logo
Veterans are divided over the Army's big parade, being held on Trump's birthday

Veterans are divided over the Army's big parade, being held on Trump's birthday

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — James McDonough served in the U.S. Army for 27 years, fighting in Vietnam and delivering humanitarian aid to Rwanda. For him, Saturday's military parade in Washington for the Army's 250th anniversary — coinciding with President Donald Trump's birthday — is about the resilience of a vital institution and the nation it serves.
'The soldiers marching that day represent all of that history,' said McDonough, 78, of Crofton, Maryland. 'They don't represent a single day. They don't represent a single person. It's the American Army still standing straight, walking tall, ready to defend our country.'
Christopher Purdy, an Army veteran who served in Iraq, called the parade a facade that paints over some of the Republican president's policies that have targeted military veterans and current service members, including cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs and a ban on transgender troops.
Purdy said the parade, long sought by Trump, will needlessly display U.S. military might on the president's 79th birthday.
'It's embarrassing,' said Purdy, 40, of Atlanta. 'It's expensive. And whatever his reasons are for doing it, I think it's entirely unnecessary.'
Until recently, the Army's long-planned birthday celebration did not include a big parade. Added under the Trump administration, the event, featuring hundreds of military vehicles and aircraft and thousands of soldiers, has divided veterans.
Some liken it to the military chest-pounding commonly seen in North Korea, a step toward authoritarianism or a perverse birthday party for Trump.
Others see it as a once-in-a-lifetime accounting of the Army's achievements and the military service of millions of soldiers over centuries. The parade is not about Trump, they say, but the public seeing the faces of soldiers when so few Americans serve.
The Army expects up to 200,000 people could attend and says the parade will cost an estimated $25 million to $45 million.
Trump, speaking at Fort Bragg this week, said Saturday would be 'a big day' and noted 'we want to show off a little bit.'
'We're going to celebrate our greatness and our achievements,' he said. 'This week, we honor 250 years of valor and glory and triumph by the greatest fighting force ever to walk the face of the Earth: the United States Army.'
'Divisive politics have ruined it'
For Edmundo Eugenio Martinez Jr., an Army veteran who fought in Iraq, the parade is a missed opportunity to honor generations of veterans, many of whom paid a steep price and came home to little fanfare.
'Sadly, the timing and the optics and divisive politics have ruined it,' said Martinez, 48, of Katy, Texas. 'And I'm not picking one side or the other. Both sides are guilty.'
'It's just suspicious'
Joe Plenzler, a retired Marine who fought in Iraq, said Trump wants to see troops saluting him on his birthday as tanks roll past.
'It's just suspicious,' the 53-year-old from Middletown, Virginia, said of the timing.
'I absolutely love the Army from the bottom of my cold black Marine heart,' he said. 'But if the Army's birthday was a day later, we probably wouldn't be doing it. I'd rather see that $50 million take care of the men and women who went off to war and came back with missing arms, legs and eyeballs, and with damaged brains.'
'Part of American culture'
Joe Kmiech, who served in the Army and Minnesota National Guard from 1989 to 1998, supports the parade because the Army is 'part of American culture and our fabric.'
He notes the Army's pioneering contributions to engineering and medicine, from dams to new surgical techniques. Like many veterans, he has a strong familial connection: His father served in the Army, and so did his maternal grandfather, who fought in World War II.
'I didn't vote for President Trump, but the commander in chief is going to be part of that celebration,' said Kmiech, 54, of Roberts, Wisconsin. 'The distinction needs to be made that the parade is a celebration of our Army, not of a person.'
'Stroking Trump's ego'
For Gulf War Army veteran Paul Sullivan, Trump and the parade are inextricably linked.
'This Trump tank travesty is all about stroking Trump's ego,' said Sullivan, 62, who lives outside Charlottesville, Virginia. 'If Trump truly cared about our service members, he would sit down with them quietly and say, 'What can we do with $50 million or $100 million to make your lives better?' He's not.'
'We are a great nation'
McDonough, the veteran from Crofton, Maryland, disagrees that the parade is about Trump or too costly. He said the U.S. held a grand celebration in New York after World War II when the nation was deeply in debt.
'We certainly need to bring our debt down, and we certainly need to take care of our veterans,' he said. 'But it's a false dichotomy. It's like saying if we bought two less aircraft carriers, we could do so much better to take care of our poor.'
And McDonough said soldiers' oath is to the Constitution, not to Trump.
The president 'understands the importance of doing this, not only for the Army, but for the nation,' McDonough said.
'A real dark turn'
Purdy, the veteran from Atlanta, said the parade's brazen flex of military strength is not an American tradition, particularly absent a recent victory.
'I'm not saying we shouldn't celebrate the country,' he said. 'But for us to be projecting this type of hard power, in such a real in-your-face way, that's just not who we are.'
Trump is brushing aside old alliances and foreign aid that have helped maintain peace for decades, Purdy asserted.
'It signals a real dark turn if we're just going to roll out the tanks,' Purdy said.
'People are the Army'
Michael Nardotti, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, said military hardware has long been in American parades, which can help recruitment.
More important, he said, is the tremendous value in the public seeing soldiers' faces in a parade when active-duty troops make up less than 1% of the population.
''People are the Army,'' said Nardotti, 78, of Aldie, Virginia, quoting a former Army chief of staff.
Nardotti said he'll listen carefully to Trump's speech.
'I hope it sends the right message,' he said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Are there 'snooping provisions' in Carney's massive border bill?

