President Donald Trump's participation in this week's NATO summit was well-received and represented a significant victory for him, contrasting with similar meetings during his previous administration.
'This has been a hugely successful summit for President Trump.'
In 2018, when Trump was pushing NATO allies to meet their then-target of 2% of GDP for defense spending, he got into a spat with German officials after he scolded the country for cutting an oil and gas deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He accused Germany of being "totally controlled by Russia," calling it a "very bad thing for NATO."
The following year, several allies — then-Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau, then-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, and President of France Emmanuel Macron — were caught on camera mocking Trump.
In contrast, this year's NATO summit in the Netherlands was notably successful for Trump.
RELATED: Trump to take on NATO summit: Will allies step up or stall?
Dr. Nile Gardiner, director of the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and Bernard and Barbara Lomas fellow, told Blaze News, "This has been a hugely successful summit for President Trump and a demonstration of real U.S. leadership on the world stage — a dramatic difference to the weak-kneed Biden presidency."
At one point, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte even praised Trump for striking Iran's nuclear enrichment sites.
"I just want to recognize your decisive action in Iran. You are a man of strength, but you are also a man of peace. The fact that you are now also successful in getting this ceasefire done between Israel and Iran, I really want to commend you for it. And I think this is important for the whole world," Rutte told Trump on Wednesday.
Rutte also credited Trump for securing substantial defense-spending increases to 5% of GDP.
"Without President Trump, this would not have happened," he remarked.
RELATED: Canada's solution to reliance on US? Increasing commitments in Europe
During a Wednesday afternoon press conference in the Netherlands, Trump reported that his NATO allies were "so respectful" toward him. He celebrated the increased defense-spending commitments from the ally countries.
"I left here saying that these people really love their countries. It's not a rip-off, and we're here to help them protect their countries," Trump said.
The only conflict Trump expressed was with Spain, the only country that refused to commit to the defense-spending targets. He vowed to negotiate "directly with Spain" on a trade deal, adding that it would have to "pay twice as much" to make up the "unfair" difference in defense spending.
Trump also confirmed that he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who he stated "couldn't have been nicer" to him.
Trump mentioned that he and Zelenskyy had previously experienced some "rough times," likely referring to the tense exchange he and Vice President JD Vance had with the Ukrainian president earlier this year at the White House.
Trump remarked that he had a "good meeting with Zelenskyy" at this week's NATO summit, adding that Zelenskyy and Putin would like to see an end to the ongoing war.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.
Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.
We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.
It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.
Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.
The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.
The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.
The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.
RELATED: Iran fires missiles at US troops on bases in Qatar and Iraq
To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.
As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.
They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.
If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.
This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.
We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.
Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.
That would be catastrophic.
The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.
The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?
Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.
Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.
We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.
The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.
He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
President Donald Trump is scheduled to attend the NATO summit in the Hague, Netherlands, held on June 24 and 25, where world leaders are anticipated to cover a wide range of pressing topics.
The annual meeting provides Trump with an opportunity to promote American interests over globalist ideals while reducing the United States' defense burdens, potentially reshaping the alliance.
'President Trump will be calling on NATO allies to step up to the plate and invest in the defense of Europe.'
This will be the first NATO summit hosted in the Netherlands since the alliance's founding in 1949. Approximately 9,000 attendees are expected, including 6,000 officials representing various countries.
A top concern for the Trump administration is ensuring that American taxpayers do not carry an unfair defense burden compared to their NATO counterparts.
Trump has maintained a firm stance with NATO allies, pressuring the countries to substantially increase defense spending from 2% of their GDP to 5% as part of the president's efforts to push for burden-sharing among the nations.
Nile Gardiner, the director of the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow, told Blaze News that defense spending is expected to "dominate" most of the summit.
"This is the top priority for the U.S. administration. President Trump will be calling on NATO allies to step up to the plate and invest in the defense of Europe. I think you'll be looking for all of the alliance members to pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense," Gardiner stated.
NATO's 32 allies previously agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
With ongoing concerns of escalation from Russia, NATO's latest plan aims for 5% of GDP for defense budgets, including 3.5% for military spending and 1.5% for security-related infrastructure.
RELATED: Trump touches down in Canada for G7 summit. Here's what's on the menu.
