Veterans’ perspectives on Trump’s proposed military parade

There are diverse opinions among U.S. military veterans regarding a proposed military parade to celebrate the Army’s 250th anniversary, which coincides with President Donald Trump’s birthday. Sources who spoke to the Associated Press reveal a deep division, with veterans holding firm, often opposing, views on the parade’s purpose, cost, and implications.

Ideas and facts

1. The Parade’s Purpose: Celebration of the Army vs. Presidential Ego:

• Supporters emphasize the parade as a tribute to the Army’s legacy and resilience. James McDonough, a 27-year Army veteran, states, “The soldiers marching that day represent all of that history…It’s the American Army still standing straight, walking tall, ready to defend our country.” Joe Kmiech highlights the Army’s integral role in “American culture and our fabric,” noting its contributions to engineering and medicine. He stresses that “the distinction needs to be made that the parade is a celebration of our Army, not of a person.” Michael Nardotti sees value in the public seeing soldiers’ faces, especially given that active-duty troops are less than 1% of the population, quoting a former Army chief of staff: “‘People are the Army.’”
• Critics view the parade primarily as a self-serving event for President Trump. Christopher Purdy, an Iraq veteran, calls it “a facade that paints over some of the Republican president’s policies that have targeted military veterans and current service members.” He finds it “embarrassing” and “entirely unnecessary.” Joe Plenzler, a retired Marine, suspects the timing is deliberate, stating, “It’s just suspicious…if the Army’s birthday were a day later, we probably wouldn’t be doing it.” Paul Sullivan, a Gulf War Army veteran, directly attributes the parade to “stroking Trump’s ego,” arguing that 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?’”

2. Cost and Resource Allocation:

• Significant concern exists over the estimated cost of the parade. The Army expects the event to cost between “$25 million to $45 million,” with some estimates reaching “$50 million.”
• Many veterans argue that these funds could be better utilized to support service members and veterans. Joe Plenzler states, “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.” Paul Sullivan echoes this sentiment, suggesting the money could be used to “make your lives better” for service members.
• Conversely, some argue the cost is justified and not mutually exclusive with veteran care. James McDonough dismisses the cost as a “false dichotomy,” comparing it to suggesting that reducing the number of aircraft carriers would solve poverty. He believes the U.S. can both address debt and veteran needs while also celebrating its military.

3. Implications and Optics:

• Concerns about authoritarianism and a shift in American values are raised. Christopher Purdy likens the parade to “military chest-pounding commonly seen in North Korea,” suggesting it’s “a step toward authoritarianism.” He believes that “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,” and sees it as signaling “a real dark turn.”
• The timing and political context are seen as having “ruined” the event for some. Edmundo Eugenio Martinez Jr. lamented that “Sadly, the timing and the optics and divisive politics have ruined it.”
• Supporters emphasize the historical precedent and the importance of national pride. James McDonough cites a post-World War II celebration in New York as a historical example of a grand national celebration, even during times of economic debt. He believes the president “understands the importance of doing this, not only for the Army, but for the nation.” He also emphasizes that soldiers’ oaths are to the Constitution, not to any single president.
• The potential for recruitment is also mentioned. Michael Nardotti notes that “military hardware has long been in American parades, which can help recruitment.”

4. Divided Loyalty and Identity:

• The debate underscores a tension between loyalty to the military institution and the current political leadership. While some, like McDonough, emphasize the Army’s independence from any single president, others, like Purdy and Sullivan, view the parade as inextricably linked to Trump.
• Despite differing views on the parade, there’s a shared respect for the military. Joe Plenzler, a Marine, states, “I absolutely love the Army from the bottom of my cold black Marine heart,” even while opposing the parade.

In conclusion, the proposed military parade has deeply divided the veteran community. While some view it as a vital and overdue celebration of the U.S. Army’s enduring legacy and contributions, others see it as an extravagant, politically motivated display that misallocates resources and sends troubling signals about American values. The discussion highlights the complex relationship between military service, national identity, and political leadership.

Information gathered for this article from the Associated Press.