
Most US adults say Trump's military parade is not a good use of money, a new poll finds
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Washington prepares for a military parade this weekend to honor the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, a new survey finds that U.S. adults are more likely to approve than disapprove of President Donald Trump's decision to hold the festivities, which officials have said will cost tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.
But about 6 in 10 Americans also say that Saturday's parade is 'not a good use' of government money, including the vast majority of people, 78%, who neither approve nor disapprove of the parade overall, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
The survey found that about 4 in 10 U.S. adults 'somewhat' or 'strongly' approve of the parade, while about 3 in 10 'somewhat' or 'strongly' disapprove. About 3 in 10 neither approve nor disapprove.
Carol Sue Quillen, 69, of Live Oak, Florida, said she sees the parade as a way to honor the country's service members, who she said include her late father — an Air Force test pilot killed on a helicopter training mission when she was a baby — and her son-in-law, who serves in the special forces.
'I don't necessarily think we appreciate our military as much as we should,' said Quillen, a retiree who described herself as a Trump supporter — although she said the Republican president's personality 'can be a bit overwhelming.'
'All branches should be celebrated for what they do,' Quillen said. 'That just boosts morale.'
Featuring hundreds of military vehicles and aircraft and thousands of soldiers, the celebration on Saturday, which also happens to be Trump's birthday, has grown extensively in scope and size since Army planners started working on a festival two years ago to mark the military branch's anniversary. Besides a military parade — which Trump had unsuccessfully pushed for during his first term — there will also be concerts, fireworks, NFL players, fitness competitions and displays all over the National Mall for daylong festivities.
The Army expects as many as 200,000 people could attend and says putting on the celebration will cost an estimated $25 million to $45 million.
Most Republicans, around two-thirds, approve of the event, and a similar share sees it as a good use of money, but about one-third say it's not a good use of government funds.
Democrats overwhelmingly say the parade is not a good use of public money, as do independents. And while about half of Democrats disapprove of the parade, about half of independents neither approve nor disapprove, suggesting that they may have heard less about it or have less strong feelings about it generally.
Matt Wheeler, 40, called the display 'extremely wasteful' and 'a bit of a performance' that 'just sends a bad message' in terms of the overt military display.
'The only other time I can think about this, it's been in old throwbacks to the USSR or things you see out of North Korea,' said Wheeler, who works in nonprofit fundraising in Los Angeles and described himself as a lifelong Democrat. 'It's a direction this administration is inclined to move in that isn't in line with what I thought our country really was.'
Sam Walters, 45, who works in restaurants in Fort Worth, Texas, described himself as a former conservative who now has more libertarian leanings. Walters, who voted for Trump in last year's election, said he appreciated that Trump had 'really kind of stuck to his guns' concerning many of the issues on which he campaigned, assessing his second term so far as 'a pretty good job.'
But when it comes to the military parade, Walters said he was concerned about why so much additional funding was needed for military-adjacent activities, given the country's overall defense spending price tag.
'When they're getting hundreds of billions a year for funding, more than for anything else, it seems kind of hard to justify them spending extra for that,' Walters said, referencing the parade.
Americans are generally divided on whether the government is devoting too much money to the military. About 3 in 10 say the government is spending 'too much' on the military, while a similar share says the government is spending 'too little.' About 4 in 10 say the government is spending 'about the right amount.' Those numbers are largely unchanged from an AP-NORC poll conducted in January.
About 4 in 10 Americans approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president, which is unchanged from an AP-NORC poll conducted last month. Approval of his handling of immigration, at 46%, continues to be higher than approval of his handling of the economy or trade negotiations with other countries, which both landed at 38%. (The poll was conducted from June 5-9.)
Andrew Thomsen, 31, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, said that he has voted for Trump in general elections and that he would 'generally approve' of the direction in which the country is headed.
Thomsen, who works in education, said that, while he appreciates any intent of the parade and associated events 'to celebrate those who have given of themselves to the service of our protection,' he wasn't a fan of attempts to show off U.S. military might.
'If it is a march of rows and rows of members from our different branches while showboating our tanks, missile systems, and other equipment to show how strong we are, then I don't support that,' he said.
