Trump's military parade and contempt for troops dishonor our service
In a recent interview, President Trump promoted the event, which also falls on his 79th birthday: 'We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it.'
Thing is — after 25 years in the Army, from West Point to Iraq — I (like everyone else who's worn a uniform) can affirm that our equipment isn't what makes us great. Our Army and all America's armed services are made of men and women, not metal and wire. The gear always changes; the Americans who serve and sacrifice are the constant.
It's not just the parade. Other recent events suggest the commander-in-chief could use a friendly nudge toward the right way to honor our military. On May 24, Trump gave a graduation speech at West Point with his red campaign hat on, veered into a five-minute story about avoiding 'trophy wives,' blew off the traditional handshake with cadets by saying, 'I'm going back now to deal with Russia, to deal with China' — and then flew straight to his golf club in New Jersey.
The next morning, Trump began with a Truth Social message: 'HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE SCUM THAT SPENT THE LAST FOUR YEARS TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY.' Which made his next 'weave,' during what's typically a somber speech at Arlington National Cemetery, seem almost tame: 'We have the World Cup and we have the Olympics.... Now look what I have. I have everything.'
Of course, neither is exactly the right tone to memorialize those who've fallen. (Who even says 'happy' Memorial Day?)
But gaffes like this raise a far more important question: How should we honor our military? How ought civilians properly thank those in uniform, past and present?
It can be awkward. I know from experience. I was a 24-year-old lieutenant when I got home from my first yearlong tour in Iraq. I was wearing my camo uniform when someone loudly said, 'Thanks for your service!' from about 15 feet away. I didn't know what to do, so I nodded in response. I was embarrassed at the acknowledgment. Better men whom I served with didn't come home.
I'm not the first to feel that feeling. Eighty years ago, nearly to the day, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered an address in London just after the end of the Second World War. He said, 'Humility must always be the portion of any man who receives acclaim earned in the blood of his followers and the sacrifices of his friends.' Anyone who's served in real close combat knows full well that when you're fortunate enough to get to come home, you can be proud, very proud of your service — but you never brag or boast.
So here's the right way to think about honoring our military: We appreciate a modest acknowledgment — no more, never less — of our unique role in defending our country and way of life.
'No more' because we are not special. Soldiers aren't movie superheroes — if we were, there would be nothing to honor because there'd be no risk. We come to service from among you. We're the guy you sat next to in chemistry, the girl you played with on the playground. We're not always victims, we're not always villains, we're not always valorous, and we're not always victorious. We're some blend of all these things. Even George Washington, arguably our greatest general, who won the war that mattered most and protected America when it was still in its crib — worried constantly about losing. He was scared because he was human, and so have been all those since who've worn an American uniform.
'Never less' because we are unique. We train to get over our fears to fight. We go where we're sent, not where we choose. We trade soldiers' lives for our nation's protection, for objectives, for time, for military value. Nobody ever said this better than John Ruskin. 'The soldier's trade, verily and essentially, is not slaying, but being slain,' the English historian wrote in the 1800s. 'Put him in a fortress breach, with all the pleasures of the world behind him, and only death and his duty in front of him, he will keep his face to the front; and he knows that this choice may be put to him at any moment.'
But just as we acknowledge this unique role, we in uniform must also equally appreciate those who make our service possible. For those in uniform aren't the only ones in America who sacrifice. Imagine the parents who send their only daughter or son into combat — would anyone dare say they do not also risk everything?
Or other forms of service. My mother was a special education teacher in a poorer part of town and struggled for years to give a chance to otherwise forgotten kids. My father was among the first to join the Transportation Security Administration after 9/11. So I've seen civilians serving, even when it was hard.
There are some who misguidedly claim military members have a monopoly on service. This myopia is best captured by a bumper sticker shaped in a soldier silhouette: 'Freedom Isn't Free — I Paid for It.'
This claim is as flimsy as the sticker it's printed on. It ignores those who also contribute to the fullness of freedom: journalists who free the truth, doctors who free us of disease, clergy who free our souls, teachers who free us of ignorance, lawyers who free the innocent, and so many more in society who silently serve every day. After all, each soldier is the direct result of this entire community. And while basic security may be necessary for the exercise of freedom, it's certainly not sufficient to ensure 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' That takes a bigger American team.
