No Kings Protests: Millions March, But Can Democrats Govern?
Millions Marched Against Trump’s “Monarchy”—But Democratic Opposition Remains Adrift
There is something simultaneously heartening and troubling about watching millions of Americans take to the streets to protest presidential overreach, only to return home to a political opposition so enfeebled that its approval ratings have hit historic lows and its strategic direction remains unclear.
This weekend’s “No Kings” demonstrations drew what organizers claim may be the largest single-day protest in American history—an impressive mobilization across hundreds of cities from New York to Los Angeles, Washington to Chicago, plus countless smaller towns where residents felt compelled to make their voices heard.
The marches were peaceful, family-friendly, and utterly ignored by a White House whose deputy press secretary responded to media inquiries with two words: “Who cares.” Donald Trump, meanwhile, spent his weekend sharing AI-generated videos showing himself wearing a crown and, in one particularly charming touch, flying a jet that appeared to dump human waste on the protesters below.
One might charitably interpret this as presidential confidence. A less generous reading would call it contempt.
The Scale of Saturday’s Protests: Carnival, Not Carnage
Congressional Republicans had warned the demonstrations would be “anti-American” and potentially violent. Some conservative governors placed law enforcement and National Guard units on alert, presumably preparing for the sort of mayhem that Republican rhetoric suggested was inevitable.
What actually transpired was rather different. Families with young children in Washington DC. Zero arrests in New York City despite massive crowds. Festival atmospheres in Chicago and Los Angeles. The predicted violence materialized nowhere—disappointing, one suspects, those who’d prepared for street battles.
Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut delivered the sort of soaring rhetoric that American politicians excel at producing: “Today all across America in numbers that may eclipse any day of protest in our nation’s history, Americans are saying loudly and proudly that we are a free people, we are not a people that can be ruled, our government is not for sale.”
Stirring words. The question, as always, is what comes next.
Why They Marched: A Comprehensive List of Grievances
The protesters’ complaints were wide-ranging: aggressive immigration enforcement that has separated families and terrorized communities; tariff policies raising consumer prices; deep federal budget cuts affecting essential services; controversial foreign policy decisions; National Guard deployments in American cities; and Trump’s systematic expansion of presidential authority beyond traditional norms.
Each protester had particular concerns, but all united around opposition to Trump. This breadth is both a strength—demonstrating widespread dissatisfaction—and a weakness, as movements defined primarily by what they oppose often struggle when forced to articulate what they support.
Notably, some anger targeted Democratic leadership itself. One Washington DC participant told NBC that Democrats are “just taking it on the chin, and we’re not speaking out,” adding: “I think we need to throw some more elbows. Unfortunately, the high road doesn’t work.”
This sentiment reflects frustration with a party that has spent years counseling restraint, bipartisanship and following norms—only to watch Republicans abandon all three whilst Democrats continue preaching civility. The protester’s assessment that “the high road doesn’t work” represents a blunt verdict on Obama-era strategies.
The Government Shutdown Strategy: Playing With Fire
Democrats have adopted more combative tactics regarding the government shutdown now entering its fourth week. They’re refusing to approve short-term federal spending without bipartisan agreement on health insurance subsidies for low-income Americans—using Senate parliamentary rules that give minorities blocking power on certain legislation.
Thus far, public polling suggests Americans blame Trump and Republicans at least as much as Democrats for the impasse. This emboldens Democratic senators to maintain their position, betting that Republicans will blink first.
But this strategy resembles playing chicken with a driver who may not care about the consequences. The shutdown’s pain increases daily, and it disproportionately affects Democratic constituencies.
The Growing Pain: Who Actually Suffers
Federal workers—many of whom live in Democratic areas and vote Democratic—have missed paychecks and face mounting financial hardship. Low-income Americans depend on food support programs whose funding is expiring. The judicial system is scaling back operations, affecting access to justice. And Trump is using the shutdown as cover for additional workforce cuts and spending suspensions, specifically targeting Democratic states and cities.
Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia articulated the Democrats’ dilemma on Sunday’s Meet The Press: “If we shake hands with President Trump on a deal, we don’t want him then next week just firing thousands more people, cancelling economic development projects, cancelling public health funds. So we are trying to get an agreement that a deal is a deal.”
The problem, of course, is that Trump has demonstrated throughout his political career that “a deal is a deal” holds little meaning for him. He violates agreements routinely, renegotiates settled matters, and ignores commitments when convenient. Expecting him to honor a shutdown resolution seems optimistic at best, delusional at worst.
Yet Democratic leaders must eventually find an exit from this crisis. The shutdown cannot continue indefinitely—the human costs are too high, and political patience has limits. But any deal they strike will likely disappoint the protesters who took to the streets Saturday demanding uncompromising resistance.
This encapsulates the Democratic dilemma: How to govern responsibly whilst satisfying a base that wants scorched-earth opposition?
