Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has been effectively removed from his role in negotiating border security funding, despite chairing the Senate committee with jurisdiction over the issue. The fiscal hawk's desire to significantly slash President Donald Trump's requested border security budget has alienated him from fellow Republicans who are determined to fund the president's immigration agenda.
According to Politico, Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham has taken over as lead negotiator in discussions with congressional leadership and the White House over billions in border security funding. The South Carolina Republican stepped in after Paul proposed dramatically lower spending levels than what the Trump administration requested.
The unusual move to bypass a committee chair highlights the growing isolation of Paul within the Republican conference, despite his leadership position granted through seniority rules. It also demonstrates the party's determination to deliver on Trump's border security promises regardless of internal opposition.
Graham didn't mince words when explaining why he inserted himself into negotiations typically handled by the relevant committee chair. "Senator Paul usually votes 'no' and blames everybody else for not being pure enough," the South Carolina Republican said, referencing his longstanding conflicts with Paul over government spending and foreign policy approaches.
The Budget Committee chairman released his own border security funding proposal shortly after Paul introduced his significantly scaled-back version. Graham's plan aligns much more closely with the administration's requests, allocating approximately $46.5 billion for border wall infrastructure compared to Paul's proposed $6.5 billion.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson offered no direct comment on Paul's exclusion but praised Graham's work, saying the administration is "profoundly grateful for Senator Graham and the Budget Committee's excellent work on the Homeland Security Text." The statement underscores the administration's alignment with Graham's approach over Paul's more fiscally conservative proposal.
Paul's isolation extends beyond leadership and the White House to members of his own committee. Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican who serves on Paul's Homeland Security Committee, expressed concern that the chairman drafted his proposal "without any consultation of the committee," adding he had "never seen that happen before."
Even typically reliable fiscal hawks have broken with Paul on the issue. Senator Ron Johnson, often aligned with Paul on spending restraint, declared support for the administration's higher funding request after hearing directly from Stephen Miller, a top White House immigration adviser. This occurred during a briefing specifically arranged by Graham and Senate Majority Leader John Thune to "contest the analysis of Senator Paul."
Freshman Senator Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), who sits on both the Homeland Security and Budget committees, acknowledged Paul as "well-meaning" and "principled" but suggested his approach was ineffective. "If your objective is just to have a point of view, that's one thing you can do; but if your objective is to rally support, then you have a different path," Moreno remarked.
Paul defended his approach by noting the unusual process being used for the overall legislation. "There were no committee votes on what the product would be," he said, explaining that "all of the drafts were done by the chairman of each committee" without typical committee markup procedures.
The Kentucky Republican maintains he still expects some provisions of his proposal unrelated to border security to make it into the final package. He also claimed involvement in discussions with the Senate parliamentarian about what provisions qualify under the strict rules governing budget reconciliation, the process Republicans hope to use to pass the legislation without Democratic support.
Paul's office did not respond when asked whether he still expected to participate in parliamentarian negotiations, raising further questions about his ongoing role in the process. This silence comes as Senate GOP leadership prepares to move forward with their preferred approach next week.
The conflict highlights the procedural complexities of using budget reconciliation for immigration policy. The process allows legislation to pass with a simple majority but imposes strict limitations on what provisions qualify as budget-related rather than purely policy-driven changes.
The dramatic showdown over border security funding represents a critical test for Trump's second-term agenda on immigration. The president campaigned heavily on promises to complete his border wall and significantly expand deportation efforts.
Graham's framework, which Senate GOP leadership is expected to use as a template, mirrors House-passed funding levels with $46.5 billion for border wall infrastructure and $5 billion for Customs and Border Protection facilities. This approach directly aligns with the administration's stated goal of funding "at least one million removals, adding new ICE and border personnel, expanding detention capacity, and giving bonuses" to immigration enforcement agents.
Paul's proposal not only slashed border wall funding to $6.5 billion but would provide just $2.5 billion for CBP facilities and checkpoints. His reduced spending plan reflects his longstanding fiscal conservatism but puts him at odds with his party's commitment to delivering on Trump's immigration priorities regardless of cost.
President Trump has unleashed a scathing critique of Fox News following the release of polling data showing mixed reviews of his administration's performance across key policy areas. The president's frustration centers on what he perceives as unfair coverage despite generally favorable ratings from the network's viewers.
