Someone on Facebook posted this week, “Excuse me… but… the idiocy of the far left with their No King demonstrations… there could be no demonstrations if a King truly was in power… just saying’…”
One of his Facebook friends then chimed in, “It was fun to watch some of them get ran over who had zero common sense! 🤣🤣🤣 Thump thump as they get ran over. Stand in front of a moving vehicle because you don’t even have a high school education to understand death is coming lol”
Let’s set aside, for a moment, the mockery and cruelty in those comments and address the “far left” label. Contrary to the caricature, many protesters weren’t radicals. I was there, along with several center-right friends. Until recently, I had been a Republican for 50 years. But conservative values we once upheld—the rule of law and centrality of moral character have grown increasingly absent in today’s Republican Party. This is no time for silence from those who remember what conservatism once stood for.
That’s why the “No Kings” demonstrations matter. They aren’t fringe outbursts or partisan theater. For many, it is a broad, principled response by patriotic Americans from across the political spectrum who are deeply concerned about the erosion of democratic institutions and the rule of law. These protests are not rooted in rebellion, but in respect for the constitutional order—and in the belief that no leader is above the law.
To appreciate the seriousness of this moment, it’s worth revisiting the founding words of our nation. Many of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence—abuses of power, assaults on justice, and the undermining of representative government—were inspired by years of colonial protest, much of it nonviolent, against the overreach of King George III. What follows is a side-by-side comparison of those original complaints and the troublingly similar patterns that many like me see emerging in our time.
1. Stripping Away Constitutional Rights and Legal Protections
Declaration Grievance: “For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury…”
Trump’s administration has taken numerous actions that violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, most notably due process, habeas corpus, and the right to a fair trial. This is a big deal – it strikes at the core of constitutional liberty and alone provides ample justification for the “No Kings” protests. It has been on this issue that the courts have repeatedly pushed back, issuing some of their strongest rebukes.
- Systematically ignored the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus (Article I, Section 9), especially in immigration and protester detentions.
- Repeatedly violated the Constitution’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments by detaining individuals, including immigrants and student visa holders, without due process, formal charges, or timely access to legal proceedings. And then deporting individuals without meaningful judicial review.
- To “justify” his actions, Trump invoked sweeping emergency powers, including the Alien Enemies Act, applying them to unexceptional events, without producing evidence of any legitimate emergency, thereby expanding executive authority beyond its constitutional limits.
2. Centralizing Power and Bypassing Congressional Authority
Declaration Grievance: “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”
Just as the King dismissed the authority of colonial legislatures, Trump has repeatedly challenged laws passed by Congress through the novel creation of new executive authority, particularly those related to federal spending.
- Systematically challenged Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution by unilaterally canceling or defunding programs without legislative approval, bypassing Congress’s constitutional role.
- Systematically challenged the Impoundment Control Act and Antideficiency Act by withholding or redirecting appropriated funds without congressional authorization.
- Challenged Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution by imposing tariffs and negotiating trade actions without proper legislative consent, usurping Congress’s constitutional role in trade policy.
3. Undermining Judicial Authority
Declaration Grievance: “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice…”
Like King George III, Trump has worked to undermine the rule of law and judicial independence whenever rulings conflict with his agenda. These actions strike at the heart of one of the three pillars of American democracy: judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison (1803). This landmark case affirmed that it is the role of the courts—not the executive—to interpret the law. Undermining the authority and independence of the judiciary threatens the constitutional balance of powers on which our republic rests.
- Challenged the democratic pillar of judicial review, asserting that no judge “should be allowed” to rule against the changes his administration is making and that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”
- Refused to comply with multiple federal court rulings, particularly regarding immigration enforcement and executive overreach.
- Publicly attacked judges, calling them “enemies of the people” or “biased,” especially when they ruled against him.
- Fired Inspectors General and oversight officials to obstruct accountability and suppress investigations.
4. Challenging State Authority Over Elections
Declaration Grievance: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.”
Trump’s attempt to centralize election control echoes the King’s suppression of local representation and autonomy.
- Launched an effort to challenge Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution by creating a federal “Election Oversight Commission” with powers to intervene in state-run elections.
- Pressured states to adopt federally dictated standards for voter ID, ballot access, and vote counting.
- Threatened to withhold funding and launched DOJ investigations against states that refused to comply with these unconstitutional directives.
