless, governors almost never get national TV time to deliver entire speeches, even as brief as Newsom's. You've practically got to be nominated for president. But the publicity-thirsty sitting president provided the cameras for California's governor. Newsom's strong address probably boosted his stock within the Democrat Party and revived dormant speculation about a 2028 presidential bid. No longer was the Democratic governor playing respectful nice guy and tempering criticism of the Republican president. Now he was standing up to the bully who loves to use California, Newsom and our progressive politics as a punching bag. Trump's red-state supporters love every swipe at this 'left coast' state. Newsom rose to the occasion, using his greatest asset: invaluable communication skills coupled with telegenic looks. He laid out his version of what happened to turn relatively peaceful protests against federal immigration raids into destructive street violence. And it's the correct version by objective accounts. On Saturday, Newsom said, federal immigration agents 'jumped out of an unmarked van' near a Home Depot parking lot and 'began grabbing people. A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb … . In response, everyday Angelenos' exercised their constitutional right to protest. Police were dispatched to keep the peace and mostly were successful, the governor continued. But then tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades were used — by federal agents, Newsom implied. Then Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops 'illegally and for no reason,' the governor asserted. 'This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation … . Anxiety for families and friends ramped up. Protests started again … . Several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive.' Newsom warned: 'That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.' And hundreds have been arrested. But he emphasized: 'This situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown. But that's not what Donald Trump wanted … . He chose theatrics over public safety.' In Trump's twisted view, if he hadn't sent in the National Guard, 'Los Angeles would be completely obliterated.' Never mind that the violence was confined to a few downtown blocks, a fraction of a city that spreads over 500 square miles. 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free and clean again,' the president promised. Veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right, telling CNN: 'He's lighting the fire as an arsonist, then claiming to be the fireman.' It reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson's manufactured Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 that Congress passed, enabling him to vastly escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Johnson reported a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. destroyers that many experts later concluded never happened. But I think Trump mainly is obsessed with attracting attention. He knows he'll get it by being provocative. Never mind the accuracy of his words or the wisdom of his actions. Sending in the Marines certainly was an eye-opener. So is staging a military parade on his birthday — an abuse of troops for attention, personal glorification and exercise of his own power. He'll say anything provocative without thinking it through: Tariffs one day, suspended the next. He'll boast of sending San Joaquin Valley water to L.A. for fighting fires when it's physically impossible to deliver it. While Trump was playing politics with immigrants and L.A. turmoil, a poll finding was released that should have pleased him. Californians no longer support providing public healthcare for immigrants living here illegally, the independent Public Policy Institute of California reported. Adult state residents were opposed by 58% to 41% in a survey taken before the L.A. trouble erupted. By contrast, a PPIC poll in 2021 found that Californians favored providing state healthcare for undocumented immigrants by 66% to 31%. Polling director Mark Baldassare concluded the public opposition stems mostly from the view that California taxpayers can't afford the costly program — not that they agree with Trump's anti-immigrant demagoguery. In fact, Newson has proposed paring back the state's multibillion-dollar program of providing Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants because the state budget has been spewing red ink. Given all the rhetoric about the L.A. protests, the statement that particularly impressed me came from freshman Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), whose downtown district stretches from Koreatown to Chinatown. 'Rocks thrown at officers, CHP cars and Waymo vehicles set on fire, arson on the 101 freeway — have nothing to do with immigration, justice or the values of our communities,' he said in a statement Sunday. 'These are not protesters — they were agitators. Their actions are reckless, dangerous and playing into exactly what Trump wants.' Gonzalez is a liberal former chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party who stuck to his point: Hoodlums can't be tolerated. And, thanks to Trump, Newsom was able to make a similar point about the president on national TV: His dangerous, self-serving actions can't be tolerated either.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mat-Su mayor files to run as a Republican for Alaska governor
Jun. 12—Edna DeVries, mayor of the Mat-Su Borough, announced on Thursday that she is running as a Republican to be Alaska's next governor. DeVries, 83, has been mayor of the Mat-Su since 2021. She moved to Palmer in 1969 and was mayor of the city for over five years. She served two years as a state senator in the 1980s. In a Thursday interview, DeVries said there are many issues facing Alaska and that she wants to focus on "listening to people, transparency in government and limited government." DeVries, a conservative, said that she feels "very strongly" about election integrity and touted a 2022 ban on voting machines in the Mat-Su borough. She said that she supports following a statutory Permanent Fund dividend, and said Alaska needs to "rein in spending" to address its fiscal challenges. "We need to live within our means. And I don't see the state doing that right now," she said. DeVries said that she is a supporter of school choice. She was critical of a substantial education funding boost approved by the Legislature this year. She said that "we need to have some accountability." DeVries on Thursday filed a letter of intent with the Division of Elections to run as governor next year. That is the first step in launching a campaign, allowing the candidate to raise and spend money. DeVries said filing that letter is "sort of a testing of the waters." "Let's see what the response is out there, and get out and talk to the people to see if they see the same needs in our state as I do," she added. Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, is in the penultimate year of his second term. The Alaska Constitution forbids governors from holding office for a third consecutive term. Three other Republicans have filed letters of intent to run for governor in the November 2026 election: Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, former Fairbanks Sen. Click Bishop, and business owner Bernadette Wilson.
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
Federal judge questions constitutionality of Trump sending National Guard to LA riots: ‘President is, of course, limited'
WASHINGTON — A federal judge expressed skepticism Thursday about the constitutionality of President Trump's order to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell anti-ICE riots. Senior San Francisco US District Judge Charles Breyer heard arguments from attorneys for Trump's Justice Department and California Gov. Gavin Newsom after the Democrat had sued the feds over dispatching roughly 4,000 Guard members to protect officers carrying out immigration enforcement operations. 'We're talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is, of course, limited,' Breyer, the younger brother of liberal former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said at one point in the hearing. Advertisement 3 AP 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.' Brett Shumate, the head of the DOJ's Civil Division, disputed Breyer's characterization of the president's order throughout the hour-long hearing, arguing that the commander-in-chief had 'delegated' the federalizing of the Guard through California's adjutant general, as legally required. Advertisement Shumate also claimed that Newsom was merely a 'conduit' for that order as it passed through the chain of command from Trump to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the state Guard. 'There's no consultation requirement, pre-approval requirement,' he argued. 'There's one commander-in-chief of the armed forces.' The California attorney general's office countered that allowing Trump's action to stand implied there would be 'no guardrails' for further abuse by the executive branch. 3 Clashes have erupted in LA over the last several days sparked by ICE raids. Barbara Davidson/NYPost Advertisement 3 A demonstrator points his finger towards members of the California National Guard during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles. REUTERS 'The president, by fiat, can federalize the National Guard and deploy it,' an attorney for Newsom said, 'whenever there is disobedience to an order.' While Breyer took issue with the deployment of the National Guard, he appeared more inclined to let stand Trump's order sending around 700 US Marines to the Golden State to assist with the federal immigration crackdown. 'I don't understand how I'm supposed to do anything with the Marines, to tell you the truth,' the judge responded, quibbling with Newsom's legal team over whether their involvement violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Advertisement Breyer did not immediately issue a ruling, but said he hoped to put one out 'very soon.' This is a developing story. Please check back for more information.
