M A Hossain,
When millions of Americans flood the streets chanting “No Kings,” it is not merely a protest — it is a civic sermon. On October 18–19, 2025, nearly seven million people gathered in more than 2,700 locations across the United States in a coordinated act of dissent against what they describe as President Donald Trump’s slide toward authoritarianism. From Times Square to the National Mall, the message was unmistakable: the republic’s founding idea — that no one man is above the law — remains alive, though sorely tested.
The “No Kings” movement, borrowing its name from the moral lexicon of the Revolution, is less about partisan anger than about constitutional anxiety. Its slogan — “No thrones. No crowns. No kings.” — invokes 1776 not as nostalgia, but as warning. What the participants fear is not tyranny in its classical sense — the knock on the door at midnight — but the subtler corrosion of institutions, the slow normalization of unchecked executive power, and the spectacle of populism eroding civic restraint.
The sheer scale of the protests — 7 million people, nearly 2 percent of the population — is itself an indictment of political complacency. It marks one of the largest mobilizations since Trump’s return to office, and one of the few moments in recent history when the language of liberty found mass expression outside the ballot box. The rallies were disciplined, largely peaceful, and meticulously organized. Civil-rights groups like the ACLU, Indivisible, MoveOn, and teachers’ unions provided logistical backbone and de-escalation training.
For all the carnival colors and creative signs — the inflatable frogs, the giant “We the People” banners, and the diapered Trump balloon — there was a serious constitutional heartbeat beneath the festivity. Participants cited concerns ranging from ICE’s masked detentions to federal overreach in Democratic-led states, the militarization of cities, cuts to healthcare, and the ongoing government shutdown caused by partisan paralysis.
This was not, as some critics claimed, a left-wing tantrum. It was a civic warning flare. The protesters’ contention is that the Trump administration’s approach to power — its disdain for oversight, its flirtations with martial imagery, its use of federal agents as domestic enforcers — represents not a temporary deviation but a pattern.
What made the “No Kings” protests remarkable was not only their breadth but their framing. Protesters did not gather around identity politics or isolated policy grievances; they rallied around the principle of constitutional balance. This shift matters. It suggests that America’s cultural left, long preoccupied with social justice and environmental causes, has rediscovered the language of classical liberalism: rule of law, separation of powers, and limits on executive authority.
One protester, a veteran from Virginia, captured the essence: “I fought for a republic, not a dynasty.” That sentiment bridges ideological divides. Indeed, what makes “No Kings” potent is its moral inclusiveness. It invites both progressives and conservatives — anyone who fears the cult of personality — to rally under a shared banner of institutional integrity.
And yet, it is telling that the most theatrical response came not from the streets, but from the Oval Office. President Trump mocked the movement with an AI-generated video of himself wearing a crown, piloting a fighter jet over the protesters — a characteristic blend of bravado and irony. His public statement — “I am not a king” — was meant to defuse the charge but only reinforced the perception that he relishes the comparison.
The administration’s reaction, and that of Republican allies, was predictable. Texas and Virginia deployed National Guard units; House Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed the demonstrations as “hate America rallies.” Trump’s defenders invoked law and order, framing the protests as a threat to civic peace. The political right, long attuned to street unrest as a symbol of chaos, seemed unwilling to acknowledge that this particular crowd — peaceful, disciplined, and multigenerational — embodied not disorder but democratic vitality.
To be sure, the movement’s critics raise a fair question: can protest alone restore faith in democracy? Street energy often dissipates when confronted with the slow grind of institutions. The Women’s March of 2017, the Black Lives Matter wave of 2020 — both moved hearts, yet translated unevenly into legislative change. The “No Kings” organizers know this. Their strategy appears twofold: to dramatize the erosion of norms and to sustain voter mobilization through the 2026 midterms.
The political implications of the protests are already visible. Democrats, sensing the power of the message, have folded “defending democracy” into campaign language. Figures like Chuck Schumer and Pete Aguilar have endorsed the movement’s spirit, linking its energy to efforts to expand voting rights and strengthen executive oversight. Yet Democrats also face a paradox: while “No Kings” animates their base, it may harden Republican loyalty around Trump, who thrives on confrontation.
For Republicans, the calculus is simpler but no less cynical. By framing the protests as radical, they consolidate the narrative of a besieged administration defending “real America” from urban elites. Polarization, after all, is Trumpism’s oxygen. Every march, every chant, becomes another proof to his supporters that the establishment — academia, media, the coastal intelligentsia — is conspiring against him.
The tragedy, then, is not that America is protesting too much, but that it is listening too little. “No Kings” is both a rebuke and a reflection of the country’s democratic anxiety. It reveals a public more willing to mobilize against authoritarian symbols than to reckon with the cultural and economic despair that fuels their appeal.
The real test for “No Kings” lies ahead. If it remains a moral spectacle without institutional follow-through, it risks fading into the long archive of righteous but futile protests. But if it becomes a disciplined political force — channeling outrage into civic participation, local organizing, and electoral turnout — it could shape the 2026 midterms and redefine the opposition’s strategy.
The stakes are high. America’s political system is not collapsing; it is corroding. Not through coups or tanks, but through cynicism, exhaustion, and the slow substitution of loyalty for law. Against this backdrop, the sight of millions marching peacefully for the preservation of constitutional norms is profoundly reassuring. It suggests that even amid the noise of populism, the civic immune system still functions.
Yet democracy’s survival depends on more than protest. It depends on citizens who translate passion into prudence, who recognize that saving institutions requires inhabiting them — through voting, advocacy, and reform. “No Kings” may be a slogan, but beneath it lies a proposition older than the republic itself: that liberty demands not only resistance to tyranny, but restraint in the exercise of power.
For one weekend in October, America remembered that truth. Whether it can sustain that memory — through elections, through legislatures, through civic renewal — will determine whether this movement becomes a footnote or a foundation. The genius of the American experiment was never in its leaders. It was in its refusal to crown them.
M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com
This article published at :
1. The Nation, Pak: 21 October, 25
No comments:
Post a Comment