According to The Hill, Trump took to Truth Social on Thursday to express his displeasure with Fox News polls showing Americans nearly evenly divided on his handling of immigration and border security issues. The post marked his latest rebuke of a network that has historically been viewed as sympathetic to his policies.
The president's criticism follows polling that revealed 53 percent of Americans approve of his handling of border security, while a majority disapprove of his approach to immigration, foreign policy, the economy, and inflation. Trump's economic ratings appear particularly concerning, with 58 percent disapproving and inflation garnering a 64 percent disapproval rating.
Trump's Thursday morning post on Truth Social left little doubt about his feelings toward the network's polling operation. He characterized Fox News polls as consistently inaccurate and biased against him throughout his political career.
"The Crooked FoxNews Polls got the Election WRONG, I won by much more than they said I would, and have been biased against me for years," the president wrote, adding that the polls are "always wrong and negative."
Despite his harsh criticism of the network's polling division, Trump made a point to distinguish between Fox's pollsters and its on-air talent, noting that his supporters dislike the network's polling "even though their anchors are GREAT." This nuanced criticism highlights the complex relationship between the president and his once-strongest media ally.
The latest conflict represents an ongoing pattern of tension between Trump and major media outlets, including those typically considered friendly to his administration. His relationship with Fox News has shown particular strain during the opening months of his second term.
Trump has repeatedly singled out Rupert Murdoch, founder and former chair of Fox Corp., for criticism regarding coverage across Murdoch's media properties. This includes not only Fox News but also The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, suggesting a broader dissatisfaction with mainstream conservative media coverage.
Despite these tensions, Trump maintains working relationships with many Fox News journalists, regularly granting interviews to the network's personalities. In fact, several former Fox hosts and commentators now hold key positions within his administration, demonstrating the continued interconnectedness between the president and the network.
The polling that triggered Trump's response shows a divided American public on border security and immigration policy, two signature issues of both his campaigns and his presidency. While a slim majority supports his handling of border security specifically, his broader immigration approach receives net negative ratings.
These mixed results come despite the president's continued emphasis on border security as a cornerstone of his second-term agenda. Trump has implemented several executive actions aimed at reducing illegal border crossings since returning to office.
Fox's polling suggests that while Trump's core message on border security resonates with many Americans, his overall approach to immigration policy faces significant opposition. This split in public opinion mirrors the deeply polarized national debate on immigration reform and border enforcement.
Trump's direct confrontation with Fox News underscores his continued willingness to publicly challenge media coverage he views as unfavorable, regardless of the outlet's political orientation. This approach has been a defining characteristic of his communication style throughout both terms.
The president's claim that Fox's polling division is "discredited" and that the network "will never change their pollster" signals his determination to shape the narrative around his administration's performance. By questioning the methodology and motives behind unfavorable polls, Trump attempts to minimize their impact on public perception.
Trump's media strategy continues to involve direct communication with supporters through social media platforms like Truth Social, allowing him to bypass traditional media filters. This approach enables him to present his unfiltered perspective on issues ranging from policy achievements to perceived media bias.
Former first lady Michelle Obama sparked conversation with candid remarks about family dynamics, expressing gratitude for not having a male child during a recent podcast episode. The 61-year-old mother of two daughters made the comment while speaking with radio personality Angie Martinez.
According to the New York Post, Obama stated she was "so glad" she didn't have a son because "he would have been a Barack Obama," while shaking her head for emphasis. The remarks came during Wednesday's episode of "IMO," the podcast she hosts alongside her brother Craig Robinson.
When Martinez suggested having a boy would have been "amazing," Obama pushed back with a direct "No, I woulda felt for him." The conversation centered extensively on parenting male children, as Martinez has one son and Robinson has three boys.
Obama's comments arrive amid ongoing speculation about the state of her 32-year marriage to the former president. Many observers have questioned whether the high-profile couple's relationship might be heading toward divorce.
Despite the potentially pointed remark about her husband, Michelle praised Barack's parenting abilities just last week during an interview with rock musician Bruce Springsteen. She specifically commended the former president as "a tremendous father, doing it in a lot of grandeur."
The Obamas have made several high-visibility public appearances together in recent months, including a date at Manhattan's upscale Lowell Hotel restaurant and another cozy outing at a Washington, DC restaurant in April. These appearances have come as divorce rumors continue to circulate.
During the podcast episode, Obama offered substantive parenting guidance, particularly focused on raising sons in today's complex social environment. Her comments reflected broader concerns about preparing young men for various life challenges.
