A growing coalition of veterans is stepping up to challenge President Donald Trump’s administration and the United States’ involvement in the escalating Iran War. This movement, which has gained momentum since Trump began his second term, highlights the veterans’ belief that their duty is no longer to fight but to resist.

In a remarkable display of dissent, Michael McPhearson, a 62-year-old Gulf War veteran, decided to march on Independence Day despite the cancellation of Philadelphia’s official parade due to oppressive heat. Joined by fellow veterans, McPhearson’s purpose was not to celebrate but to emphasize the disconnect between America’s foundational ideals and the current political climate.

Unfurling a banner that boldly proclaimed “Veterans Against Fascism,” the group used the occasion to draw attention to their stance against what they see as authoritarian practices under Trump’s leadership.

Since the Fourth of July, the momentum of this veterans’ resistance movement has surged. According to Marcus Green from Mother Jones, many veterans feel compelled to act against the status quo, indicating a shift in their perception of duty towards the nation.

McPhearson leads Veterans For Peace (VFP), a St. Louis-based nonprofit founded in 1985, focused on revealing the harsh realities of war. VFP has evolved into an international network with over 140 chapters, experiencing rapid growth since Trump’s re-election in early 2025.

Since Trump’s return to office, McPhearson estimates that roughly 1,000 of VFP’s 3,500 active members have joined the organization, spurred by their concerns over the repetitive cycle of war. He asserts, “We can’t go back to the way it was,” highlighting a shared sentiment among veterans against the perpetual military engagements.

Active-duty troops are also aligning themselves with various support groups to combat Trump’s policies, particularly his aggressive stance on immigration. Lenore Yarger, who has spent 25 years advising service members through the GI Rights Hotline, noted a significant spike in calls after Trump announced the deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

This uptick in inquiries reflects a broader unease within the military concerning the legality of current actions. Many service members are questioning whether the orders they receive can be justified under international and domestic laws.

“We can’t promise them that they won’t be accused of doing something illegal if they follow military orders,” Yarger cautioned. “It’s a really hard time to be in the military right now.”

The ongoing Iran War and Trump’s controversial immigration policies are significant factors driving many voters toward Democratic candidates in the recent 2026 midterm elections. Reports estimate that the war has cost about $47 billion, with both U.S. and Israeli strikes resulting in over 3,500 fatalities in Iran, including numerous civilians.

Casualty figures among U.S. service members continue to rise, with the Pentagon disclosing that 21 personnel have died and 865 have been injured—a number that has seen numerous upward revisions without public notification.

For McPhearson, who comes from a family with a long military history, the impact of Trump’s decisions resonates profoundly. After leaving active duty as a captain in 1992, he watched his son serve in Iraq, an experience he describes as “some of the worst times in my life.”

“We’re talking about 36 years of the U.S. being constantly at war in the Middle East,” he observed. “We’re constantly killing people.”

The commitment of veterans to speak out against these prolonged conflicts underscores their belief in a new form of duty: one that emphasizes peace and accountability rather than endless warfare. As this movement continues to grow, its leaders hope to inspire a reassessment of America’s role in global conflicts.

With a steadily increasing network of veterans and active military personnel taking a stand, the implications of their actions and voices may well resonate beyond political circles, influencing public opinion on the U.S.’s military engagements and policies.

As the discussion surrounding America’s involvement in foreign conflicts intensifies, activists like McPhearson aim to leverage their experiences to advocate for a more peaceful approach, challenging not only the administration but also encouraging a national conversation on the costs and consequences of war.

This ongoing wave of veteran activism might just be the catalyst needed for a shift in American military policy moving forward, pushing the narrative toward a more constructive and defensive stance rather than an offensive one.