Trump flexes military might at parade as protests sweep US
US President Donald Trump administers the Oath of Enlistment to soldiers who are enlisting or reenlisting during the Army 250th Anniversary Parade in Washington, DC on June 14, 2025. – AFP photo
WASHINGTON (June 15): President Donald Trump hosted the largest US military parade in decades on his 79th birthday as protesters rallied across the country to accuse him of acting like a dictator.
Trump hailed the United States as the 'hottest country in the world' after watching tanks, aircraft and troops file past him in Washington on Saturday to honor the 250th anniversary of the US army.
It formed a stark split screen with turmoil at home and abroad, as police used teargas to disperse protesters in Los Angeles and US ally Israel traded missile fire with Iran in a rapidly escalating conflict in the Middle East.
Trump's parade on an overcast night in Washington came after hundreds of thousands of 'No Kings' demonstrators thronged the streets in cities including New York, Philadelphia, Houston and Atlanta.
The Republican largely avoided his usual domestic political diatribes in an unusually brief speech and instead focused on praising the US army, saying that they 'fight, fight, fight, and they win, win, win.'
The display of military might comes as Trump asserts his power domestically and on the international stage.
Trump used his parade address to send a warning to Washington's adversaries of 'total and complete' defeat, with the United States increasingly at risk of entanglement in Israel's conflict with Iran.
'Time and again, America's enemies have learned that if you threaten the American people, our soldiers are coming for you,' Trump said.
– 'Happy Birthday' –
Trump had openly dreamed since his first term as president of having a grand military parade of the type more often seen in Moscow or Pyongyang.
The last such parade in the United States was at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.
Trump stood and saluted on a stage outside the White House as tanks rumbled past, aircraft roared overhead and nearly 7,000 troops marched by.
Troops and military hardware from different eras passed by, with an announcer reeling off US victories in battles with Japanese, German, Chinese and Vietnamese forces in past wars.
The army said the parade cost up to $45 million.
The crowd sang 'Happy Birthday' and there were occasional chants of 'USA! USA!' but the atmosphere was less intense than one of the barnstorming rallies that swept Trump to power.
The White House said that 'over 250,000 patriots showed up' for the event, without providing evidence. Communications Director Steven Cheung described the 'No Kings' protests as a 'complete and utter failure.'
'No Kings' organizers said protesters gathered in hundreds of places, with AFP journalists seeing large crowds in several cities.
Organizers said they were protesting against Trump's dictatorial overreach, particularly what they described as the strongman symbolism of the parade.
'I think people are mad as hell,' Lindsay Ross, a 28-year-old musician, told AFP in New York, where tens of thousands of people rallied.
Some protesters targeted Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, while a small group even gathered in Paris.
– 'Display of authoritarianism' –
'I think it's disgusting,' protester Sarah Hargrave, 42, said in the Washington suburb of Bethesda, describing Trump's parade as a 'display of authoritarianism.'
Thousands turned out in Los Angeles to protest against Trump's deployment of troops in the country's second-largest city following clashes sparked by immigration raids.
'He's trying to bully Los Angeles into complying with everything that he's trying to do, and we're not going to do that. We're a city of immigrants,' a protester who gave his name as Armando told AFP.
After a day of largely peaceful protests, police unexpectedly began moving people away from the LA protest area, igniting confusion and anger among demonstrators caught off guard and unsure of where to go.
Police on horseback pushed crowds back as law enforcement fired tear gas and flash-bang grenades hours ahead of an 8:00 pm (0300 GMT) curfew.
Police officials said a 'small group of agitators' had begun throwing rocks, bottles and fireworks at officers, prompting the decision to deploy tear gas and order the crowd to disperse.
Violence shattered the calm elsewhere, with a shooting at a 'No Kings' demonstration in the western US city of Salt Lake City.
At least one person was critically injured and three people were taken into custody, police said.
The killing of a Democratic lawmaker and her husband in the northern state of Minnesota on Saturday, in what the governor called a targeted attack, also cast a pall over the parade.