It's taken me two decades to figure out how to respond to 'Thanks for your service.' I now say, 'It's been the greatest privilege — thank you for making it possible.'
That doesn't cost $45 million or even 45 cents. All it should ever cost is a brief moment of direct eye contact, a few genuinely felt words — and never ever forget the handshake.
ML Cavanaugh is the author of the forthcoming book 'Best Scar Wins: How You Can Be More Than You Were Before.' @MLCavanaugh
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Duty-free shops facing 'full-blown crisis' with no relief in sight
John Slipp took over his father's duty-free store in 1994, which had been started more than a decade earlier. This month, he closed the Woodstock Duty Free Shop Inc. as lower traffic at the U.S.-Canada border dealt the final blow to a business already weakened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, at 59, Slipp says he will have to find another source of income and is advocating for more government support for stores like his. Fewer Canadians have been heading south in recent months in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war with Canada, his comments about annexing the country and because of fears among travellers about treatment at the border. In the duty-free industry, Slipp said less border traffic directly correlates to fewer sales. 'It was very difficult. The business had many good years. I certainly didn't want to be in the position of calling an end to a business career, giving up, calling it quits, both personally and in terms of my late father,' Slipp said. At the store's peak in the early 2000s, Slipp said there were about 15 people on staff. In March 2020, he said he laid off four people and reopened after the pandemic with two employees. Late in the summer of 2021, Slipp said duty-free stores were 'all starting from zero to rebuild again.' By the end of 2024, his business was still down about one-fifth from where it was in 2019. Then Trump returned to the White House. From January to April this year, things got worse for Slipp's store, and he ultimately decided to close based on declining sales and traffic numbers. 'Just realizing that even after the U.S. administration changes down the road, in our industry, we do not expect the border traffic to change overnight as a result of that. We believe it's going to take years,' he said. Recent figures from Statistics Canada noted that return trips from the U.S. dropped again in July as Canadians continue to shun travel to the U.S. The number of Canadian residents returning from the U.S. by automobile was down 36.9 per cent on an annual basis in July, marking the seventh consecutive month of year-over-year declines. Barbara Barrett, executive director of the Frontier Duty Free Association, said the stores her association represents have been feeling the decline in traffic for months. 'I would describe our industry as being in a full-blown crisis, and we've been saying that for a number of months now,' she said. Sales at duty-free stores have fallen between 40 and 50 per cent year-over-year across the country since late January, with some remote crossings reporting annual declines of up to 80 per cent, the association said. Barrett added that duty-free stores are often a microcosm of what is happening at the border. 'This should be our busy season during the summer, but it is not; it is pandemic-level traffic in the parking lots, and it has led to one store closing in the east. We are unfortunately afraid that we will likely see more closures as we draw to the end of the summer,' she said. Unlike airport stores, which are often owned by international companies, Barrett noted all of the land border stores are independently owned and are often family-run businesses. While Canadians shun U.S. trips, travel expert Claire Newell said many are opting for domestic and other international destinations. 'We live in a country where it's still very expensive to travel domestically. And while there are many people who are choosing to travel within Canada, we also see more people heading to popular destinations,' she said. She said she doesn't see Canadians changing their travel habits back to normal until there is a trade deal 'that feels fair.' As lower border traffic weighs on the industry, Barrett said she is advocating for 'small regulatory changes.' 'We have some taxes on our products that, believe it or not, in a tax- and duty-free industry that our U.S. competitors don't have. So we're asking for those to be changed so we can be more competitive,' she said. 'Also, we're asking to qualify for some of these tariff relief programs or pandemic-level supports along the lines of what they did during the pandemic with wage subsidy or rent subsidy.' Barrett said the government is the landlord for many duty-free stores and said a rent deferral or subsidy would help the industry until travel patterns normalize. She added that there have been conversations between her organization and senior government officials. Barrett said those officials agreed the association was putting forward 'small asks' to support the industry. An Aug. 2 release announcing the Woodstock Duty Free Shop's closure mentioned that the federal and provincial governments had promised tariff relief support programs to help businesses impacted by trade tensions. 'I pinned a lot of hopes on those when both levels of government made those announcements. I was reminded of the pandemic support programs,' Slipp said, adding that his business had benefited from such programs. His attention has now turned to advocating for rent deferral programs for duty-free shops renting land from either the federal government or from a bridge authority as well as loan programs for duty-free stores. When he looks at the future of the industry, he said the prospects "are not bright." 'I'm grieving the loss of my business, but I'm also accepting the reality that the business environment has changed and there is nothing in the bag of tricks that would suggest positive changes in this industry in the short to medium term," Slipp said. "I'm feeling bad that I was not able to succeed in the end and that I am having to lay to rest this business that my father and I have built and spent so many years working so hard on." This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 17, 2025. Daniel Johnson, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
I was homeless. Trump's plan to criminalize people like me won't make you safer.