time38 minutes ago

Are there 'snooping provisions' in Carney's massive border bill?

Conservatives and New Democrats don't agree on much, but it appears both have issues with provisions tucked into Bill C-2 (new window) , the Carney government's Strong Borders Act. The 140-page bill would modify many existing laws, from the Criminal Code to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act and the Oceans Act. Much of it is about the border and the movement of people and goods, licit and illicit, across that border, as its full name suggests: An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures. But some MPs are having difficulty seeing how everything in the bill is at all related to the border. WATCH | Privacy concerns over Liberal border bill: Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Strong Borders Act raises concern about police access to personal data 2 days agoDuration2:28Civil liberties groups are concerned that the federal government's proposed Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, will give law enforcement agencies sweeping new powers, like making it easier for police to search your internet activity and data without your knowledge or a warrant. I think the title of the act is for show for the Trump administration, said New Democrat MP Jenny Kwan. A lot of the components in the bill target Canada's own processes that have nothing to do with the U.S. Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner said C-2 includes snooping provisions that are a massive poison pill. A long fight over 'lawful access' Perhaps the most controversial parts of the bill relate to police powers and lawful access, the ability for police to demand subscriber information from internet providers and other online companies. Police have been seeking such powers for two decades in Canada, and there have been several attempts to pass legislation. The last determined effort to expand police powers over the internet was made by Stephen Harper's government in 2014, when it was packaged as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. It fell apart after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews challenged critics to either stand with us or stand with the child pornographers. The Carney government also turned to the spectre of child pornography to make the case for their bill. And indeed, those who work in child protection have long advocated for a version of lawful access that would compel internet providers to co-operate with law enforcement. Wait times for warrants There are pieces of information that are only in the possession of [internet] companies, said Monique St. Germain, a lawyer with the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. She said it can take months to obtain authorizations to link a computer's IP address to a suspect, and sometimes that means important evidence is lost. WATCH | Critics worry about alignment with U.S.: Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Critics say new border legislation aligns Canada's immigration system with the U.S. 8 days agoDuration2:43The Liberal government proposed new border legislation this week. But critics say they worry the law will do more harm than good. The CBC's Pratyush Dayal reports. And Thomas Carrique of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says communications and encryption technology used by criminals have raced ahead of existing legislation. We are certainly not advocating to have unfettered access, he said. [C-2] lays out in law what the police would have access to based on reasonable suspicion. And in a modern technical society, this is bare-minimum information. Reasonable expectations of privacy But the Supreme Court of Canada ruled its landmark 2014 decision R v. Spencer (new window) that the information police hope to gain through the border bill is within the bounds of a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. I frankly thought that the prospect of government going back to legislation without a warrant, without court oversight, was simply gone, said Michael Geist, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He says it now feels like there's an effort to sneak old provisions from failed legislation into this bill — about which there's very little to do with lawful access. He expects Canadians will feel that they've been duped as they learn that a bill designed to deal with the border and border safety has elements that have nothing to do with the border. Content off limits The data at issue would not include the actual content of messages exchanged over the internet. In order to listen to conversations or read emails, police would still need a warrant. Rather