Donald Trump, the sitting President of the United States, has reportedly expressed deep dissatisfaction with the military parade intended to celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary, an event that coincidentally took place on his birthday. While the parade was advertised as a grand military spectacle, showcasing the power and pride of the U.S. Army, it quickly became a point of contention between Trump and his Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth.
According to Trump biographer Michael Wolff, Trump was particularly upset with how the soldiers behaved during the parade, as well as the overall tone of the event.
Trump, known for his fascination with military parades and displays of power, was reportedly expecting the soldiers to appear imposing, disciplined, and menacing. Instead, Wolff claims that the troops appeared to be enjoying themselves, waving to the crowd and showing a more relaxed, friendly demeanor.
This, according to Trump, was not the message he had hoped to send to the public. Trump allegedly accused the soldiers of "hamming it up," which seems to mean that they were behaving too casually and not taking the parade as seriously as he had envisioned. He was reportedly irked by what he perceived as a lack of military seriousness and professionalism.
In a phone conversation with Pete Hegseth, the President reportedly "reamed" out the Defense Secretary, criticizing the parade’s tone and asking who was responsible for the staging. According to Wolff, Trump expressed frustration over the soldiers’ relaxed demeanor, telling Hegseth, "The tone was all wrong. Why was the tone wrong? Who staged this? There was the tone problem."
Wolff’s account sheds light on Trump’s obsessive attention to the image he wanted to project: a strong, menacing military that reflected his leadership as commander-in-chief. The parade, however, did not deliver that message.
The military parade, projected to cost up to $45 million, became a significant part of Trump's personal agenda. However, it was not initially part of the original pitch to commemorate the Army's anniversary. As outlined in a February press release, the event was meant to honor the Army's long history, but the extravagant price tag and political overtones led many to question the true purpose behind it.
Adding to the spectacle’s missteps was the parade’s lackluster turnout—barely filling the stands—and the overshadowing presence of the "No Kings Day" protest, a nationwide event that stood in direct opposition to Trump’s policies. Some reports suggested that as many as five million people participated in the protest, further diminishing the parade’s impact.
According to Wolff, Trump was deeply upset that the parade failed to project the image he had desired, particularly in terms of military dominance and authority. "It didn’t send the message that he apparently wanted, which is that he was the commander in chief of this menacing enterprise," Wolff remarked.
Instead of a grand show of military strength, the parade became a spectacle that many interpreted as more about Trump’s ego than about honoring the Army or its history.
The White House did not take kindly to Wolff’s portrayal of the parade. In a public response, White House communications director Steven Cheung dismissed Wolff’s claims, labeling him a "lying sack of shit." Cheung further accused Wolff of fabricating stories, calling his narrative the product of a mind plagued by "Trump Derangement Syndrome."
This combative response from the White House highlighted the increasing tension between the President’s administration and critics, especially in the wake of controversial events like the parade.
Another element of the parade that drew attention was the soldiers’ marching pattern. The synchronization of the troops during the parade went viral due to their missteps and asynchronous movements, which were noticed by many and widely shared across social media.
For a nation that prides itself on military discipline, the lack of precision during such a public event was seen as another embarrassment for the Trump administration. Trump, who often emphasizes the importance of military excellence, was reportedly disturbed by the perceived lack of coordination.
Charlotte Clymer, a U.S. Army veteran and former member of the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, known as “The Old Guard,” spoke out about the marching issues. Clymer dismissed the idea that the soldiers’ missteps were due to a lack of practice or unfamiliarity with marching. "Every soldier learns how to march during basic training, and it’s not hard.
It’s remarkably easy," Clymer told Buzzfeed, explaining that the soldiers would have had a dress rehearsal ahead of the parade. Instead, Clymer offered a more plausible explanation: the soldiers simply weren’t motivated to perform at their best.
“I don’t think this was a protest against Trump, or anything adjacent to anti-fascism or concern with how the government is operating,” Clymer said. “I think this is just because they were treated very poorly and they didn’t care. I think the soldiers who were misstepping during the parade—there were a lot of them—were just tired, annoyed, probably to some extent angry, and they just did not give enough of a shit to march to a high standard of excellence.”
Clymer’s comments shed light on the possible frustrations of the soldiers who participated in the parade. From poor lodging and inadequate food to early wake-up calls and long hours, the soldiers were likely exhausted and demotivated. Furthermore, the perception that the parade was a show designed to flatter Trump’s ego rather than a sincere tribute to the military may have left many soldiers feeling disengaged from the event.
Clymer emphasized that even soldiers who likely supported Trump politically were aware that the parade was primarily designed to serve the President’s image, rather than honoring the Army as a whole.
“Everyone is aware that this parade was done in service of Donald Trump—even the soldiers who likely voted for him know it was done in service to his ego,” Clymer concluded. She noted that, under those circumstances, it’s unlikely that many soldiers would feel motivated to participate in such a spectacle, especially when they believed it was merely a vehicle for Trump’s personal pride.
The aftermath of the parade has sparked a broader conversation about the role of military displays in American politics. Critics argue that Trump’s obsession with military pageantry reveals a troubling trend in which the military is used to boost the President’s image rather than serve the national interest.
The soldiers’ behavior, the parade’s lack of precision, and the protests that overshadowed the event all point to a deeper issue with how Trump has sought to portray himself as both a military leader and a populist figurehead.
The military’s involvement in political displays raises important ethical questions about the balance between respect for the armed forces and the political exploitation of their image. For Trump, the parade was intended to be a show of strength, a reaffirmation of his authority as commander-in-chief. However, the reality was far from his vision.
Instead of an imposing military spectacle, the parade became a symbol of Trump’s vanity and the growing disconnect between his vision of leadership and the realities faced by those who serve in the military.
As the fallout from the parade continues, it serves as a reminder of the broader challenges facing the Trump administration: a growing public disillusionment with political spectacles, the increasing polarization of American society, and the uneasy relationship between the President and the military. Whether Trump’s handling of the parade will have long-term consequences for his presidency remains to be seen, but it is clear that this misstep has added another layer of controversy to an already contentious tenure.
