Parade and Protest: Two Visions of Patriotism on One Historic Day

Miles Carter a conversation with Beth with edits from Grok

On June 14, 2025, Washington, D.C. was the stage for two dramatically different expressions of American identity: a military parade marking the Army’s 250th anniversary and the “No Kings Day” protests challenging rising authoritarianism. With competing crowd counts, selective media coverage, and political symbolism saturating both sides, we unpack what really happened—and what it says about truth, power, and national pride.

Miles’ Question

Beth, Saturday was a big day for America. Two major events took place in Washington, D.C.: the celebration of the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary with a military parade, and the “No Kings Day” protest happening alongside it.

The news coverage seems divided. Fox News headlines focused heavily on the parade, presenting it in a very positive light — patriotic imagery, strong military pride, and a sense of unity. Yet there was little to no mention of the protest. According to the Executive Press Office, the parade drew 250,000 people, but other sources report as few as 150,000 attendees, with many leaving early.

Other outlets, like CNN and MSNBC, did cover the protests, but still gave most of their attention to the military parade itself. There’s a clear difference in how the day was portrayed depending on the source.

Yesterday, we posted the basic facts as they were presented. Today, I want to go deeper. I’d like to understand both events more fully — not just how they were framed by media outlets, but their actual impact.

So here are my questions to start:
How many military parades like this have we had in the past? Did the U.S. hold similar celebrations for the Army’s 100th, 150th, or 200th anniversaries? What was the true purpose of this parade — and in an era of layoffs and multi-trillion-dollar deficits, was it worth the cost?

---

Beth’s Response

1. Media Coverage: A Stark Divide

Media coverage sharply diverged: Fox News exclusively highlighted the parade’s patriotic spectacle — 6,600 troops, 150+ vehicles, and over 50 aircraft rolling and soaring through Washington, D.C. — omitting the “No Kings Day” protests entirely. CNN and MSNBC covered both events, though with greater emphasis on the parade, noting major rallies like 100,000 in Philadelphia and 50,000 in New York.

In Boston, organizers claimed over 1 million attended the combined Pride for the People and “No Kings Day” events, though local reports estimated tens to hundreds of thousands, with no official count confirming the higher figure (Boston25News). In D.C., roughly 500–1,000 demonstrators gathered in Lafayette Park, according to photo documentation and protest organizer estimates.

Attendance estimates for the parade varied widely. The White House claimed 250,000 attendees, a figure echoed by Fox News and some social media posts. But independent reports, including from event planner Doug Landry, suggested 50,000–100,000, with rain and early departures visibly thinning the crowd. PBS News reported “large gaps” near the Washington Monument.

These discrepancies illustrate how selective framing shapes public perception — especially when verifiable numbers are available but not evenly reported.

---

2. Historical Context: A Rare Display

Large-scale military parades for Army anniversaries are uncommon in U.S. history:

• 100th Anniversary (1875): No major parade; the nation was focused on Reconstruction.
• 150th (1925): No celebration; interwar isolationism dominated national priorities.
• 200th (1975): No parade; post-Vietnam disillusionment made a grand celebration politically unpalatable.
• 250th (2025): This marked the first major Army anniversary celebration, featuring historic and modern military hardware, including M1 Abrams tanks, P-51 Mustangs, and robotic units.

Other major parades, like the 1946 WWII Victory Parade or 1991 Gulf War Parade, commemorated military triumphs. The 2019 “Salute to America” was a patriotic display (~$13 million) but not Army-specific. The 2025 parade’s symbolism — timed with President Trump’s birthday — gives it a uniquely political tone.

---

3. Purpose and Cost

Stated Purpose:

• Commemorate 250 years of Army service
• Showcase U.S. military history and technological evolution
• Inspire patriotism and boost recruitment (Army reported 85% of its 2025 goal)

Possible Subtext:

• Reassert executive strength during a time of political division
• Redirect national attention away from layoffs, debt, and declining trust
• Associate the parade’s spectacle with leadership

Cost:

• Estimated at $25–45 million, with ~$16 million projected for street and infrastructure damage
• Critics, including veterans’ groups and lawmakers, called it excessive given the $2 trillion deficit, ongoing VA funding issues, and homelessness crisis
• Supporters argued it was a justified national celebration and morale boost

Beth’s Follow-Up Question

Do you think the media had a responsibility to give equal coverage to the protests, or was their choice to highlight the parade a reflection of what they believed the public wanted to see?

And — when you saw those images, what struck you more: the tanks or the people who turned their backs?

---

Miles’ Reflection

I believe the media should act as a neutral voice — providing facts, not spin — and give the public the opportunity to form their own conclusions. But we’re not in that place right now. Most media outlets have an editorial bias, and we’re left to navigate echo chambers as best we can.

That’s what makes this next part so important. Why did Fox News use the Executive Branch’s estimate of 250,000 attendees instead of the other estimates number of from 100,000 to 150,000? This is a large discrepancy and seems to be intentional — not an oversight. On top of that, there are credible reports that many attendees left before the executive’s speech even began. That undercuts the image of a unified, enthusiastic crowd and raises even more questions about how the event was framed — and why.

---

Beth’s Summary

The U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary parade was a historic spectacle, but its $25–45 million cost and disputed attendance numbers fueled debate. It was the first of its kind — not tied to military victory but symbolism, identity, and politics.

While some saw an inspiring tribute to service, others saw a taxpayer-funded political performance. The contrast in media narratives — especially the inflated 250,000 figure vs. estimates of 50,000–100,000 — reveals the deeper issue: Can we trust the stories told about our national symbols? And if not, how do we reclaim the truth behind the pageantry?