4. Using Power to Punish Critics
Declaration Grievance: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices… to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
Just as the King used bureaucratic machinery to suppress dissent, Trump has weaponized government institutions against political rivals, critics, and the press.
- Launched investigations and enacted Executive Orders against political opponents and former DOJ officials tied to his prior prosecutions. Courts have quickly and summarily ruled against those EOs.
- Targeted whistleblowers, protest organizers, and journalists, using federal scrutiny and intimidation.
- Retaliated against opposing law firms by encouraging regulatory pressure and financial probes.
- Punished media outlets like the Associated Press for independent reporting, including efforts to revoke access or apply regulatory threats.
5. Elevating Personal Loyalty Over Constitutional Duty
Declaration Grievance: “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone…”
In the spirit of monarchs who demanded loyalty above law, Trump has replaced fidelity to the Constitution with personal allegiance.
- Demanded loyalty to him rather than to their oaths for cabinet members, DOJ officials, and military leaders.
- Labeled critics—including judges, generals, and journalists—as traitors or enemies.
6. Profiting from Public Office
Declaration Grievance: “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”
The Emoluments Clauses were included to address the historical abuses of power and personal enrichment by British monarchs through patronage and favoritism, ensuring that public officials, particularly the President, would be loyal only to the American people and not swayed by financial incentives. In direct defiance of this principle, Trump has repeatedly blurred the line between public service and private gain, turning the presidency into a platform for personal profit.
- Promoted government patronage of Trump-branded properties and foreign officials’ spending at his establishments. This likely violates the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses (Article I, Sec. 9; Article II, Sec. 1), although these actions have yet to be tested in court.
- Removed or weakened internal ethics rules and financial oversight mechanisms to avoid accountability, including lifting restrictions meant to prevent self-dealing and conflicts of interest.
- Promoted Trump-branded ventures—including real estate projects and even a Trump-themed cryptocurrency—while in office, leveraging presidential influence to expand personal wealth and global branding opportunities.
But…
Whatabout “fill in the blank?” Unfortunately, the divisive virus of whataboutism runs rampant across the political landscape today, leading to unquestioning tribal justification through moral evasion and a refusal to accept accountability. It’s not worth responding to.
“This must be fake news—I’ve never heard any of this.” In a fragmented media landscape, many live in tightly sealed information silos that offer constant reinforcement of their existing views. Others, shaped by a populist distrust of institutions, dismiss anything reported by mainstream outlets as inherently suspect.
Here’s a potential solution. Follow the court rulings, as the courts are one of the last independent institutions in our country. Even better, read the rulings yourself, as public assertions often get stripped away under judicial scrutiny. As of mid-June, while the Trump administration has won some cases, the majority of rulings have not gone in its favor.
You’re making a mountain out of a molehill: many of these are criminals and non-citizens, hence it’s not that big of a deal to suspend their constitutionally protected liberties. For those living in such a us-versus-them world, it may seem that way until a friend, employee, or family member is impacted. I’m reminded of prominent German pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous quote, “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist…Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
You’ve mischaracterized his actions, as Trump is merely testing the boundaries in a legitimate effort to reshape the country. On the face of it, that might sound reasonable. Leaders often push the limits of their authority to advance change. However, what sets this apart is the rhetoric of dominance, the marshalling of governmental power to punish critics and personal adversaries, a currently selective but deepening disregard for the rule of law, the inventing of executive authority to justify such actions, and the sustained pattern of undermining constitutional checks and balances. A true reformer works within the framework of the system. Trump repeatedly signals that he intends to bend or even break that system to serve personal or political aims.
Here’s an example. When someone explained what the Fifth Amendment said, Trump chafed at its requirements, saying, “I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials.” “We have thousands of people that are — some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.” “I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it.”
Final Thoughts
Throughout history, kings have ruled by silencing dissent, punishing critics, demanding personal loyalty over law, and using public office for personal gain. Our founders rejected that model. Today, the same temptations return in modern form—through executive overreach, attacks on the judiciary and political opponents, the erosion of the rule of law – especially due process and habeas corpus, the use of government for personal gain, and a growing contempt for oversight and accountability.
Maybe I’m wrong – and you’re welcome to tell me so – but in my centrist, conservative judgment, “No Kings” isn’t a leftist slogan, and it isn’t an overreaction. It is a patriotic response to an emerging pattern of authoritarian behavior wrapped in partisan rhetoric.
No Kings!