Homelessness taught me that being unhoused is not a personal, moral failure. Homelessness is a market failure, a housing problem. When I moved from New York to Miami for my new job in information technology, my future seemed bright. Four months later, the firm downsized and I was let go, setting off a chain of events that left me homeless. I was homeless in Miami for two years, and I spent 10 months in a homeless shelter in New York City. Growing up in Freeport, Long Island, where my family and I overcame redlining and school segregation, I was an honor-roll student and earned an athletic scholarship to study business and restaurant and hotel management before I pivoted to IT. Homelessness taught me that being unhoused is not a personal, moral failure. Homelessness is a market failure, a housing problem. Rent prices have exceeded income gains by 325% nationally since 1985. Rates of homelessness are tied to rental affordability. Here in New York City, in 2023, rents skyrocketed, more than seven times faster than wages, the largest gap in the country. Stigma distorts these truths. The White House's recent moves toward the criminalization of homelessness and forced institutionalization ignore decades of research and real-world outcomes. They reject proven models like permanent supportive housing and will raise costs in lives and tax dollars for communities nationwide. Your Turn: Violent crime doesn't worry me. Trump is just mad he has to see homeless people. | Opinion Forum Criminalizing homelessness won't solve it. Not in DC, not anywhere. Permanent supportive housing emerged in the United States three decades ago with bipartisan support, then championed by the George W. Bush administration as a solution to chronic homelessness, rooted in a philosophy called Housing First. Housing First stabilizes people experiencing homelessness in permanent housing and provides them with case management support and social services based on the theory that housing stability is most people's prerequisite for success. Crucially, Housing First does not require mental health treatment, sobriety or a job. It is difficult to focus on recovery for people living with a disability when they do not know where they will sleep tonight, and I know firsthand how hard it is to search for a job without a mailing address. More than 300,000 people live in permanent supportive housing, all are chronically homeless and disabled. Many are veterans. A systematic review of 26 studies in the United States and Canada found that permanent supportive housing programs decreased homelessness by 88% while significantly lowering public costs associated with emergency services and hospital care. Finland saw equally impressive results following a Housing First approach. From 2008 to 2022, the number of individuals experiencing long-term homelessness in Finland decreased by 68%. Despite its success, Housing First has been chronically underfunded and inconsistently implemented across the country. Another view: Trump's order on homelessness is more humane than failed liberal policies | Opinion Housing First works. Trump has the power to use it for good. Why? In a word: stigma. Stigma drives the narrative that our unhoused neighbors are character-deficient threats to public safety, deserving of discipline and punishment rather than protection, housing and services. The truth is that as many as 66% to 82% of people experiencing homelessness are victims of crimes annually – a rate that should shock our national conscience. Worse, it is a rate that severely underrepresents the true scope of the problem because, according to The Bureau of Justice Statistics, "less than half (44%) of violent victimizations (of people experiencing homelessness) are reported to police." The problem is not that Housing First doesn't work. The problem is that stigma prevents proven solutions like Housing First from receiving the type of modest, sustained, national investment that will solve the problem. President Donald Trump is known as a remarkable pragmatist when it comes to accomplishing big deals. He should know that Housing First is development first, and that 'Trump ends homelessness in four years' has a nice ring to it, from sea to shining sea. Strong government, business and philanthropic leaders follow the data. By investing in a Housing First approach, Congress and the administration, and state and local leaders nationwide, can deliver safer streets, healthier communities and lower public health costs, while making homelessness history. Rob Robinson is a board member of Urban Pathways, a nonprofit organization serving adults experiencing homelessness in New York City.