___
The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
___

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


Axios
10 minutes ago
- Axios
Focus groups: North Carolina swing voters mostly OK with Trump's LA response
A majority of North Carolina swing voters in our latest Engagious / Sago focus groups supported President Trump's deportations and activation of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles, despite some concerns about civil rights and government overreach. The big picture: These Biden-to-Trump voters' desire to eject undocumented migrants from the U.S. — and their critical views of California and Democrats — shape how they see this massive test of executive power playing out far from their own hometowns. Seven of 12 panelists said they support the president's activation of the National Guard and Marines in L.A. despite Gov. Gavin Newsom's and local officials' objections. Three disapproved; two didn't have an opinion. Eight of the 12 said they believe Democrats prioritize illegal immigrants over American citizens. Why it matters: "Democrats who doubt their party remains out of touch with swing voters will be stunned by what these North Carolinians told us about immigration," said Rich Thau, President of Engagious, who moderated the focus groups. How it works: Axios observed two Engagious / Sago online focus groups Tuesday night with North Carolinians who said they voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Donald Trump in 2024. The panelists included nine independents and three Republicans. While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events. What they're saying: "The stance California has on illegal immigration only enables all these people, and they're not going to stop it," said Gregory D., 43, of Greensboro. "So we need to bring it up another level. It needs to stop. California doesn't want to stop it." "It's in the best interest of the nation that we call this, I don't know, uprising, call it what you want, but yeah, that needs to get nipped in the bud, just like George Floyd and all that sh*t should have," said Alex H., 44, of Charlotte. Butch F., 58, of Mebane, said he believes illegal immigrants got government assistance that reduced North Carolinians' access to disaster funds. Gerius J., 33, of Charlotte, said he's for diversity but wants to "do it the right way. Get the right paperwork, the right documentation." He said Democrats "have always wanted illegals to come here," and if anyone objects, "you're the bad guy. And as a U.S. citizen, I'm not the bad guy. I just want things to be done the right way." The other side: Karen L., 61, of Wilmington, said of Trump's immigration actions, "When he first started out, it seemed like he was really going after the criminals — like, the ones committing murder and rape — and he was getting all of them. And we don't want them here if they're [here] illegally, especially. But now ... it's way too extreme, and he's violating civil rights, and he's causing more chaos than anything." Rachid O., 46, of Raleigh, said the administration should prioritize arresting and deporting criminals, above all undocumented immigrants. Many undocumented immigrants pay taxes "so they contribute to the country," he said. Between the lines: Shifting the focus to combating illegal immigration may help him with some voters who have cooled on his performance in other areas. Several panelists voiced concerns about the economy, tariffs and political corruption and objected to Trump's moves to cut university research, or possible Medicaid cuts in the spending and tax-cut bill before Congress. "It's getting harder and harder to afford things," said Kimberly S., 37, of Sanford. "We are just kind of told, 'Hey, you just got to bear with us just a little bit more,' and it doesn't feel like it's getting any easier." Shauna S., 54, of Harrisburg, said when it comes to tariffs, "There's no plan, and it's been erratic. It appears to be an opportunity to manipulate the markets, and I really want someone to investigate where and who's actually gaining financially every time these tariffs are being threatened and then removed. I'm just curious what's really happening."