"Teach [your son] about how to deal with the traffic stop, but also teach him how to communicate in a marriage and to be a listening father," Obama advised during the conversation. This guidance came just before her remark about not wanting a "baby Barack."
The episode featured extensive discussion about the unique challenges of raising male children, drawing on the experiences of all three participants. Martinez and Robinson shared their perspectives as parents of sons, while Obama offered insights from her position as a mother of daughters.
The former first lady has been increasingly open about her own personal development journey in recent public appearances. Her candid remarks about family dynamics appear connected to broader life reflections.
Obama has recently revealed that she is currently in therapy and experiencing a transition to a different life phase. These admissions align with themes explored in her bestselling memoir "Becoming," where she detailed personal growth throughout various life stages.
The "IMO" podcast, which Obama co-hosts with her brother, has become a platform for the former first lady to discuss various aspects of family dynamics, personal development, and social issues. The show regularly features conversations with notable guests from various backgrounds.
Michelle Obama's continued public presence remains significant years after leaving the White House. Her commentary on parenting and family life resonates with many Americans navigating similar life transitions.
The podcast episode featuring Martinez covered numerous topics beyond family dynamics, though Obama's comment about not having a son captured particular attention. Her willingness to speak candidly about personal matters has been a consistent feature of her post-White House public persona.
As speculation about the Obamas' marriage continues, Michelle's ongoing projects, including her podcast and public speaking engagements, demonstrate her commitment to maintaining an independent public voice. Her remarks reflect both the personal and public dimensions of life after serving as first lady.
President Trump issued a stark warning to American workers during Juneteenth celebrations, claiming that federal holidays are costing the nation billions of dollars in lost productivity. The president's comments came as millions across the country commemorated the emancipation of enslaved people.
According to the Daily Mail, Trump took to Truth Social on Thursday night to express his concerns about what he perceives as too many non-working holidays. His post notably lacked any specific reference to Juneteenth itself, despite his previous history of acknowledging the significance of the day.
The president's message was clear and direct: "Too many non-working holidays in America. It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed. The workers don't want it either!" He went on to suggest that if the trend continues, "Soon we'll end up having a holiday for every once working day of the year."
This year's comments mark a significant departure from Trump's previous approach to Juneteenth. During his first term in office, he regularly issued statements commemorating the holiday and its historical significance for Black Americans.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the absence of any official presidential proclamation for Juneteenth this year. When questioned by reporters, she simply stated, "I'm not tracking his signature on a proclamation today. I know this is a federal holiday. I want to thank all of you for showing up to work."
The president's critique of federal holidays came on the same day businesses nationwide closed to observe Juneteenth, which became a federal holiday in 2021. While Trump claims workers don't want these holidays, many Americans embrace the opportunity to commemorate significant historical events like the emancipation of enslaved people.
In previous years, Trump consistently recognized Juneteenth with formal statements that acknowledged its importance in American history. His proclamations often highlighted the contributions of African Americans to the nation.
His 2018 statement declared, "Together, we honor the unbreakable spirit and countless contributions of generations of African Americans to the story of American greatness." The following year, he noted that "Across our country, the contributions of African Americans continue to enrich every facet of American life."
In 2020, Trump's Juneteenth message took on a more reflective tone: "June reminds us of both the unimaginable injustice of slavery and the incomparable joy that must have attended emancipation. It is both a remembrance of a blight on our history and a celebration of our Nation's unsurpassed ability to triumph over darkness."
Trump once claimed personal credit for making Juneteenth "very famous" following controversy over his 2020 campaign rally scheduled in Tulsa, Oklahoma on the holiday. The location choice sparked significant backlash given Tulsa's history of racial violence.
In 1921, Tulsa's Greenwood district, known as "Black Wall Street," was devastated by white mobs. Approximately 300 Black residents were killed, and thousands were temporarily placed in internment camps overseen by the National Guard, making Trump's initial decision to hold a rally there on Juneteenth particularly controversial.
After facing criticism, Trump rescheduled the rally and attempted to frame the situation positively, saying, "I did something good. I made it famous. I made Juneteenth very famous. It's actually an important event, it's an important time. But nobody had heard of it. Very few people have heard of it."
President Trump's latest comments about federal holidays appear focused primarily on economic considerations rather than historical or cultural significance. His claim that these observances cost the country "billions of dollars" comes without specific data to support the assertion.
The United States currently recognizes 11 federal holidays, including New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday, Presidents' Day, Memorial Day, Juneteenth, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Trump has recently acknowledged other observances like Father's Day and Flag Day, though these are not federal holidays.