Last month, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said he expects the ally countries to agree to the new goal during the upcoming annual summit.
"Let's say that this 5% — but I will not say what is the individual breakup, but it will be considerably north of 3% when it comes to the hard spend, and it will be also a target on defense-related spending," Rutte remarked.
‘The reality right now is Europe is not in a position to defend itself.’
The Financial Times reported in late May that Spain was the last major holdout on NATO's plan to increase defense spending.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated last month that when he met with José Manuel Albares, Spain's foreign minister, he "urged Spain to join Allies in committing 5% of GDP to defense."
Albares responded, "There was an exchange [with Rubio], and both of us expressed our views very clearly. I insisted that it was a huge effort to reach 2% and that the debate right now needs to focus on capabilities."
Spain currently commits only 1.28% of its GDP to defense spending. In April, Pedro Sánchez, Spain's prime minister, announced a plan to meet NATO's existing 2% requirement for the first time in 2025.
A White House official confirmed to Blaze News that Trump "intends to secure a historic 5% defense spending pledge from NATO allies that will advance stability in Europe and around the world."
NATO members reached an agreement on Sunday to increase their defense spending target to 5% of GDP. Yet Spain opted out.
Sánchez declared, “We fully respect the legitimate desire of other countries to increase their defense investment, but we are not going to do so.”
On Monday morning, Rutte held a press conference before the summit, confirming that NATO members had agreed to the new defense spending goals.
The Trump administration has prioritized facilitating peace talks between Ukraine and Russia to end the war and reduce the United States' aid commitments. Meanwhile, tensions between Israel and Iran also remain ongoing. The U.S. launched airstrikes against three of Iran's nuclear enrichment sites over the weekend.
Resolving these conflicts is certain to be another key topic at the upcoming summit. U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker previously stated that the Trump administration will begin talks with allies later this year about withdrawing American troops from Europe.
While Whitaker previously stated that "nothing has been determined," he noted that the administration would converse with NATO allies after the summit.
"It's more than 30 years of U.S. desire [to reduce troops in Europe], President Trump just said enough, this is going to happen and it's going to happen now. This is going to be orderly, but we are not going to have any more patience for foot-dragging in this situation. ... We just need to work through the practical consequences," Whitaker remarked.
RELATED: Lindsey Graham champions sending troops to Iran despite Americans' weariness of endless war
Earlier this month, Sergei Ryabkov, Russia's deputy foreign minister, stated that Russia would not end the war with Ukraine until NATO withdraws its military forces from Eastern Europe, citing it as a central cause of the war.
Ryabkov stated that America must take actionable steps to address "the root causes" behind Russia's security disputes.
"Among these causes, NATO expansion is in the foreground. Without resolving this fundamental and most acute problem for us, it is simply impossible to resolve the current conflict in the Euro-Atlantic region," he said. "Given the nature and genesis of the Ukrainian crisis, provoked by the previous U.S. authorities and the West as a whole, this conflict naturally acts, well, if you like, as a test, a trial, which checks the seriousness of Washington's intentions to straighten out our relations."
Trump stated that he spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin on June 14, mainly about the Iran conflict. He noted, "Much less time was spent talking about Russia/Ukraine," but he indicated that there will be future discussions regarding that war.
"He is doing the planned prisoner swaps — large numbers of prisoners are being exchanged, immediately, from both sides. The call lasted approximately 1 hour. He feels, as do I, this war in Israel-Iran should end, to which I explained, his war should also end," Trump wrote in a post on social media.
‘Trump will be urging strong support from NATO members for Israel unity, calling for an end to Iran's nuclear program.’
Trump attended the Group of Seven summit in Canada, which was held from June 15 through 17, but left before the event's final day when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Rutte joined a breakfast discussion about the ongoing conflict. Several Cabinet members, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, remained at the event to represent the U.S.
Zelenskyy, who will also be attending the NATO summit, has been pushing for allies to implement stricter sanctions against Russia.
Gardiner stated that he anticipated the Trump administration would press European allies to increase military production to ensure that they have the industrial capacity necessary to "produce large amounts of tanks, weapons, aircraft, [and] ammunition to use for the defense of Europe against Russia."
"The reality right now is Europe is not in a position to defend itself," Gardiner continued. "I think, also, President Trump will be urging European NATO allies to stop buying Russian energy."