November Elections: First Test of Protest Energy
The government shutdown may still be unresolved when voters in several states head to polls in early November for the first elections since last year’s presidential contest.
Gubernatorial and state legislative races will provide early indications whether anti-Trump sentiment converts into Democratic electoral success—or whether protests prove merely cathartic exercises without political consequences.
Virginia offers an interesting test case. Four years ago, a Republican won the governorship in this swing state that had been trending Democratic in presidential elections, signaling early trouble for Joe Biden. This time, Democrat Abigail Spanberger leads her Republican opponent in polls, suggesting perhaps the pendulum swinging back.
New Jersey presents another data point. Trump’s 2024 margin of defeat there—less than 6%—was dramatically narrower than Biden’s 16% victory in 2020 or Hillary Clinton’s 14% margin in 2016. November’s gubernatorial race shows similarly tight polling, indicating Trump has made the state more competitive than recent history would suggest.
Ken Martin’s Inconvenient Truth
At the Montclair, New Jersey rally, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin delivered a message that protesters probably didn’t want to hear but needed to: “It is one thing to show up at these protests. And it’s another to move the needle and get back some power.”
Martin’s point is uncomfortably accurate. Protests provide emotional satisfaction and media attention but don’t automatically translate into political change. History is littered with massive demonstrations that generated headlines and then… nothing.
The 2017 Women’s March drew millions worldwide. Trump won 47% of the vote three years later and came within tens of thousands of votes in key states from reelection. Occupy Wall Street dominated news cycles for months and achieved precisely zero legislative victories. The Iraq War protests in 2003 were among the largest in human history—the invasion proceeded anyway.
Converting street energy into electoral victories requires unglamorous work: voter registration, fundraising, candidate recruitment, message discipline, coalition building, ground organizing. Marches are the easy part.
Looking Ahead: 2026 Midterms – If Democrats Can Hold Together
November’s races are merely preliminary to 2026’s midterm elections, which will determine congressional control and could provide Democrats real power to constrain Trump for his term’s final two years.
Historically, first-term presidents face midterm setbacks as voters seek to balance power or express dissatisfaction. If Democrats recapture even one congressional chamber, they could block legislation, conduct oversight and generally make Trump’s life difficult.
But 2026 remains eighteen months distant—an eternity in politics. Economic conditions could improve or deteriorate. International crises could erupt. Trump could commit political self-sabotage or prove more disciplined than expected. Predictions this far out are little better than astrology.
More immediately, Democrats must navigate internal divisions that Saturday’s unity papered over but didn’t resolve.
Internal Party Divisions: The Inconvenient Cracks
Kamala Harris’s book tour has been repeatedly disrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters condemning the Biden administration’s Middle East policies. These aren’t isolated incidents but systematic disruptions reflecting genuine anger within the Democratic coalition about Israeli-Palestinian issues.
Centrist Democrats have proposed focusing on economic concerns over social issues—including transgender rights—arguing this approach appeals to swing voters. Progressives have condemned such suggestions as abandoning vulnerable communities for electoral advantage.
Maine, Massachusetts, California and Michigan will likely see contentious Democratic primaries next year, pitting establishment politicians against younger insurgents and moderates against progressives. These battles will expose fault lines within the party that the Stop Trump message currently obscures.
Establishment vs Insurgents: Battle for Party Soul
The fundamental tension within the Democratic Party—between progressive activists demanding bold change and moderates counseling caution—predates Trump and will outlast him. It erupted in the 2016 Clinton-Sanders primary, simmered through the Trump years, and threatens to boil over again.
Younger candidates promise fresh energy and new ideas whilst criticizing older politicians as out of touch. Establishment figures emphasize experience and electability whilst dismissing insurgents as naive. Progressives demand ambitious policy proposals; moderates argue for pragmatic centrism. Foreign policy hawks clash with anti-interventionists. The party contains multitudes, and they don’t always get along.
If Democrats turn on each other in bitter primary fights whilst Trump consolidates Republican support, Saturday’s protest energy could dissipate into factional warfare. This has happened before—repeatedly—and there’s little reason to assume it won’t happen again.
Questions Saturday’s Marchers Should Be Asking:
If protests are so large, why is the Democratic Party so unpopular? This paradox reveals the gap between activist energy and broader public opinion. Polls show only about a third of Americans view Democrats favorably—the lowest in decades. Many Americans dislike Trump but also distrust Democrats, seeing both parties as failing ordinary citizens. Massive protests in blue cities don’t necessarily translate to credibility with swing voters in competitive districts. The party needs more than resistance—it needs a compelling positive vision.
Can Senate Democrats actually force Trump to compromise on the shutdown? Parliamentary rules give Democrats some leverage, but it’s limited. They can block certain legislation, forcing negotiation. However, Trump has shown willingness to inflict pain to achieve objectives and can blame Democrats for shutdown consequences. The question isn’t whether Democrats have technical leverage—it’s whether they can withstand the political pressure as suffering increases. History suggests Trump is better at tolerating chaos than his opponents.
