James McDonough, a retired U.S. Army veteran of 27 years who served in Vietnam and provided humanitarian support in Rwanda, views the upcoming military parade in Washington as a testament to the enduring strength of the Army and the nation it protects. Scheduled for the Army’s 250th anniversary, the parade coincides with President Donald Trump’s birthday. McDonough, 78, from Crofton, Maryland, believes the soldiers marching symbolize the rich history of the Army, transcending any single day or individual. “They stand as a representation of an unwavering American Army, prepared to defend our country,” he stated.
However, not everyone sees the event in the same light. Christopher Purdy, an Army veteran who served in Iraq, perceives the parade, often linked to Trump, as a façade that hides some of the president’s contentious policies affecting military veterans. These include reductions at the Department of Veterans Affairs and restrictions on transgender service members. Purdy, 40, from Atlanta, considers the parade a needless display coinciding with Trump’s 79th birthday. “It’s embarrassing and expensive,” he remarked, questioning its necessity.
The parade, which became part of the Army’s birthday celebration under the Trump administration, has sparked debate among veterans. Encompassing hundreds of military vehicles, aircraft, and numerous soldiers, it has been compared by some to the military displays typical in authoritarian regimes like North Korea. Others argue it celebrates the Army’s longstanding achievements and acknowledges the contributions of millions of soldiers throughout history, insisting the event is about the Army itself, not the president.
The Army anticipates up to 200,000 attendees, with the parade’s costs estimated between $25 million and $45 million. Speaking at Fort Bragg, Trump highlighted the celebration as an occasion to “show off a little bit” and honor the Army’s 250-year legacy of valor and greatness. For Edmundo Eugenio Martinez Jr., an Army veteran from Katy, Texas, the parade misses the opportunity to rightly honor veterans due to its timing and political context. “Divisive politics have ruined it,” he noted, attributing blame to both political sides.
Joe Plenzler, a retired Marine who served in Iraq, suggests that the parade’s timing around Trump’s birthday arouses suspicion. Plenzler, 53, from Middletown, Virginia, expressed that funds could be better spent supporting returning soldiers facing significant hardships. Despite sharing a profound respect for the Army, he questions the motivation behind such an extravagant display.
Yet, for Joe Kmiech, an Army and National Guard veteran from Minnesota, the parade celebrates the Army’s integral role in American culture and its advancements in engineering and medicine. Though not a Trump supporter, Kmiech, 54, from Roberts, Wisconsin, believes the event focuses on the Army’s legacy, not personal politics.
Conversely, Paul Sullivan, a Gulf War veteran, sees the parade as linked to Trump’s ego rather than genuine concern for military personnel. Sullivan, 62, near Charlottesville, Virginia, argues that if Trump were truly committed to service members, financial resources would be directed toward their well-being rather than a grand showcase.
In contrast, McDonough defends the parade, drawing parallels with past celebrations like the post-World War II event in New York. He stresses the importance of balancing fiscal responsibility with honoring military history. Soldiers’ allegiance, he adds, is to the Constitution, not any one leader.
Purdy warns that the parade’s overt demonstration of military power isn’t characteristic of American tradition, especially absent a recent victory. He criticizes what he sees as a departure from longstanding alliances and foreign aid commitments, interpreting the parade as a troubling shift in national policy.
Lastly, Michael Nardotti, another Army veteran from Vietnam, argues for the recruitment potential such parades offer by showcasing military service. He emphasizes the value of public visibility for service members, especially as active-duty personnel comprise less than 1% of the U.S. population. Quoting a former Army chief of staff, he remarked, “People are the Army,” hoping that Trump’s speech will convey an appropriate message.