Los Angeles Times
18 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's embrace of unchristian Christian nationalism
Pete Hegseth, widely considered the least qualified Defense secretary in American history, is hardly anyone's version of the ideal Christian husband and father. Only 45 years old, he's been married three times. His first marriage — to his high school sweetheart — lasted a mere four years, deteriorating after Hegseth admitted to multiple extramarital affairs. A couple of years later, he married his second wife, with whom he had three children. During that marriage, he fathered a child with a Fox News producer who eventually became his third wife. He paid off a woman who accused him of sexual assault (he denies the assault). He routinely passed out drunk at family gatherings and misbehaved in public when inebriated, according to numerous witnesses. His own mother once accused him of being 'an abuser of women,' though she later retracted her claims when Hegseth was facing Senate confirmation. Still, the Senate's Republican majority, cowed by President Trump, confirmed his appointment. Hegseth has two qualities that Trump prizes above all others. He is blindly loyal to the president, and he looks good on TV. After his installation, Hegseth proceeded to fire top military brass who happened to be Black or women or both. He has restored the names of Confederate generals to Army bases (Bragg and Benning). His petty 'anti-woke' crusade led him to strip the name of the assassinated gay rights leader Harvey Milk, a former Naval officer who served honorably, from a Navy ship. And he has considered doing the same to a ship named in honor of the abolitionist and Civil War hero Harriet Tubman. He has said that women do not belong in combat roles, and has kicked out transgender soldiers, cruelly stripping them of the pensions they earned for their service. In March, he shared classified information about an impending American airstrike in Yemen on an unsecured Signal group chat that included his wife, on purpose, and the editor of the Atlantic, by accident. He is, in short, the least serious man ever to lead this nation's armed forces. As if all that weren't dispiriting enough, Hegseth is now in bed (metaphorically) with a crusading Christian nationalist. Earlier this month, Hegseth made waves when he reposted on social media a CNN interview with Douglas Wilson, the pastor and theocrat who is working hard to turn the clock back on the rights of every American who is not white, Christian and male. In the interview, Wilson expounded on his patriarchal, misogynistic, authoritarian and homophobic views. Women, he said, should serve as 'chief executive of the home' and should not have the right to vote. (Their men can do that for them.) Gay marriage and gay sex should be outlawed once again. 'We know that sodomy is worse than slavery by how God responds to it,' he told CNN's Pamela Brown. (Slavery is 'unbiblical,' he avowed, though he did bizarrely defend it once, writing in 1990 a pamphlet that 'slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since.') When a new outpost of his church opened in Washington, D.C ., in July, Hegseth and his family were among the worshippers. CNN described Hegseth's presence as 'a major achievement' for Wilson. 'All of Christ for All of Life,' wrote Hegseth as he endorsed and reposted the interview. That is the motto of Wilson's expanding universe, which includes his Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, the center of his Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, a network of more than 100 churches on four continents, parochial schools, a college, a publishing house and media platforms. 'All of Christ for All of Life' is a shorthand for the belief that Christian doctrines should shape every part of life — including government, culture and education. Wilson is a prolific author of books with titles such as 'Her Hand in Marriage,' 'Federal Husband,' and 'Reforming Marriage.' His book 'Fidelity' teaches 'what it means to be a one-woman man.' Doubtful it has crossed Hegseth's desk. 'God hates divorce,' writes Wilson in one of his books. Given the way sexual pleasure is celebrated in the Old and New Testaments, Wilson has a peculiarly dim view of sex. I mean, how many weddings have been graced with recitations from the Song of Solomon, with its thinly disguised allusions to pleasurable sexual intimacy? ('Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine.') Wilson's world is considerably less sensual. 'A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants,' he writes in 'Fidelity.' 'A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.' Mutual sexual pleasure seems out of the question: 'The sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party.' Ugh. There is nothing particularly new here; Wilson's ideology is just another version of patriarchal figures using religion to fight back against the equality movements of the late 19th and 20th centuries. They are basically the hatemongers of the Westboro Baptist Church dressed up in respectable clothing. 'Some people may conflate Christian nationalism and Christianity because they both use the symbols and language of Christianity, such as a Bible, a cross and worship songs,' says the group Christians Against Christian Nationalism on its website. 'But Christian nationalism uses the veneer of Christianity to advance its own aims — to point to a political figure, party or ideology instead of Jesus.' What you have in people like Hegseth and Wilson are authoritarian men who hide behind their religion to execute the most unchristian of agendas. God may hate divorce, but from my reading of the Bible, God hates hypocrisy even more. Bluesky: @rabcarianThreads: @rabcarian