Trump has also taken significant steps to roll back diversity initiatives across the federal government, issuing sweeping orders to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, which he has characterized as "illegal and immoral discrimination programs."
According to the Daily Mail, Boeing whistleblower Joe Jacobsen has made alarming claims about the recent Air India flight 171 crash investigation, suggesting that investigators likely already know what caused the disaster but won't release findings for months, potentially putting more lives at risk.
While both the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were recovered by Sunday, Jacobsen claims that information from these devices can be analyzed within days, yet official conclusions might not be released for a year.
The crash, which occurred on June 12 in Ahmedabad, India, killed 241 of the 242 passengers aboard the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, as well as eight people on the ground.
Jacobsen, who worked for both Boeing and the FAA for decades, has suggested there are financial motivations behind delaying the release of potentially damaging findings about the 787 Dreamliner.
"A lot of people are invested in Boeing and so they try and delay this stuff so people forget about it, or at least they can make their changes before the bottom falls out," Jacobsen told the Daily Mail. Boeing's stock fell 4.8% after the crash, closing at $203.75 on June 12, and continued declining to around $198.35 a week later.
Investment firms like RBC Capital Markets have cautioned investors against hasty sell-offs, noting in an investors' note that "it can often take months to fully understand the causes of a crash." But Jacobsen claims this extended timeline is more about controlling the narrative than conducting thorough investigation.
Jacobsen's concerns aren't merely speculative—he points to the 2018 Lion Air crash as evidence of how delays in releasing findings can lead to additional tragedies.
After the Lion Air Flight 610 crash in October 2018 that killed 189 people, Jacobsen claims he identified the problem within minutes of reviewing flight data. Yet the full report wasn't released for a year, during which time Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed in March 2019, killing all 157 people aboard. Both crashes involved Boeing 737 MAX aircraft and were eventually linked to the same flawed flight control system.
"I got the flight data recorder data a week after the crash, and it took five minutes to see what the problem was," Jacobsen recalled. Boeing recently reached a $1.1 billion settlement with the U.S. Justice Department over those two crashes.
Another Boeing whistleblower, Sam Salehpour, has also expressed frustration with the slow pace of investigations into Boeing aircraft safety issues.
Salehpour went public last year with allegations that Boeing was using "shortcuts" in manufacturing the 787 Dreamliner fuselage. His lawyer, Debra Katz, recently complained that the FAA has been sitting on a completed investigation for months. "The FAA previously represented to us that they had completed an investigation, suggested that it had meaningful and significant findings that supported Mr. Salehpour's allegations, and it was going to release them imminently," Katz said.
Meanwhile, another Air India pilot turned a 787 Dreamliner around 30 minutes into flight on Monday, citing an unspecified technical issue. The airline described this as a precautionary measure, but it raises questions about potential widespread issues with the aircraft model.
For Jacobsen, the solution to prevent future tragedies is straightforward: release findings promptly or ground affected aircraft until the cause of the crashes has been publicly identified.
"They know 95 percent of what happened after a week - but then the next 11 months are used up by people trying to control the message, and point fingers at one another, who's responsible, who's not responsible," Jacobsen explained. This finger-pointing between airlines and manufacturers unnecessarily delays vital safety information.
Boeing has not responded to requests for comment on Jacobsen's allegations. The company's President and CEO, Kelly Ortberg, issued a statement following the crash, offering "full support" to the investigation led by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau.
Justice Clarence Thomas has sparked controversy with his dismissal of medical expertise in transgender youth treatment.
According to The Hill, Thomas's concurring opinion in the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors has delighted conservatives who see it as validation of their broader critique of liberal influence in academic and medical institutions.
The conservative justice argued against automatically deferring to self-described experts in politically contentious debates. Thomas's scathing rebuke of the medical establishment has quickly become a rallying point for Republican leaders. Vice President J.D. Vance praised the opinion as "quite illuminating" in his debut post on Bluesky, going further to suggest that pharmaceutical companies are financially influencing scientists to promote these treatments for children.
The Supreme Court's decision represents a significant shift in the federal government's stance on transgender healthcare. President Trump's administration has abandoned the previous administration's defense of gender-affirming care, with his Justice Department dropping legal challenges to state bans and his Department of Health and Human Services declaring in May that there is a "lack of robust evidence" supporting such treatments.
