On Saturday, a military parade honoring the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary is scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C., featuring thousands of troops. The event also coincides with the President’s 79th birthday. The parade comes at a sensitive time, as the Trump Administration is currently in a dispute with California after deploying National Guard troops to Los Angeles without Governor Gavin Newsom’s consent. Additionally, there are concerns about the situation overseas, particularly after Israel’s military operation targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and personnel.
Throughout the country, protests are anticipated as organizations and individuals participate in various demonstrations. These protests, which have been planned for some time, have gained momentum due to Trump’s actions concerning the L.A. protests that have since spread nationwide. According to the “No Kings” website, the protests aim to “reject authoritarianism—and show the world what democracy really looks like,” emphasizing that “in America, we don’t do kings.”
Opposition to the parade is also emerging from within Trump’s veteran support base. Despite historical support for Trump and the Republican Party among former U.S. military personnel, some members of the community are expressing growing discontent.
On Friday, Capitol Police arrested several protestors for both the deployment of the National Guard in L.A. and Saturday’s military parade after they crossed a police line of bike racks.
Michael T. McPhearson, a veteran and director of Veterans for Peace and protest organizer, stated that President Trump threatened those exercising their First Amendment rights with harsh treatment. He emphasized that veterans are people who believe in the freedoms the country is supposed to represent and will not be intimidated into silence.
McPhearson’s sentiments are shared by others, including Chris Purdy, a U.S. Army National Guard veteran who served from 2004 to 2012 and was deployed to Iraq in 2011.
Purdy asserts that the values of military strength and respect showcased in the parade sharply contrast with Trump’s treatment of veterans and “our neighbors and our allies that have helped build the peace.”
Purdy highlights the reported $45 million cost of the parade, pointing out that the Veteran Affairs department announced the termination of a program that kept approximately 13,000 veterans in their homes last year. He added that 90,000 vets who are at financial risk through their [VA] loans would have benefited from this program. Purdy voices his concerns about attacks on the apolitical nature of the military and the veteran community and feels that the parade wraps it all up in a way that feels “gross.”
Purdy recalls a lesson from an Army sergeant about respect being built through coalitions and relationships. He highlights Trump’s first months as President, which included strained relationships with several U.S. allies, including Canada.
Purdy recalls his time in Iraq serving alongside British, Polish, and Lithuanian soldiers, emphasizing the importance of building coalitions to accomplish missions. He says that veterans believe America can lead the world without being oppressive, so this ostentatious display of American might feels unnecessary and like a bully flexing to prove he’s the biggest kid.
Purdy’s concerns are not unique. An April poll by Data for Progress and Common Defense revealed that about 70% of veterans surveyed opposed the Trump Administration “ordering active-duty U.S. military troops to perform a parade in honor of President Trump’s birthday.”
Janessa Goldbeck, a Marine Corps combat engineer officer and CEO of VetVote Foundation, agrees with Purdy’s assessment. She points to the VASP termination and Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which proposes cuts to Medicaid and the VA, that she says many military and veteran households rely on.
Goldbeck asserts that the endangerment and misuse of the National Guard and the active-duty military show a lack of regard for veterans and people in uniform from this Administration. She claims that the Administration is attempting to reshape the United States military as a tool of domestic power for the sitting President, and it is not in line with the principles enshrined in the Constitution that she swore to uphold and defend.
However, not all veterans agree that the parade is a “gross” display of strength.
Many veterans have traveled to Washington, D.C. to celebrate the active-duty military members who are choosing to serve their country.
During an interview with ABC News, veteran John Norton, who was on the bomb squad in the Army and served in Athens, Greece, and Vicenza, Italy, said that it is good for Americans to see what their tax dollars are paying for and what the troops protecting them are using. He was referring to the Army tanks and aircraft that will be displayed during the parade.
Veteran Ana Salazar is attending the parade to “thank” active-duty military members for their service. She stated that she is proud to be a fellow brother and sister-in-arms with her fellow veterans and active-duty service members. Salazar served in the military from 2003 to 2014 and was stationed in Belgium, Kansas, Missouri, and Hawaii, with tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Libby Jamison, a military spouse and former President of the Military Spouse J.D. Network, says veterans she knows may agree with different aspects of Trump’s policies, but those “across the political spectrum” in her community are “concerned about this level of spending on this type of pageantry.”
Jamison, who is currently working on issues among active-duty spouses, says that the parade’s messaging as a celebration clashes with the conditions many veterans and military personnel are experiencing.
Jamison argues that if one were to ask those families what they need at this moment, it wouldn’t be a parade, it would be “I need a job” or “I need child care.” She questions who the parade is really for because it does not feel like it is for service members or families.
“`