Scott Konopasek, a decorated US veteran, has gone from defending his country to protesting the government, angered by deep budget cuts hurting former members of the military.Wearing a US Army cap, the former intelligence officer voiced frustration and outrage at the impact of the Donald Trump administration’s dramatic overhaul of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).”I’m just very disappointed in my country,” he told AFP at a recent demonstration in Washington for veterans’ rights.Having served in the US Army for 15 years, including being decorated for his service during the Gulf War, Konopasek is entitled to free health care through the VA.That has long been a coveted perk in a country where private insurance can be extremely expensive.But Konopasek said he cannot “get appointments anymore for my medical treatment.””The system has been broken,” he said, his voice cracking and tears welling in his eyes.The VA — the second largest US government agency after the Defense Department — not only ensures that veterans can access health care, but also free university education and pensions.In May, department head Douglas Collins announced a drastic restructuring of the institution, which employs some 500,000 people — 90 percent of them in the health sector.A leaked internal memo indicated 15 percent of VA staff would be let go, sparking outrage among former military members.- Privatization of care -Making matters worse, veterans were simultaneously being hit with cuts demanded by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), until recently run by Elon Musk.While they represent 6.1 percent of the US population, veterans constitute a quarter of federal employees, according to Jamie Rowen, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.Joe Plenzler, who served as a US Marine for two decades, insisted the veterans dismissed by DOGE were “patriotic Americans.””Many of them… are serving their country for a second time,” he said.”For them to be fired and then maligned on the way out the door… is an insult.”Another cause for concern, Rowen said, is that “Project 2025” — a blueprint for reshaping the government published by a conservative think tank two years ago in anticipation of a Trump win — called to “privatize healthcare at the VA.”But, “the quality of care by those private providers is not as good as the VA,” the professor stressed.This would be “bad for veterans. It’s more expensive, the wait times are longer and the quality of care is lower.”Ydelka Schrock, a 47-year-old veteran from Maryland who served until 2001, also criticized the shift.”I don’t think what they’re doing to the VA and to the veterans who have fought for our country is right,” she told AFP at the protest.”My husband is also a veteran, and he’s disabled” due to his service as a parachuter, she said, insisting his medical benefits “shouldn’t go away.”Schrock also fears that staff shortages could “make it harder for other veterans” to access the benefits they need.- ‘Losers and suckers’ -Trump’s repeated derogatory remarks about veterans also riled up some of the protesters.He at times clashed with military brass during his 2017-2021 first term, and in 2020 The Atlantic magazine reported he had referred to fallen troops as “losers” and “suckers” — something he denied.”These men and women serve honorably, and now they’re being abandoned… thrown under the bus,” said John Tyler, a 76-year-old veteran who served during the Vietnam war.The betrayal was particularly egregious coming from “a man who didn’t serve (in the military)… a coward,” he told AFP at the Washington protest.Tyler, an African American, and Schrock, who is Hispanic, both slammed the Trump administration’s treatment of minorities in the military and its general attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.”Less people are going to want to serve a government that is not standing for the people to begin with,” Schrock said.She said she would be protesting again Saturday, when Trump hosts a military parade in Washington to celebrate the US Army’s 250th anniversary, and his own 79th birthday.Schrock refused to lose hope. “We’re a rebellious country, a rebellious people,” she said with a smile.

A judge has ordered Donald Trump to return control of the California National Guard to the state, saying the president’s decision to deploy them to protest-hit Los Angeles over Governor Gavin Newsom’s objections was “illegal.””His actions were illegal … He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith,” US District Judge Charles Breyer wrote of the president in the ruling, seen by AFP.However, he paused the order until 12 pm local time (1900 GMT) Friday — and the White House almost immediately launched an appeal that could make it all the way to the Supreme Court.”Donald Trump will be relieved of his command at noon tomorrow,” Newsom said in televised comments after the ruling was issued.”He is not a monarch, he is not a king, and he should stop acting like one,” the 57-year-old Democrat said.Trump’s decision to federalize the National Guard — a reserve force — and deploy them in California over the objection of the state governor was one not taken by a US president since 1965.The Republican has argued he did so because protests in Los Angeles against immigration raids ordered by his administration had gotten out of control, and the city was “burning.”But Newsom and local law enforcement have stated repeatedly that there was no need for the deployment, and the protests have been mostly peaceful and contained to a few city blocks — albeit tarnished by some spectacular violence, including the torching of several cars.Critics have accused Trump — who also deployed 700 active Marines to the sprawling city — of exaggerating the crisis and exceeding his authority to conduct a power grab. Breyer’s 36-page opinion said the violence fell “far short” of the “rebellion” Trump described to justify calling in the guardsmen. There was “no evidence of organized, as apart from sporadic or impromptu, violence” during the protests, which first broke out in Los Angeles on Friday, he said.”Nor is there evidence that any of the violent protesters were attempting to overthrow the government as a whole; the evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue — the immigration raids.”Breyer also wrote that he was “troubled” by the implication that “protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.”There was no immediate reaction from the White House to the ruling.