This ruling has devastated families directly affected by these bans. Samantha Williams, mother of the transgender teen who challenged Tennessee's law, expressed deep fear about the implications in a New York Times opinion piece, writing, "Now that the Supreme Court has denied the rights of young people like my daughter and families like ours, what's next?"
Despite major American medical organizations maintaining that gender-affirming care is medically necessary, Thomas declared their positions legally irrelevant. He argued that deferring to these groups would allow "elite sentiment" to "distort and stifle democratic debate."
The Court's majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, notably looked to European health authorities rather than American medical organizations for guidance. Roberts specifically cited health authorities in Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, which have raised concerns about the potential harms of using puberty blockers and hormones for transgender minors.
The 2024 Cass Review from England received particular emphasis in the Court's decision. This influential report questioned the evidence base for transgender youth treatments and has been cited by conservatives as validation of their concerns about rushing into medical interventions.
The Court's reliance on European research comes as public trust in American health officials continues to decline. According to January polling from health nonprofit KFF, trust in state and local public health officials dropped by 10 percentage points to 54 percent, while trust in the CDC slipped 5 percentage points.
Alabama's attorney general's office celebrated Thomas's opinion, with Chief Counsel Katherine Green Robertson stating that Thomas "soundly put to rest the persistent sham that we should quiet down and 'trust the science' when it comes to life-altering experimentation on minors." The state had filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging justices not to rely on "unsupported appeals to 'expert' organizations."
This is not the first time the Supreme Court's use of research has sparked controversy. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson faced criticism after citing a study in her 2023 dissent in the Harvard affirmative action case that was later contested by critics, with lawyer Ted Frank writing in the Wall Street Journal that "even Supreme Court justices are known to be gullible."
Studies supporting conservative positions have also faced scrutiny. Just before the Supreme Court considered access to abortion medication mifepristone, a medical journal retracted two studies claiming to show harms of the pill after finding their conclusions "invalidated in whole or in part."
The Supreme Court's decision aligns with a broader conservative movement challenging the authority of educational and medical institutions. Roger Severino, a Heritage Foundation vice president who ran Health and Human Services's civil rights office during Trump's first term, told supporters after the decision, "The vibe shift is real."
Conservative leaders view the ruling as consistent with public sentiment on transgender issues. Severino specifically referenced President Trump's campaign rhetoric against his opponent, noting that Trump's closing argument was "she is for they/them, and he is for you."
The Court's decision represents a significant victory for conservatives who have long campaigned against gender-affirming treatments for minors. While the justices maintain they aren't "political animals," their ruling has undeniably strengthened Republican positions in the ongoing cultural debate about transgender healthcare and the role of medical expertise in politically contentious issues.
Brad Pitt and his girlfriend, Ines de Ramon, generated buzz online after an uncomfortable moment was caught on camera during the world premiere of his racing drama "F1" on Monday.
According to the Daily Mail, fans shared videos on social media showing what appeared to be Pitt avoiding a kiss from de Ramon on the red carpet.
The clips, which quickly spread across platforms like X (formerly Twitter), show the 32-year-old de Ramon seemingly leaning in for a kiss while the 61-year-old actor appears to pull away at the last second. In the footage, Pitt initially leans toward de Ramon before suddenly changing course and turning his attention to someone else approaching them.
Fans reacted strongly to the awkward interaction, with many expressing secondhand embarrassment in the comments. One user wrote, "Omg no 😭😭😭," while others posted reaction gifs showing their discomfort at the cringeworthy moment.
Another clip from the event showed Pitt posing for a group photo with de Ramon standing off to the side. As others gathered around the actor, he briefly glanced at de Ramon before turning back to the camera without gesturing for her to join the picture, further fueling speculation about tension between the couple.
The original poster who shared the videos on X captioned them: "Brad Pitt avoiding Ines kiss (once again) hahaha, she thought he was going to kiss her and he was just trying to cross to the other side I just can't. And later snubbing her from a group picture. The way this relationship is so PR I just can't."
Despite the social media frenzy, there are more innocent explanations for what appeared to be an uncomfortable interaction. In the clip where Pitt seemed to avoid a kiss, he may have simply been distracted by someone approaching the couple.
The footage shows Pitt appearing to speak with a woman who was walking toward them immediately after the missed connection with de Ramon. Some commenters suggested that de Ramon might have just been trying to "say something in his ear" rather than initiate a kiss.