He noted that European NATO members purchased roughly €7 billion worth of liquefied natural gas from Moscow.
"They are directly helping to fund the Russian war machine," Gardiner said. "In fact, European NATO allies spend more money buying Russian gas than they do in terms of military assistance in Ukraine."
RELATED: A treacherous week for America First (and Israel, too)
Gardiner added that recent conflict in the Middle East would also likely be front and center during the summit.
"Trump will be urging strong support from NATO members for Israel unity," Gardiner stated.
Trump has repeatedly stated that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.
"For 40 years, they've been saying 'death to America,' 'death to Israel,' 'death' to anybody else that they didn't like," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. "If you go back 15 years, I was saying, 'We cannot let Iran get a nuclear weapon.'"
After bombing Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, Trump warned that Iran would face further strikes if its leaders fail to reach a peace agreement with Israel.
During the Monday press conference, Rutte addressed the United States' recent strikes against Iran.
"When it comes to NATO's stance on Iran's nuclear program, allies have long agreed that Iran must not develop a nuclear weapon. Allies have repeatedly urged Iran to meet its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty," Rutte stated.
A reporter asked Rutte whether he has concerns that the U.S. strike on Iran would result in the Trump administration deprioritizing NATO.
"I don't think so," he replied. "The news about Iran is, at this moment, grabbing all the headlines, and it is, of course, important news, but this summit is really about making sure that the whole of NATO, 1 billion people, will be safe, not only today but also three, five, seven years from now."
"Let's not forget, Iran is heavily involved in the fight of Russia against Ukraine," Rutte continued. "No doubt it will emerge in the discussions."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
After the COVID lockdowns, the Western global leadership class had little credibility left. So it seemed insane when they immediately pivoted to a new crisis — but that’s exactly what they did.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered demands from elites in Europe and America for NATO-aligned nations to involve themselves in the conflict. Many Republicans were initially on board, with Fox News and CNN marching in lockstep behind intervention. But the Republican base quickly soured on the war once it became clear that U.S. involvement didn’t serve American interests.
If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.
In a strange inversion, the right became anti-war while the left championed military escalation.
That reversal matters now, as some in the GOP look to drag the country into another long conflict. We should remember what Ukraine taught us.
When Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded, many conservatives instinctively aligned with Ukraine. The Soviet Union had been an evil empire and a clear enemy of the United States. It was easy to paint Russia as an extension of that threat. President Biden assured Americans that there would be no boots on the ground and that economic sanctions would cripple Russia quickly.
But the war dragged on. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed to Ukraine while America entered a painful economic downturn. Conservatives began asking whether this was worth it.
Putin was no friend of the U.S., and conservatives had valid reasons to distrust him. But suddenly, anyone questioning the war effort was smeared as a Russian asset. Opposition to the war became an extension of the left’s deranged Russiagate conspiracy, which painted Donald Trump as a blackmailed Kremlin agent.
Some Republican politicians kept pushing the war. Fox News stayed hawkish. But much of the conservative commentariat broke ranks. They knew that the boys from Appalachia and Texas — exactly the kind of red-state Americans progressives despise — would again be asked to die for a war that served no clear national purpose.
From that disillusionment, conservatives drew hard-earned lessons.
They saw that U.S. leaders lie to sustain foreign conflicts. That politicians in both parties keep wars going because donors profit. That Fox News can become a mouthpiece for military escalation. That you can oppose a war without betraying your country. And that American troops and taxpayer dollars are not playthings for globalist fantasies.
“America First” began to mean something real: Peace through strength didn’t require constant intervention.
Unfortunately, many of those lessons evaporated after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7.
That attack was horrific. No serious person denies the brutality of Hamas or questions Israel’s right to defend itself. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has treated the attack as a green light to target longtime adversaries, including Iran. As a sovereign nation, Israel can pursue its own foreign policy. But it cannot dictate foreign policy for the United States.
In 2002, Netanyahu testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. He said toppling both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes would bring peace and stability. He was wrong.
He wasn’t alone, of course. Many were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War. But Netanyahu’s track record is highly relevant now. While conservatives once fervently supported the Iraq invasion after 9/11, many — including Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D’Souza — have since apologized. They admit they got it wrong.
RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front
Afghanistan, while flawed, had clearer justification. The Taliban had harbored Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But the lies about weapons of mass destruction and failed nation-building in Iraq turned that war into a conservative regret.
In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran had not resumed efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Gabbard, like Trump allies Robert Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth, was chosen precisely for her skepticism of the intelligence bureaucracy. Trump remembers how his first term was sabotaged by insiders loyal to the status quo. This time, he selected appointees loyal to the voters.
Gabbard’s assessment contradicts Netanyahu, who claims Iran is months away from having a bomb. That’s a massive discrepancy. Either Iran hasn’t restarted its program, or it’s on the brink of building a nuke.
So which is it?
Did U.S. intelligence fail again? Did Gabbard lie to Congress and the public? Or did she simply say something the ruling class didn’t want to hear?
Trump, Gabbard, and Vice President JD Vance understand how Iraq went wrong. They know Americans deserve evidence before another war — especially one that risks dragging us into a region we’ve already failed to remake at great cost.
Yet the war hawks keep repeating the same lie: This time, it’ll be quick. The United States is too powerful, too advanced, too economically dominant. The enemy will fold by Christmas.
Biden said the same about Ukraine. And hundreds of billions later, we remain in a grinding proxy war with Russia.
Now, while still financing that war, Americans are told they must back a new war — this one initiated unilaterally by Israel. The U.S. faces domestic strife, crippling debt, and an ongoing open-border crisis. Involvement in yet another conflict makes no sense.
Israel may be right about Iran. Tehran may indeed have developed a nuclear program behind the world’s back. But if Israel wants to wage a war, it must do so on its own.
The Trump administration has made clear that it wasn’t involved in Israel’s pre-emptive strikes and didn’t approve them. If Israel starts a war, it should fight and win that war on its own. America should not be expected to absorb retaliation or commit troops to another Middle Eastern project.
These wars are never short, and they are always expensive.
Even if Iran’s regime collapses quickly, the aftermath would require a long, brutal occupation to prevent it from descending into chaos. Israel doesn’t have the capacity — let alone the political will — for that task. That burden would fall, again, to America.
So before conservatives fall for another round of WMD hysteria, they should recall what the last two wars taught them.
If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.
But don’t sleepwalk into another forever war.
If Donald Trump's "51st state" cracks have gotten under Mark Carney's skin, he wasn't showing it when he kicked off the G7 summit Monday.
Sitting next to the American president, Canada's prime minister played the consummate host, with conciliatory remarks stressing how much the participant nations have in common.
'We are actively seeking to strengthen transatlantic security, particularly by becoming a participant in rearming Europe.'
"All of us around this table are reinforcing our militaries and security services for the new world," he said. "But we all know that there can be no security without economic prosperity, and no prosperity without resilience. And ... that resilience comes from cooperation, cooperation that starts around this table."
Still, Carney has lately made it clear that he'd like to place some distance between him and his tablemate. Last week, he pledged that the country would boost defense spending to the tune of an additional $9.3 billion this year in order to be less "reliant" on the protection of its big brother to the south.
Carney's increase would bring Canada's defense spending in line with NATO's benchmark of 2% of GDP for the first time since NATO established the benchmark in 2006. In the last two decades, Canada has rarely exceeded 1.5% and has usually hovered around 1%.
The last time Canada's defense spending met the 2% threshold was in 1987, when former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney sought to rebuild Canada’s military. At the height of the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960s, Canada was spending well over 4% of its GDP on national defense.
But will Canadians actually benefit from Carney’s spending spree?
RELATED: Listen up, America: Everything you've been told about Canada is a lie
In his announcement last Monday, Carney was typically vague about where the money will go, while hinting that Canada is on the market for new military allies and relationships:
Canada can work towards a new international set of partnerships that are more secure, prosperous, just, and free. We can pursue deeper alliances with stable democracies who share our interests, values, principles, and history, and we can help create a new era of integration between like-minded partners that maximizes mutual support over mutual dependency.
On one point, Carney was blunt: The Canadian Armed Forces are a military in deep decline. "Our military infrastructure and equipment have aged, hindering our military preparedness,” he said. “I'll give an example or two: Only one of our four submarines is seaworthy. Less than half our maritime fleet and land vehicles are operational."