Axios
10 minutes ago
- Axios
Israel's strike on Iran was 8 months in the making
Israel's stunning and sprawling operation overnight targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, missile sites, scientists and generals followed eight months of intensive clandestine preparations. Why it matters: The operation launched a new war in the Middle East that could draw in the U.S., demolished any hopes of a nuclear deal, and dealt arguably the biggest single blow to the Iranian regime since the 1979 revolution. And it is only just beginning. Driving the news: Israel is attempting to "eliminate" Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities in an operation expected to last at least several days, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced. Other Israeli officials said it could take weeks. Israel attempted — just in the opening hours — to assassinate nuclear scientists it claims had the know-how to make a nuclear bomb. Around 25 scientists were targeted and at least two are confirmed dead so far. Israel also targeted the entire top brass of Iran's military. The commander of the Revolutionary Guard and military chief of staff were both confirmed dead, along with another senior general. The Israeli operation didn't just include air strikes. Israel's Mossad intelligence service has operatives on the ground conducting covert sabotage operations on missile and air defense sites, officials said. Israel is expected to keep pounding Iran's underground nuclear facilities in the coming days, along with other targets. Behind the scenes: The idea for an operation simultaneously targeting Iran's missile and nuclear programs — which Netanyahu has described as existential threats to Israel — took hold after Iran struck Israel in October, during a cycle of tit-for-tat escalation between the countries. Motivated both by Iran's fast-growing missile arsenal and its weakened air defenses following Israel's retaliation, Netanyahu ordered the military and intelligence services to begin planning. The Israeli military said another factor was intelligence about nuclear weaponization research and development that indicated Iran could build a bomb more quickly if it elected to do so. The planned opening in the coming weeks of a new underground enrichment facility that would be immune to even massive U.S. bunker busters added to the urgency. Friction point: Even as President Trump pursued a nuclear deal, Israel was preparing for this strike — gathering intelligence, positioning assets and eventually conducting drills. Those preparations alarmed some in the White House, who worried Netanyahu might move even without a green light from Trump. Netanyahu assured Trump he wouldn't. The White House, for its part, told Netanyahu that if Israel attacked Iran, it would do so alone. Trump himself said several times in recent days, including several hours before the strikes, that he opposed an Israeli strike that could "blow up" the negotiations. The intrigue: But in the hours after the attack began, Israeli officials briefed reporters that this was all coordinated with Washington. Two Israeli officials claimed to Axios that Trump and his aides were only pretending to oppose an Israeli attack in public — and didn't express opposition in private. "We had a clear U.S. green light," one claimed. The goal, they say, was to convince Iran that no attack was imminent and make sure Iranians on Israel's target list wouldn't move to new locations. Netanyahu's aides even briefed Israeli reporters that Trump had tried to put the brakes on an Israeli strike in a call on Monday, when in reality the call dealt with coordination ahead of the attack, Israeli officials now say. State of play: The U.S. side has not confirmed any of that. In the hours before and after the strike, the Trump administration distanced itself from the Israeli operation in public statements and private messages to allies. Secretary of State Marco Rubio swiftly stated that Israel's attack was "unilateral" with no U.S. involvement. Hours later, Trump confirmed he knew the attack was coming but stressed the U.S. had no military involvement. The degree of U.S. intelligence, logistical and defensive support for Israel's operation remains to be seen. What to watch: Israel is now bracing for Iran to unleash hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones toward Israel, and perhaps also U.S. bases in the region.


Axios
10 minutes ago
- Axios
Padilla episode triggers five-alarm fire for Democrats
Democrats spooked by President Trump's state-sanctioned shows of force have shifted into five-alarm fire mode, warning he's pushing American democracy to the brink. Why it matters: They're pointing to what happened yesterday to Alex Padilla, California's senior senator, as a crossing-the-Rubicon moment. Driving the news: The jarring scene of Padilla, a Democrat, being forcefully removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's press conference after interrupting it — and then being dragged to the ground and handcuffed — felt like kerosene on the nation's political fire. To Trump's most loyal allies, Padilla's actions were merely an exercise in political theater. Back in D.C., House Speaker Mike Johnson was among the Republicans blaming Padilla, saying that "at a minimum," the senator should be censured. To Democrats, the episode crystallized fears about Trump's willingness to crush dissent, and shatter democratic norms and institutions. "This is the stuff of dictatorships. It is actually happening," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). A few Republicans were just as alarmed. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who's repeatedly proved her independent streak, told reporters the incident was "shocking at every level. It's not the America I know." Padilla wasn't arrested, but the fallout from the incident promises to endure as Congress continues to wrestle with Trump's giant tax and spending bill. Zoom in: To fully understand the alarm that's gripping Democrats over the Padilla incident, consider two factors: 1. It took place in a mostly Democratic city where Trump's immigration agents are using military-style tactics to conduct raids and make arrests in mostly Hispanic communities and workplaces. Padilla is one of the nation's highest-ranking Hispanic public officials, and is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration panel. 2. Trump's over-the-top-enforcement seems to be about more than immigration. When Padilla interrupted Noem during her press conference to try to ask a question, the DHS secretary had just said that her agents were in Los Angeles "to liberate this city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor and this mayor have placed on this country."