Similarly, the video showing Pitt posing for a group photo without de Ramon also captures her hugging another person in the background after the photo session ended. This suggests she may have been engaged with someone else and not intentionally excluded from the picture.
Despite the viral awkward moments, Pitt and de Ramon did display affection at other points during the premiere. The couple was photographed holding hands while walking the red carpet together and beaming for cameras.
The scrutiny of their interactions comes as a body language expert analyzed their red carpet appearance for the Daily Mail, suggesting there might be "trouble in their relationship." However, sources close to Pitt recently told Us Weekly that the actor is "in a good place" after finalizing his divorce from Angelina Jolie in late 2024.
According to these insiders, Pitt has found a "good balance between being in the spotlight and having a private life" and has "done a lot of therapy over the years" following his 2017 revelation about getting sober and starting counseling.
The scrutiny of Pitt's relationship comes amid ongoing discussion about his divorce from Jolie and his relationship with their six children. Sources told the Daily Mail that Pitt has "made several efforts to reconnect with his kids," but his relationships with the four older children remain "strained."
According to insiders, the actor's relationship with Jolie deteriorated in 2016 after she accused him of being verbally and physically abusive toward her and their children during a private jet flight. Pitt has denied these allegations, and he was ultimately cleared of wrongdoing by the FBI.
PR experts interviewed by Us Weekly suggested Pitt has weathered these controversies by maintaining a low profile. Evan Nierman, founder of PR firm Red Banyan, noted: "That silence gave him control. Instead of feeding the headlines, he let them run their course while he focused on work."
A fatal accident involving a military transport vehicle has cast a shadow over President Trump's 250th anniversary Army celebration parade held in Washington, DC. The incident, which claimed the life of a 39-year-old woman, has prompted questions about the necessity of moving heavy military equipment through the city streets.
According to the Daily Mail, the White House has not issued any comment regarding the death of Sierra Nichole Smith, who was struck by a truck carrying an M1-Abrams tank that was part of the military parade convoy.
The tragic accident occurred on June 16 at the intersection of New York Avenue and Bladensburg Road in Northeast Washington. Emergency personnel attempted lifesaving measures but were unable to revive Smith after she was dragged for several blocks following the collision.
Metropolitan Police Department conducted a preliminary investigation revealing that Smith ran into the road, stumbled, and fell in front of the semi-trailer truck carrying the 70-ton tank. The impact caused her to become pinned under the vehicle.
As the truck continued eastbound, Smith was eventually dislodged from underneath the vehicle, only to be struck by a 2007 Chevrolet Suburban that was traveling behind the semi-trailer as part of the convoy. Both drivers remained at the scene following the incident.
The drivers involved were private contractors rather than military personnel, and no criminal charges have been filed in connection with the accident. Police have indicated that their initial investigation has cleared the truck driver of wrongdoing.
DC's "shadow senator" Paul Strauss expressed concerns about the parade and subsequent transportation of military equipment through city streets. He described the incident as "just a tragedy" that raises questions about the parade's purpose.
"These tanks did not need to be on local streets and consequently they didn't need to be hauled away in a big convoy," Strauss told the Daily Mail. He further characterized the parade as an "unnecessary exercise done for the sole purpose of appeasing the president's ego on his birthday."
Strauss also commented on the graphic nature of the accident, stating: "The details that have been made public are just horrific. She was dragged for blocks. It's horrific for so many reasons."
The Army's 250th anniversary parade, which coincided with President Trump's 79th birthday on Sunday, featured approximately 120 vehicles, 6,000 soldiers, flyovers, and a parachute jump. The event reportedly cost up to $45 million to stage.
President Trump had been highly invested in the parade's success, mentioning it during his brief trip to Canada for the G7 summit. During that visit, he commented on weather forecasts that nearly caused the parade to be canceled.
Despite speculation about the timing, Trump denied that the celebration was connected to his birthday. The president delivered a short speech at the event while accompanied by First Lady Melania Trump.
Both the White House and the Pentagon have been reserved in their comments about the fatal accident. When contacted by reporters, a Pentagon spokesperson referred all inquiries to the Army.
The Army has yet to provide detailed information about the incident or comment on potential changes to procedures for transporting military equipment through populated areas. USA Today reported that an Army document on the incident confirmed that no military personnel were directly involved.
The convoy was reportedly transporting the military vehicles back to Fort Hood, Texas, with a stop in Jessup, Maryland, when the accident occurred. The fatal collision has renewed debate about the wisdom of staging large military parades in urban settings