Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
On Saturday, President Donald Trump will preside over a $45 million military parade in Washington, D.C., marking the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army — and his own 79th birthday — in an event that has stirred sharp political divisions and widespread public disapproval.
Billed as the most extravagant U.S. military parade since 1991’s Gulf War victory celebration, the event will feature 6,000 troops, armored vehicles, and a flyover of dozens of military aircraft along Constitution Avenue. Trump, who is known for embracing ceremonial grandeur, will oversee the display from a specially built reviewing stand.
But the pageantry arrives at a contentious moment. American forces are currently deployed to support Israel’s defense against Iranian missiles and to quell immigration-related protests in California — raising alarms about the use of military might for political optics and domestic enforcement.
“It’s a celebration of our country. It’s a celebration of the Army, actually,” Trump insisted this week.
Still, critics argue the parade is more about Trump’s personal aggrandizement than military honor — particularly as the parade coincides with his birthday, and amid policy decisions that deploy troops domestically without state consent.
Political Backlash and Constitutional Concerns
Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) condemned Trump’s deployment of National Guard and Marine units to Southern California without a governor’s request and his threats to use “very big force” against peaceful protesters opposing the parade.
“Threatening to use our own troops — on our own citizens — at such scale is unprecedented, it is unconstitutional, and it is downright un-American,” Murray said during a hearing with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Retired Navy Rear Admiral Ken Carodine also criticized the parade as unnecessary and politically motivated:
“It’s a stupid order. But it’s a legal order,” Carodine said. “Most of the guys… it’s the last thing they want to be doing.”
Historical Comparisons and Authoritarian Imagery
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), typically an ally of Trump, voiced discomfort with the imagery:
“The images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea, we were proud not to be that,” Paul said. “I wouldn’t have done it.”
Historians note that while military parades have long held a place in U.S. history, they traditionally celebrate personnel after major wartime victories — not as self-congratulatory exercises tied to presidential birthdays.
“It’s usually about the personnel,” said Barbara Perry, a historian at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. “This is different.”
Public Disapproval and Planned Protests
According to an NBC News poll released Saturday, 64% of Americans disapprove of the parade. Activist groups plan nationwide protests under the banner “No kings”, echoing fears of creeping authoritarianism and the misuse of military symbolism in civilian political life.
Federal officials considered rescheduling the 6:30 p.m. parade to dodge forecasts of thunderstorms, but ultimately chose to proceed as planned, despite both meteorological and political storms.
No War, No Victory — But a Parade
Critics also point to the irony of holding such a massive military parade during a period when the U.S. is not celebrating a recent military victory. While the country has seen successful military operations in the decades since Operation Desert Storm, the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq left many Americans with fatigue and frustration rather than feelings of triumph.
“Nobody had a parade for the kids coming back from Afghanistan,” said Carodine. “That would have made a lot more sense than what we’re doing tomorrow.”
Conclusion
While Trump’s parade is positioned as a tribute to the U.S. Army and American strength, the event has rekindled debateover presidential overreach, misuse of military resources, and the symbolism of military power in a democracy. For many, the parade underscores the growing divide between Trump’s supporters — who see a display of strength — and his critics, who see the militarization of personal politics at a steep financial and constitutional cost.