Trump was quick to condemn the attacks outside Minneapolis in which former state speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed, while another state lawmaker and his wife were hospitalized with gunshot wounds. – AFP donald trump military parade Protests united states
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
US trade war enters precarious 'Slow Grind' phase
US trade negotiations have transitioned from their opening act, with its many twists and turns, into a new, protracted chapter: the Slow Grind. It may be less turbulent than this past spring's drama, but no less worrying for investors. Now that the US and China have the framework for a trade agreement, attention may start to turn to the European Union, which appears next in line to strike a deal with the Trump administration. But the prospect of a swift resolution seems remote. Finding significant common ground to meaningfully reduce the EU's substantial goods surplus with the US, roughly US$200 billion annually, presents a formidable challenge, as major avenues appear blocked. The EU is highly unlikely to concede on agricultural market access given the region's strong and comprehensive policy for protecting local agriculture. Large-scale aircraft deals also seem improbable given the Airbus-Boeing rivalry. The contentious issue of pharmaceutical pricing will complicate any healthcare deals. While Europe could theoretically increase purchases of US defence equipment or relax "Buy European" policies in defence procurement, the political palatability of such moves is low. Consequently, the focus may inevitably shift towards the services sector, where the EU runs an approximately US$100 billion annual deficit with the US, driven largely by the operations of American technology giants. Here, a potential landing zone exists: the EU could conceivably ease some of its more burdensome technology regulations with limited immediate downside, offering a tangible, albeit partial, lever to address the overall trade imbalance. In fact, Section 899 in the Trump administration's proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" — which threatens to increase taxes on entities from countries with "unfair foreign taxes" — appears to be aimed directly at digital taxes levied by EU countries on US technology companies. This suggests that this area could be a focal point in US-EU negotiations. US negotiations with the EU are also occurring against a markedly different backdrop than the one that prevailed in May during the earlier round of trade talks with China. Back then, the US was just emerging from a significant bout of financial market volatility and facing the risk of "empty shelves" if onerous tariffs on China remained in place, so both investors and business leaders were demanding urgent action. Importantly, EU exports to the US are predominantly industrial and luxury goods, not the daily consumables that directly impact the average American's pocketbook. Adding to this calmer backdrop, capital markets have shown signs of adapting to the current administration's seemingly unpredictable trade tactics. The S&P 500 index has rebounded 20 per cent since its post-Liberation Day low and is only around 2.0 per cent below its all-time high. One major risk, however, is that the US starts taking a harder line with Europe for fear of looking weak. Central to the US negotiation strategy is the perceived credibility of threats. Given the Trump administration's emphasis on the president's deal-making prowess, the US fundamentally cannot afford to be seen as backing down consistently, a scenario some critics have labelled "Trump Always Chickens Out" (TACO). Being perceived as unreliable with ultimatums would critically undermine the administration's negotiating power, not just with the EU, but globally. This need to maintain a credible hard line could add friction to the process, making concessions harder to make and progress slower to achieve. On the currency front, the euro may continue to appreciate against the US dollar — ending a more than decade-long trend of greenback strength — if wary European investors bring more capital back home. This could give the European Central Bank greater leeway to implement interest rate cuts, with less immediate concern about imported inflation. However, such euro strength has historically been negatively correlated with the performance of risk assets more broadly, adding another layer of complexity to the investment landscape. Further complicating the picture is the risk that the tentative deal just reached with China could unravel, reflecting the ongoing tug-of-war within the US administration between China hawks and pragmatists. The frenetic pace of the trade war's opening chapter has given way to a more arduous phase. This "Slow Grind" promises to generate more uncertainty, testing the patience of markets and policymakers alike, with progress likely measured in inches rather than miles.
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
The US is dooming the UN
SAY you are president of the United States and you've been clear that you put America First and that you disdain 'globalists' and all their organs of international multilateralism, chief among them the United Nations. How do you go about discrediting those institutions? One option is to withdraw the US formally. For example, Donald Trump began his second term by announcing that he'll pull the country out of parts of the UN system, including its Human Rights Council, the World Health Organisation and the Paris Agreement on climate change. That just about hobbles these conventions, since fighting, say, pandemics or global warming without American participation seems futile. But the attack doesn't need to be so blunt. You could also nominally remain a member of an institution while ignoring, undermining or sabotaging it. The US still belongs to the World Trade Organisation, for example, even though Trump has inverted its foundational idea by launching a trade war on the world. America also remains, for now, the backbone of Nato, although Trump has undermined its credibility by casting doubt on the US commitment to Article 5, the alliance's mutual-defence clause and thus its reason for being. Something similar is happening at the UN. In 2015 all its members, including the US, adopted an updated mission statement in the form of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These were meant to be answers to humanity's biggest problems, from ending