‘No Kings’ Isn’t Protecting Democracy, But Suppressing It

This weekend, a reported 2,500 “No Kings” events are scheduled to occur across all 50 states in what is expected to be a much larger follow up to the “No Kings” protests that occurred back in April and June of this year.

Organizers describe their movement as a necessary defense against President Donald Trump’s supposed assault on America’s democratic foundations, believing that Trump’s actions are akin to a tyrannical ruler’s rather than the legitimate actions of a democratically elected president.

Activists are expecting the largest single day of protest in modern American history, citing increased organic opposition to the Trump administration’s attempts at enforcing immigration law, the attempted deployment of National Guard troops to Democratic-led cities, and even the recent government shutdown, which are all being cast as examples of authoritarianism.

But a closer look at the “partners” page of the No Kings website contradicts the “grassroots” categorization of these “anti-authoritarian” protests.

Far from a spontaneous uprising of concerned citizens, the “No Kings” movement is powered by a familiar network of progressive organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign, MoveOn, Public Citizen, the American Federation of Teachers, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and Greenpeace, among others.

Behind them stand the same constellation of progressive megadonors that have driven the “resistance” since 2016. One major No Kings partner, Indivisible, for instance, has received more than $7.6 million from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations since 2018.

Defending the Democratic Party

Seen in this light, “No Kings” isn’t a defense of democracy at all. Instead, it’s a defense of the entrenched power of the Democratic Party.

As such, when progressives say they are “protecting democratic norms” they are in reality protecting their dominance within the unelected government bureaucracy, the mainstream media ecosystem, academia, and other institutions that operate beyond the reach of American voters, all of which Trump is seeking to either reform or dismantle.

This inversion of democratic meaning has been building for decades. From the administrative explosion of the New Deal under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to the rise of the modern regulatory state, liberals, on both the left and right, have long viewed the unelected bureaucracy as a safeguard against the kind of populist backlash represented by the MAGA/America First movement.

Within that liberal worldview, elections are sacred only when they affirm the technocratic and managerial consensus. When they don’t, the institutions and those aligned with the ruling regime must step in to stifle any potential changes to the system.

This vision of politics as careful management has gradually reshaped our constitutional order.

Elections now merely swap figureheads atop a vast administrative machine rather than install leaders capable of altering the steady leftward course of American domestic and foreign policy.

This is why former President Joe Biden, who clearly suffered from severe cognitive decline during his term, did not impede the functioning or direction of government, demonstrating that the system, under Democratic leadership, largely functions without the direct involvement or even need for a chief executive.

This can be attributed to the fact that most federal employees politically align with the views of the Democratic Party, as evidenced by 84 percent of all political donations from federal employees going to Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris in 2024.

On the other hand, President Trump, who holds a popular mandate, must contend with a network of adversarial agencies, courts, and bureaucrats who continually attempt to stifle his agenda, all without being accountable to the electorate.

Unelected Judges Undermine President

Despite histrionics from Democrats about Trump’s use of tyrannical unchecked power, his presidency has been characterized not by presidential overreach, but by unelected judges’ deliberate and relentless undermining of his legitimate executive authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Take for example the Trump administration’s attempt at reducing the federal workforce during the government shutdown.

Normally, when Congress doesn’t pass appropriations bills to keep the government running, federal employees are temporarily furloughed. Once funding is restored, they typically receive their jobs back, along with any missed back pay.

However, as the head of the executive branch, President Trump is attempting to use the shutdown to permanently reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought contends that the lapse in funding for discretionary programs eliminates the statutory requirement for their execution. Consequently, staff assigned to these programs can be dismissed at the executive branch’s discretion.

Predictably, another U.S. district judge has stepped in to stifle the president, with Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco granting a temporary restraining order blocking the job cuts.

While Judge Illston is convinced the evidence will show that the cuts were illegal and in excess of Trump’s authority, she also offered her personal belief that the job cuts aren’t well thought-out, stating “it’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs, and it has a human cost. It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated.”

As if the “human cost” of cutting jobs has any bearing on whether Trump has the authority as chief executive to shrink the federal workforce.

In response to the never-ending subversion of presidential power, and those who feel these repeated legal challenges to Trump’s agenda are part of America’s vaunted “checks and balances,” Harvard professor of constitutional law, Adrian Vermeule, wrote the following:

If your reaction to [repeated legal challenges] is that “the process is working,” you’re missing the point. Any one of almost 700 district judges might intervene at any time to block anything the President does, even within the core of his Article II powers. The overhang of uncertainty and confusion about where power lies in our government is toxic in itself.

Professor Vermeule’s warning cuts to the heart of America’s current constitutional crisis. A republic cannot function when unelected judges, bureaucrats, and agencies wield unaccountable veto power over a duly elected president.

The “No Kings” movement is not a defense of democracy, but rather its subversion. Those who support it are buttressing a system in which electoral outcomes are tolerated only if they serve the interests of the permanent unelected ruling class.

Trump is no king, but his very existence threatens those who have assumed the throne of American power.

Adam Johnston is a contributor to The Federalist whose work has been featured in The Blaze, WrongSpeak Publishing, and Man’s World Magazine. He is also the creator of conquesttheory.com, where he regularly writes about politics, history, philosophy, and technology. You can find him on X @ConquestTheory.