Washington, D.C. – June 14, 2025 – As President Donald Trump presided over a grand military parade in the nation’s capital on Saturday, millions of Americans across the country participated in what organizers called the largest coordinated protests against the president since the start of his second administration. These demonstrations, dubbed “No Kings” protests, directly challenged the administration’s actions and rhetoric, presenting a striking counter-narrative to the display of military power.
The President’s parade, intended to showcase America’s military prowess in an era redefined by the administration’s “anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion policies,” was designed as a spectacle of strength. However, the nationwide “No Kings” protests aimed to overshadow it in scale and impact. More than 2,000 separate demonstrations were planned for major cities and small towns alike, signaling a broad-based “Resistance 2.0” movement.
A New Wave of Resistance
“These are not normal times in America. This is not a normal presidency,” stated Representative Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.) to thousands of demonstrators gathered in Chicago, encapsulating the sentiment driving the protests. The “No Kings” demonstrations were meticulously organized by a wide array of progressive organizations, including prominent groups such as the ACLU, Indivisible, and the Service Employees International Union. Their collective goal was to underscore Americans’ deep-seated resistance to the Trump administration’s policies and perceived overreach.
Deirdre Schifeling, the ACLU’s chief political and advocacy officer, elaborated on the movement’s core principles earlier in the week. “No Kings is really about standing up for democracy, standing up for people’s rights and liberties in this country and against the gross abuse of power that we’ve seen consistently from the Trump administration,” Schifeling explained. This statement highlights the protests’ focus on fundamental democratic tenets and concerns about executive authority.
Heightened Tensions and Catalyst for Protests
The juxtaposition of a celebratory military parade and widespread anti-Trump protests occurred amidst a period of exceptionally heightened political tensions across the United States. The past week alone saw several flashpoints that fueled public discontent and galvanized the protest movement:
- Federal Intervention in Los Angeles: The Trump administration controversially deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to address protests and unrest related to the president’s extensive deportation agenda. This action was taken despite objections from California state and local officials, further escalating tensions between federal and state authorities.
- Assault on Senator Padilla: Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was reportedly manhandled and briefly handcuffed at a press conference for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, an incident that drew sharp condemnation and highlighted the intense political climate.
- Minnesota Assassination: In a tragic turn, two Minnesota state lawmakers were shot, and one was killed, early Saturday in what Minnesota Governor Tim Walz described as a “politically motivated assassination.” This incident cast a somber shadow over the planned demonstrations, raising concerns about safety and security at public gatherings.
“Backfired Spectacularly”: The Response to Crackdowns
Despite the escalating risks, the “No Kings” protests gained momentum, particularly in response to the Trump administration’s crackdowns on immigration-related demonstrations in California. Organizers reported that over 100 of the protests were spontaneously planned by volunteers in the week leading up to Saturday, directly spurred by the administration’s actions.
“The Trump administration’s goal was to scare people, to make them afraid to stand up for their rights and afraid to protest and stand up for their immigrant neighbors. And it’s backfired spectacularly,” stated ACLU’s Deirdre Schifeling. This sentiment suggests that the administration’s attempts to suppress dissent may have inadvertently fueled a stronger, more widespread response.
However, the tragedy in Minnesota undeniably weighed heavily on the events. A spokesperson for a prominent battleground Democratic Senate candidate, speaking anonymously to discuss security measures, confirmed that extra precautions were being implemented in light of the attack. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz even recommended that individuals in the state avoid political rallies, writing on social media, “Out of an abundance of caution my Department of Public Safety is recommending that people do not attend any political rallies today in Minnesota until the suspect is apprehended.”
Despite these warnings, organizers in other parts of the country affirmed their commitment to proceeding with the demonstrations. Diane Morgan, a Cleveland-based mobilization coordinator with Our Revolution, noted that the Minnesota shooting, much like the events in Los Angeles, instilled “more determination” in people to participate in the protests.
Local Responses and Symbolic Messaging
Local officials in targeted cities urged calm and emphasized peaceful demonstration. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass specifically called for Angelenos to remain peaceful, urging them not to “give the administration an excuse to intervene.” She added, “Let’s make sure we show the world the best of Los Angeles. Let’s stand in contrast to the provocation, escalation and violence.” Tens of thousands of demonstrators gathered in downtown Los Angeles, and the city’s 8 p.m. downtown curfew remained in place for the night.
The “No Kings” messaging resonated strongly, often incorporating local contexts and other social movements. In Boston, anti-Trump demonstrators merged with the city’s annual Pride parade, marching from Copley Square to Boston Common. Protesters carried creative signs, such as “No Kings, but yaaas queen!” and “The only minorities destroying this country are billionaires.” Chants of “Hey hey, ho ho, Donald Trump has got to go,” intermingled with popular song renditions, showcasing the intersectionality of the movement.
Democratic governors, including North Carolina’s Josh Stein, Maryland’s Wes Moore, and Arizona’s Katie Hobbs, issued statements affirming the sacred right to peaceful protest while urging demonstrators to remain lawful. “The right to peacefully protest is sacred and enshrined in our First Amendment, and I will always work to protect that right,” Stein stated, encapsulating the careful balance between supporting free speech and ensuring public order.
Strategic Avoidance of Washington D.C.
Notably, none of the “No Kings” demonstrations were slated to take place in Washington, D.C., itself. This was a deliberate strategic decision by organizers. Ezra Levin, co-founder and co-executive director of Indivisible, explained the rationale: “Rather than give him the excuse to crack down on peaceful counterprotests in downtown D.C., or give him the narrative device to claim that we’re protesting the military, we said, okay, you can have downtown D.C. Instead, we should organize it everywhere else.” This approach aimed to deny the administration a direct confrontation in the capital and to spread the message of dissent broadly across the country.
The Military Parade and Presidential Response
The military parade itself, marking the Army’s 250th anniversary and coinciding with Trump’s 79th birthday, featured over 6,000 marching soldiers, battle tanks, other military vehicles, and accompanying military aircraft. Army estimates placed the cost of the festivities between $25 million and $45 million, an expense that polls indicated was not supported by the majority of Americans, with 60 percent deeming it an inappropriate use of government funds.
Despite the “No Kings” protests directly challenging his authority, President Trump maintained that he does not view himself as a monarch. “No, no. We’re not a king,” Trump stated at the White House on Thursday. “We’re not a king at all, thank you very much.”
However, this assertion was met with skepticism from protest organizers. Deirdre Schifeling of the ACLU found Trump’s objections “laughable.” She argued, “This is a person who violates the law at every turn, and is doing everything in his power to intimidate and crush — using the vast power of the presidency and also power that he doesn’t even have — to crush anybody that he perceives as disagreeing with him or as his enemies. Those are the actions of a king.” This perspective underscores the deep ideological chasm between the administration and its critics, with the “No Kings” protests serving as a potent symbol of that ongoing struggle for power and democratic principles.