hunger and poverty to improving health and education and reducing inequality. Even though progress on most of these efforts is running behind schedule, it's hard to fault the intention. And yet the US now does. In March, it formally rejected the SDGs. It was a bizarre spectacle. The task fell to a mid-level diplomat named Edward Heartney, and the occasion was a vote in the General Assembly to adopt an 'International Day of Peaceful Coexistence'. An anodyne ritual, you might think, but you'd be wrong. Heartney got up and delivered a philippic against the 'soft global governance that is inconsistent with US sovereignty'. Such 'globalist endeavours... lost at the ballot box', Heartney went on – referring to the US election in 2024 – which is why America 'rejects and denounces' the SDGs. The audience, more used to hearing such outbursts from rogue states, was stunned. Mark Leon Goldberg, a veteran UN watcher, told me that even Heartney, a career foreign service officer, looked as though he had a gun to his head and was recording a hostage video. And yet, the speech set the tone for what was to come. The US now regularly gums up every proceeding it can. In June, it cast the only no vote (compared with 169 in favour) against a Mongolian resolution to introduce a World Horse Day. Why? To protest against those SDGs, of course, and everything that 'impinges upon state sovereignty as a soft form of global governance'. America's opposition to the SDGs is more than symbolic. This past week, almost all member states are gathering in France for the UN Ocean Conference to make progress on SDG No 14, on saving the world's oceans and seas (which are in at least as much trouble as our atmosphere). The Trump administration is boycotting that meeting. Instead, Trump recently ordered a push to mine international seabeds for minerals, one of the things the conference is most urgently trying to regulate. He and the Republican Congress are also planning to defund the UN system and other international organisations. Since the US has been the largest contributor to UN coffers since the organisation's founding in 1945 (its share of the regular budget was 22 % in 2024), the cutbacks will force the UN to shrink or close programmes (even if it becomes more efficient, as it should). Reform of the UN's Security Council – an aspiration of the Biden administration – is also off the table. The US, like Russia and China, instead exacerbates its dysfunction: In June, 14 of the council's 15 members voted for a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza; the US vetoed it. Goldberg hopes that the nomination of Michael Waltz as the US ambassador to the UN might provide some relief: Waltz was Trump's national security adviser until May and with his high profile might be 'able to explain the value the UN gives to American security interests'. I doubt it. Waltz's move to the UN was meant as a demotion. If anything, it confirms that Trump views the institution as a dead end. Cumulatively, this trend away from multilateralism, which Trump didn't start but is turbo-boosting, is already changing the world, and for the worse. 'There hasn't been a binding international agreement on any matter – any transnational issue of importance' for years, laments Shivshankar Menon, a former national security adviser of India; 'we're a world adrift'. The historical echoes are ominous. The UN's forerunner was the League of Nations. Conceived by leaders such as then US President Woodrow Wilson at the end of World War I, it was meant to prevent a second. But Wilson's own country then failed to ratify the treaty after Republicans in the Senate turned isolationist. Without American support, the League was powerless to stop the aggression of fascist Italy, Japan and Germany, and gradually became irrelevant as the world went up in flames. Even so, it was formally dissolved only in 1946, when the new UN – finally backed by the US – took its place. Say you're that American president again and, like Trump, you want to be remembered as a 'peacemaker'. Wouldn't you start by broadening your understanding of the UN's reason for existing, and of the bleak scenarios if the UN went the way of the League? If Waltz wants to redeem his career and legacy – a long shot – he should muster the courage to educate the White House that the United Nations isn't America's enemy, but potentially its best friend, if not its last best hope. — Bloomberg Opinion/TNS Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security and geopolitics.
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Trump: US involvement in Iran-Israel war 'possible'
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump told a news network Sunday the United States could become involved in the Iran-Israel conflict, and that he would be "open" to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin being a mediator. The Republican president, according to ABC News, also said talks over Iran's nuclear programme were continuing and that Tehran would "like to make a deal," perhaps more quickly now that the Islamic republic is trading massive strikes with Israel. "It's possible we could get involved" in the ongoing battle between the Middle East arch-foes, Trump said in an off-camera interview with ABC News senior political correspondent Rachel Scott that was not previously publicised. He stressed that the United States is "not at this moment" involved in the military action. As for Putin being a potential mediator in the conflict, "he is ready. He called me about it. We had a long talk about it," Trump said. Israel and Iran traded heavy aerial assaults for a third straight day Sunday, with casualties mounting following Israel's large-scale attacks aimed at crippling Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure, sparking retaliation. Oman, which has acted as a mediator on the nuclear issue, has said a sixth round of talks between Iran and the United States planned for this weekend had been cancelled. But Trump said the two sides were continuing discussions. "No, there's no deadline" on negotiations, he told ABC when asked whether there was a time limit for Tehran to come to the table. "But they are talking. They'd like to make a deal. They're talking. They continue to talk," Trump said, according to Scott. Trump suggested that something like the clash between Israel and Iran "had" to happen to spur talks on a nuclear agreement. It "may have forced a deal to go quicker, actually," Trump said.--AFP