Do November’s gubernatorial elections really predict 2026 midterm results? Virginia’s 2021 race accurately foreshadowed broader problems for Biden. But off-year elections can be fluky, influenced by local factors that don’t scale nationally. They provide data points, not certainties. A Democratic wave in November would be encouraging but not definitive; losses would be concerning but not necessarily fatal for 2026 prospects. Context matters more than individual results.
Why is Kamala Harris being protested by fellow Democrats? Pro-Palestinian activists blame the Biden administration—in which Harris served as vice president—for supporting Israeli military actions in Gaza. These protesters view the administration as complicit in Palestinian suffering and want Democrats to adopt more critical positions toward Israel. This reflects deeper divisions within the party’s coalition between traditional pro-Israel Democrats and younger progressives sympathetic to Palestinian cause. It’s an issue unlikely to resolve easily.
What happens if progressive and moderate Democrats can’t reconcile? Open warfare between party factions could depress turnout, alienate swing voters, and create openings for Republicans. Primary battles that leave deep wounds make general election victories harder. However, some degree of internal competition is healthy—parties need debate and fresh ideas. The question is whether Democrats can maintain productive tension without descending into destructive infighting. Historical record is mixed at best.
Has any protest movement successfully translated into lasting political change? The Tea Party transformed Republican politics by channeling opposition to Obama into electoral victories and ideological capture of the party. Civil rights protests of the 1960s ultimately produced landmark legislation. But countless other movements—Occupy Wall Street, Iraq War protests, various causes célèbres—generated attention without achieving political objectives. Success requires converting energy into organization, which is dramatically harder than organizing marches.
If Democrats retake Congress in 2026, can they actually constrain Trump? Congressional control provides investigative power, legislative blocking capability, and budget authority. But Trump has shown remarkable ability to circumvent congressional oversight, ignore subpoenas, and govern through executive action. A Democratic Congress could make his life difficult but probably couldn’t prevent him from pursuing core objectives, particularly in foreign policy and executive branch management. It’s a check on power, not a veto.
The Critical Question: What Exactly Do Democrats Stand For?
Saturday’s marches united people around opposition to Trump—a lowest common denominator that papers over significant disagreements about what Democrats actually support beyond “not that.”
This worked electorally in 2018 when Democrats recaptured the House largely by campaigning against Trump. It failed in 2020 when Trump nearly won reelection despite four years of resistance. It failed again last year when Trump won decisively.
Being against something proves easier than being for something. Protest movements excel at articulating grievances but often struggle to translate opposition into governing agendas. What, precisely, would Democrats do if they regained power beyond “undo Trump’s policies”?
The party remains divided on healthcare, economic policy, foreign affairs, social issues, climate strategy, and nearly everything else. Stop Trump unity masks these divisions but doesn’t resolve them.
Until Democrats develop a coherent positive message that resonates with voters beyond their base, protests—however large—may prove politically impotent. Americans generally vote for something, not merely against someone. This basic truth seems lost on party strategists who believe Trump’s unpopularity is sufficient foundation for electoral success.
Where Democratic Opposition Goes From Here
The Democratic Party finds itself in a peculiar position: capable of mobilizing millions to protest, yet historically unpopular; controlling significant institutional leverage in the Senate, yet unable to force Trump to compromise; united in opposition, yet fractured regarding alternatives.
Saturday’s marches demonstrated that resistance to Trump remains intense and widespread. But protests are the beginning of political change, not its culmination. Converting street energy into electoral victories requires discipline, organization, message coherence, and strategic thinking—qualities the Democratic Party has struggled to maintain recently.
The government shutdown will eventually end, probably on terms that disappoint progressives who want uncompromising resistance. November elections will provide early data on whether anti-Trump sentiment translates to votes. Primary battles will expose internal party divisions that Stop Trump rhetoric currently obscures. And 2026 midterms will determine whether Democrats can recapture congressional power.
What Saturday’s protests revealed is that millions of Americans remain deeply opposed to Trump’s presidency and willing to mobilize against it. What they didn’t answer—what couldn’t be answered by marches alone—is whether that opposition can be channeled into effective political power.
Democrats have had three years to develop a compelling alternative to Trumpism. They’ve produced slogans (“No Kings”), mobilized protesters, and maintained institutional resistance. What they haven’t produced is a positive vision that resonates beyond coastal cities and college towns—the sort of message that wins elections in competitive districts and swing states.
Until they do, expect more impressive marches, followed by continued electoral struggles. Protest is easy; governing is hard. Democrats excel at the former whilst remaining uncertain about the latter.
As millions returned home from Saturday’s rallies, the question lingered: Where does democratic opposition go from here? The answer, unfortunately, remains as unclear as the party’s strategic direction.