There is a certain baroque absurdity to the modern Marxist American left that would be amusing were it not so relentlessly destructive. On March 28, 2026, that absurdity reached a kind of apotheosis in the nationwide “No Kings” protests, a sprawling, meticulously orchestrated display of indignation staged in thousands of cities, towns, and carefully curated public spaces across the United States. The organizers hailed it as one of the largest protest movements in American history. One can almost hear the champagne corks popping in donor salons from Manhattan to Malibu.
Beneath the pageantry, the placards, and the performative moralism lies a far simpler truth. These protests were not about kings. They were about losing.
The slogan “No Kings” is, on its face, almost laughably anachronistic. America fought a Revolution to rid itself of being under the reign of the British monarchy nearly 250 years ago. We do not have kings, we have elections. We have a Constitution. We have separation of powers. And in November of 2024, the American people elected Donald J. Trump to serve as President of the United States. That is the fact these protesters cannot abide.
Senator Bernie Sanders stood before a crowd and declared, “We will not accept an authoritarian society where one man has all the power.” One man has all the power? It is a statement so extravagantly detached from reality that it borders on parody. Has Senator Sanders misplaced Congress? Has he misplaced the Supreme Court? Or is this simply the kind of rhetorical inflation that passes for analysis in modern progressive circles?
Then there was Jane Fonda, who solemnly intoned that Americans must “stand up against tyranny.” Tyranny. The word is delivered with such theatrical gravity that one might expect tanks rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue any minute. Instead, what we have are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and all the other law enforcement agencies working alongside ICE, policy disputes, and a president carrying out the agenda on which he campaigned. If this is tyranny, then the word has lost all meaning, stretched so thin it has become a linguistic caricature.
Let us speak plainly about one of the central issues driving these protests: immigration enforcement. The men and women of ICE are not rogue actors. They are highly trained and capable federal law enforcement officers executing lawful orders under the authority of the executive branch. They are implementing the policies of a president elected by the American people. This is not oppression. This is governance.
And yet, in cities like Los Angeles, protesters did not merely chant slogans. They confronted federal facilities. Reports indicate that objects including cement bricks were thrown at officers, barriers were challenged, and law enforcement was forced to respond with crowd control measures. This is not civil discourse. This is a riot.
In Dallas, confrontations between protesters and counter protesters resulted in arrests. In Portland, clashes near an ICE facility led to further detentions. In Memphis and Denver, demonstrations that began peacefully devolved into confrontations with police. The pattern is familiar. The left organizes under the banner of “peaceful protest,” and while many participants may indeed remain peaceful, the edges inevitably fray into disorder.
Meanwhile, voices grounded in reality emphasized the obvious: Law enforcement officials reiterated that their duty is to maintain order and enforce the law. Federal authorities made clear that assaults on officers will not be tolerated. This is not authoritarianism. This is the basic functioning of a lawful society. Law and order is not an abstraction. It is the condition precedent for liberty itself. Without it, rights are reduced to aspirations and society becomes a contest of who can shout the loudest or throw the hardest object. When federal agents are attacked for executing lawful duties, the issue is no longer political disagreement. It is the erosion of civil order.
The left, however, has mastered the art of inversion. Enforcement becomes cruelty. Sovereignty becomes xenophobia. Victory becomes illegitimacy. It is a hall of mirrors in which every principle is reversed and every outcome predetermined.
And then there are the issues of organization and funding. The “No Kings” protests were not spontaneous eruptions of grassroots sentiment. They were coordinated by a vast network of activist organizations, labor unions, and political nonprofits. Groups such as Indivisible played a central role, alongside a coalition of hundreds of aligned entities. These organizations possess significant financial resources, donor networks, and logistical capabilities. They provide training, messaging, communications infrastructure, and strategic direction. This is not a ragtag collection of concerned citizens. It is a professionalized political apparatus.
To be precise, there is no credible evidence that every individual protester was literally paid to attend. But to pretend this movement is purely organic is to ignore the obvious. It is cultivated, financed, and amplified by robustly funded institutions with clear political objectives. The imagery may appear homespun. The machinery behind it is anything but.The average participant may believe they are part of a noble uprising. In reality, they are often participants in a carefully staged production, one that transforms political disagreement into moral spectacle and electoral defeat into existential crisis.
Now what is the ultimate aim of this spectacle? It is not merely to oppose specific policies. It is to delegitimize the presidency when it is held by Donald Trump. By invoking the language of monarchy, the movement seeks to recast a constitutional executive as a tyrant, thereby justifying perpetual resistance.
But here is the inescapable reality: Donald Trump is not a king. He is a president. He was elected. He has a mandate. And he is carrying it out. The American system does not guarantee that you will like the outcome of every election. It guarantees that the outcome will be determined by the people. The “No Kings” protesters claim to defend that principle while simultaneously rejecting its result. This is not a defense of democracy. It is a repudiation of it.
So let them march. Let them chant. Let them indulge in their grandiloquent fantasies of resistance. The Constitution remains. The law remains. And the will of the American people remains.
No kings, they say? Quite right. We have something far more powerful. We have a president who won.