it is biographical information about the sender that is at issue, and there is a debate about how significant the privacy interest in that is. I think what's being asked is relatively limited, but I acknowledge that's not a universally shared view, said Richard Fadden, former director of Canada's intelligence agency, CSIS. If you go back 20 or 30 years you had telephone books which allowed the police to do more or less the same. But Geist said police could obtain a lot more through C-2 than they ever could through an old phone book. He said law enforcement could ask an internet company what kind of things a customer has been doing online, when they were doing them and where. Geist says providers would also have to disclose what communications services the subscriber users, such as a Gmail account. WATCH | Public safety minister says C-2 is in line with Charter: Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Public safety minister says border bill is in line with Charter 9 days agoDuration0:54Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said Bill C-2, known as the Strong Borders Act, strikes the right balance between expanding the powers of border agents and police officers, while also protecting the individual rights of Canadians. Shakir Rahim, a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said such information provides a trove of background about our lives and that his group has serious concerns that this bill is not compliant with the Charter. Rahim says the requirement to get a warrant offers some level of protection that such access is being sought in a targeted way. But this legislation changes that. It takes away that protection, he said. That problem is compounded, says Geist, by the very low bar set to allow police to demand such information — any violation of any act of Parliament — giving the example of camping without a permit. Opposition parties concerned about snooping Rempel Garner raised those concerns in the House of Commons. Whether or not I use an online service, where I use an online service, if I depart from an online service, if I start an online service, how long I use an online service, everything that C-2 says it would do — that is my personal information, she said. That is none of the government's business, certainly not without a warrant. There has to be a line drawn here. WATCH | Conservatives express privacy concerns: Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Conservatives express privacy concerns over border bill Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner said Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, contains 'snooping provisions.' Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree responded that the bill 'does not violate the civil liberties or rights of individual Canadians.' Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, who has a background in asylum and human rights law, said he would never advance a bill that threatens civil liberties. It needed to be in line with the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he said the day the bill was tabled. I fundamentally believe that we can strike a balance that, while expanding powers in certain instances, does have the safeguards and the protections in place like protecting individual freedoms or rights. The NDP's Kwan isn't convinced. I know the minister says this and believes it, she said. But in reality, if you look at the bill, the minister is creating a situation where your personal info is being disclosed without your consent. A need for 'careful review' Even some who broadly support the lawful access provisions in C-2 wish they had been presented in a separate bill. Fadden says CSIS is too busy to waste time on fishing expeditions, and he would expect the agency to set its own protocols that agents would have to comply with before contacting internet providers. He doesn't dismiss the risk of abuse and overreach, but argues that those risks also exist under the present system of warrants. Still, he wishes the changes hadn't been buried in an omnibus bill ostensibly about the border. I understand the desire to do it that way, but I don't think it allows for people to understand what's being proposed, Fadden said. I'm not sure when parliamentary committees look at the bill in the aggregate, particularly given its focus on borders, that this will get the attention that it deserves … people from the civil liberties side are raising concerns that merit discussion. Evan Dyer (new window) · CBC News ·

Trump to sign a measure blocking California's ban on new sales of gas-powered cars
Trump to sign a measure blocking California's ban on new sales of gas-powered cars

