No Kings, Except for Progressive Ones: Hypocrisy in Anti-Trump Opposition
Source: https://www.facebook.com/americanspectator/. "No Kings, Except for Progressive Ones | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics." September 16, 2026. spectator.org
The Gist
The author argues that the 'No Kings' protest movement against Trump is hypocritical because progressives never complained this loudly when past Democratic presidents like Wilson and FDR used far more extreme executive powers. He claims the specific accusations against Trump are false, and that real kings don't get blocked by judges, Congress, and the media the way Trump does.
Conclusion
The 'No Kings' movement's characterization of Trump as a tyrannical king is false and hypocritical, since progressives have historically supported presidents who wielded far greater executive power without similar outrage.
Premises
- The specific claims made by the No Kings movement (masked agents terrorizing communities, targeting immigrant families, gutting healthcare/education, threatening elections, ignoring school shootings, enriching billionaires) are factually inaccurate or mischaracterized.
- Trump faces significant institutional constraints that real kings would not face, including hostile judges blocking his actions, Senate confirmation battles, opposition lawfare, and a biased media.
- Progressives historically celebrated presidents like Woodrow Wilson and FDR who took more authoritarian actions (shutting down newspapers, prosecuting political opponents, incarcerating ethnic groups) without comparable 'tyranny' accusations.
- The disparity in outrage reveals that 'No Kings' is not a principled stance against executive overreach but a partisan smear tactic used selectively based on political alignment.
- Most billionaires actually support Trump's political opponents, undermining the claim that Trump favors billionaires at the expense of ordinary people.
Assumptions
- The historical actions of Wilson and FDR cited are accurately characterized and comparable in severity to what would constitute 'kingly' behavior.
- The author's characterization of Trump's policies (e.g., on immigration, DEI, environmental regulation) as benign or beneficial is accurate.
- Federal agents' need for masks is solely due to protective necessity and not itself evidence of controversial or aggressive tactics.
- The presence of institutional pushback (courts, media, Senate) is sufficient evidence against authoritarian tendencies, rather than being consistent with a system checking a leader who is nonetheless pushing boundaries.
- Progressive support for past presidents was primarily ideological hero-worship rather than context-dependent evaluation of specific historical circumstances (e.g., wartime WWI/WWII powers).