So where are these "like-minded partners" who will help Canada get back into fighting shape? Not on this side of the Atlantic. Carney has openly mused about Canada becoming a member of the European Union and contributing to its defense force, and this looks like a big step in that direction.
Does this mean that Carney will join European leaders like U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in providing missiles to Ukraine for its war with Russia? Is that how he plans to spend Canadian tax dollars? It might not seem like a good deal to Canadians.
Last month, however, Carney expressed his intention for Canada to join ReArm Europe, a major European defense buildup. He has also continued his predecessor Justin Trudeau's policy of sending billions of dollars in military and civil aid to Ukraine, even though the country is on the brink of defeat.
Carney said:
We are actively seeking to strengthen transatlantic security, particularly by becoming a participant in ReArm Europe. This will help diversify our military suppliers with reliable European partners and integrate the Canadian defense industry as full participants in 150 billion euros of Europe's rearmament program.
To these ends, the Canada EU summit later this month will be more important than ever, and Canada will arrive at this summit with a plan to lead with new investments to build our strength in service of our values. This will include our support for new NATO defense industrial pledge, which will be negotiated at the NATO summit.
At a news conference on Monday, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre essentially gave Carney a blank check and promised his support to help the liberals achieve the military spending target.
“After a decade of liberal cuts, mismanagement, and back-office bureaucracy of boondoggles and wasted money on bungled projects, our military has never been weaker," said Poilievre.
"Now, more than ever, we need a strong military that will reassert our sovereignty in the north, take back control of our Arctic waters," Poilevre added, noting that he wanted to fight the increasingly woke policies that have infected Canada’s military and bring back the “warrior culture.”
But he stood shoulder to shoulder with Carney on spending. “We support getting back to the 2% target as soon as possible, and we will support additional money for our military,” Poilievre said, even as he promised to ferret out “waste in bureaucracy, consultants, foreign aid, corporate welfare, and other areas.”
Despite his tough talk, Poilievre admitted he had yet to see the Liberal government's budget for the increased spending.
In a monologue on "The View," host Joy Behar pondered the shared birthdays of President Donald Trump and the United States Army on Saturday.
Trump will turn 79 on June 14, the same day as the Army's 250th anniversary. Both will be celebrated in Washington, D.C., on Saturday with a grand military parade through the nation's capital.
Although most people understand that Trump had no control over the day he was born, making the shared birthdays remarkably serendipitous, Behar seemed to imply that the joint celebration was too convenient to be coincidental.
'He’s so tricky, planning his own birthday on the same date as the Army’s.'
"Tanks will be rolling through the nation's capital, along with 7,000 marching soldiers to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States Army," Behar said. "There will also be 'No Kings' demonstrations around the country to protest Trump. And it happens to be his 79th birthday. What a coincidence."
RELATED: Tim Walz grilled for comparing ICE agents to 'Nazi Gestapo'
Joy Behar finds it weird that Trump shares a birthday with the Army: “Tanks will be rolling through the nation's capital to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the US Army. And it happens to be his 79th birthday, what a coincidence!” pic.twitter.com/C9lQFb1TRh
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) June 13, 2025
Behar quickly became the subject of online scrutiny from politicos and pundits who poked fun at the absurdity of her remarks.
"That Trump," Vince Coglianese, host of "The Vince Show," joked on X. "He’s so tricky, planning his own birthday on the same date as the Army’s."
RELATED: Pete Hegseth defends deployment of troops in response to anti-ICE riots
The Army has arrived in Washington, DC for the parade this weekend celebrating their 250th Anniversary 🇺🇸🦅 pic.twitter.com/eywo4OCnlI
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) June 13, 2025
The hysteria didn't stop there. Behar and her co-hosts went on to criticize the military parade itself, comparing it to military displays from dictatorial countries and saying it "harkens World War II propaganda."
"When I think of military parades, I think of Russia. I think of North Korea," Sara Haines said. "I have these visuals of people saluting and doing things, and that's just not what I think of when I think of the U.S."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Our enemies fear the strategic edge Golden Dome would give us and are desperate to stop it before it starts.
Rioters came too prepared — some with preprinted signs, some with safety masks — to believe they arrived without organization.
www.theblaze.com