Winnipeg Free Press

time43 minutes ago

  • Winnipeg Free Press

Trump to sign a measure blocking California's ban on new sales of gas-powered cars

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump will sign a resolution on Thursday that blocks California's first-in-the-nation rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. The resolution was approved by Congress last month and aims to quash the country's most aggressive attempt to phase out gas-powered cars. He also will approve measures to overturn state policies curbing tailpipe emissions in certain vehicles and smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks. Trump called California's regulations 'crazy' at a White House ceremony where he was expected to sign the resolutions. 'It's been a disaster for this country,' he said. It comes as the Republican president is mired in a clash with California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, over Trump's move to deploy troops to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests. It's the latest in an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and heavily Democratic California over issues including tariffs, the rights of LGBTQ+ youth and funding for electric vehicle chargers. California is expected to challenge Trump's latest move targeting its vehicle standards rules in court. 'If it's a day ending in Y, it's another day of Trump's war on California,' Newsom spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor said in an email. 'We're fighting back.' The three resolutions Trump will sign will block California's rule phasing out gas-powered cars and end the sale of new ones by 2035. They will also kill rules that phase out the sale of medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles and cut tailpipe emissions from trucks. Newsom, who is considered a likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, and California officials contend that what the federal government is doing is illegal and said the state plans to sue. The signings come as Trump has pledged to revive American auto manufacturing and boost oil and gas drilling. The move follows other moves the Trump administration has made to roll back rules that aim to protect air and water and reduce emissions that cause climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Dan Becker with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the signing of the resolutions was 'Trump's latest betrayal of democracy.' 'Signing this bill is a flagrant abuse of the law to reward Big Oil and Big Auto corporations at the expense of everyday people's health and their wallets,' Becker said in a statement. California, which has some of the nation's worst air pollution, has been able to seek waivers for decades from the EPA, allowing it to adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government. In his first term, Trump revoked California's ability to enforce its standards, but Democratic President Joe Biden reinstated it in 2022. Trump has not yet sought to revoke it again. Republicans have long criticized those waivers and earlier this year opted to use the Congressional Review Act, a law aimed at improving congressional oversight of actions by federal agencies, to try to block the rules. That's despite a finding from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, that California's standards cannot legally be blocked using the Congressional Review Act. The Senate parliamentarian agreed with that finding. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. California, which makes up roughly 11% of the U.S. car market, has significant power to sway trends in the auto industry. About a dozen states signed on to adopt California's rule phasing out the sale of new gas-powered cars. The National Automobile Dealers Association supported the federal government's move to block California's ban on gas-powered cars, saying Congress should decide on such a national issue, not the state. The American Trucking Associations said the rules were not feasible and celebrated Congress' move to block them. ___ Austin reported from Sacramento, Calif.

Texas governor says over 5,000 Texas National Guard members deployed ahead of No Kings protests
Texas governor says over 5,000 Texas National Guard members deployed ahead of No Kings protests

Winnipeg Free Press

time43 minutes ago

  • Winnipeg Free Press

Texas governor says over 5,000 Texas National Guard members deployed ahead of No Kings protests

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Thursday he has ordered the deployment of more than 5,000 Texas National Guard troops across the state, along with more than 2,000 state police, to help local law enforcement manage protests against President Donald Trump and ongoing federal immigration raids. Abbott had not previously detailed how many guard troops he has mobilized and his statement does not detail where the guard troops were sent. Some troops were seen at a protest Wednesday night in downtown San Antonio near the Alamo. More protests are planned in cities such as Houston and Austin as part of the national 'No Kings' demonstrations scheduled for Saturday. 'Peaceful protests are part of the fabric of our nation, but Texas will not tolerate the lawlessness we have seen in Los Angeles in response to President Donald Trump's enforcement of immigration law,' said Governor Abbott. 'Anyone engaging in acts of violence or damaging property will be arrested and held accountable to the full extent of the law. Don't mess with Texas — and don't mess with Texas law enforcement.'

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