Special for followers of codigopostalrd.net
The “No Kings” protests represent a national movement in the United States against President Donald Trump’s policies, framed by opposition to perceived authoritarianism, corruption, and abuses of power.
The “No Kings” slogan stems from criticism of a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, which portrays Trump as aspiring to unrestricted, almost monarchical authority.
These protests have occurred in waves, with significant events in June 2025 and a significant escalation on October 18, 2025, coinciding with the date of the referendum.
Organized by coalitions such as the ACLU, environmental groups such as the League of Conservation Voters, and pro-democracy activists, the demonstrations emphasize peaceful resistance, democratic principles such as freedom of expression and due process, and rejection of Trump’s strategies on immigration, human rights, and governance.
The October 18 events spanned between 2,500 and 2,700 locations across all 50 states, from major cities like New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, and San Diego to smaller towns in Republican states like Tennessee, Texas, and even rural Ohio.
Organizers reported participation estimates ranging from thousands locally (e.g., 4,000 in Miami) to 7 million nationally, although independent verification varies.
The protests in early June drew similar crowds, estimated at 8.6 million nationally and 11 million globally, setting a precedent for magnitude.
The protests reached historic turnout, surpassing, according to some estimates, the participation of previous anti-Trump movements, such as the 2017 Women’s March.
They penetrated deep into conservative areas, including Trump strongholds like Sun City, Arizona, and Oxford, Ohio, where even farmers and senior citizens joined.
This wide geographic spread highlighted discontent beyond liberal urban enclaves, with events in Republican states like Tennessee drawing thousands of people to oppose policies like immigration enforcement and abuses of power.
Media coverage was extensive, with outlets such as the BBC, NBC, The Guardian, Reuters, and AP portraying it as a large-scale resistance initiative, amplifying the messages of “no thrones, no crowns, no kings.”
High-profile speakers, such as Senator Bernie Sanders (who criticized Trump alongside billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg) and Bill Nye, boosted morale and drew cheers for their calls to “tolerate no kings.” Political and social pressure.
The events overshadowed Trump’s activities, making him appear diminished, similar to how the June protests overshadowed his birthday parade.
They signaled to politicians that opposing Trump is viable, encouraging safer public criticism and potentially influencing congressional actions such as restoring the system of checks and balances or reopening government functions.
The protests also normalized resistance against the perception of dictatorship, with creative elements such as the unicorn costumes in Wisconsin adding cultural resonance.
Organizers framed it as building sustained opposition, with calls for future events to maintain momentum.
While primarily centered in the United States, the June wave spread to Europe, Asia, and Africa, suggesting global solidarity against Trump’s policies. This could increase U.S. diplomatic scrutiny.
Most of the demonstrations remained peaceful, emphasizing “peaceful resistance,” but some reports anticipated clashes with ICE or the military, especially in California.
In June, Texas evacuated its state capitol due to a “credible threat,” signaling a possible escalation. Trump allies labeled the protesters “far-left Antifa” or radicals “who hate America,” potentially fueling polarization and justifying repression.
Conservative voices dismissed the events as failures or Soros-funded, while critics accused participants of hypocrisy or evading accountability.
The Trump administration faced internal “meltdowns,” with protests highlighting the unpopularity of policies such as deportations.
This could lead to increased security measures or retaliatory policies, but it also risks alienating moderates.
Some pro-Trump narratives claimed low turnout or paid participants, which undermined the movement’s legitimacy.
The protests have revitalized pro-democracy groups, and organizers are planning new protests to keep up the pressure. They could influence the midterm elections or political debates, although conservative analysts argue that, in contrast, they boosted the popularity of Trump’s deportation campaign.
The “No Kings” protests underscore the deep divisions in American society, revealing a staunch opposition to Trump’s leadership, perceived as a threat to democracy.
While they have achieved significant visibility and mobilization, their ultimate success depends on translating this energy into political change, such as increased voter turnout or legislative resistance.
Critics consider them ineffective or divisive, but supporters see them as a vital stance against authoritarianism, which could mark the beginning of a broader resistance similar to historical movements.
If sustained, they could pressure institutions to act; otherwise, they risk being dismissed as fleeting outbursts.
Overall, they assert that public dissent remains a powerful tool, even in times of polarization, with no clear resolution yet to its lasting legacy
