Republicans targeting ‘No Kings’ protest to shield Trump weakness: NYT

By Al Mayadeen English
Source: The New York Times
Today 15:29

As millions protest Trump's authoritarianism, Republicans attack the No Kings movement, revealing deep concern over his unpopularity and political vulnerability.

Listen

A protester dressed as US President Donald Trump in chains and a prison jumpsuit looks at another holding a sign referencing the Epstein files as people take part in a "No Kings" protest Saturday, October 18, 2025, in Seattle. (AP Photo/Lindsey Wasson)

As millions of US citizens mobilized across the country in a coordinated wave of No Kings protests, including a major rally in Washington, DC, New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie writes that the Republican Party has intensified its attacks, accusing demonstrators of being anti-American and subversive.

The protests, which Bouie states denounce what many see as the Trump administration’s drift toward authoritarianism in the US, come just four months after the last nationwide mobilization. Since then, Bouie adds, US President Donald Trump has escalated unchecked executive authority, asserting powers to fire at will, bypassing congressional control over federal spending, and carrying out lethal strikes without congressional oversight or an imminent threat to US lives.

The NYT writer adds that Trump has also directed federal agencies against perceived political enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and former National Security Advisor John Bolton.

Bouie cites critics in saying that Trump's use of the IRS and other arms of government to target liberal donors and civil society organizations is part of a broader pattern of authoritarian behavior. Some have even drawn comparisons between Trump’s behavior and historic autocrats.

Republican leadership responds with hostility

Rather than addressing the substance of the protesters’ demands, Bouie writes that Republican leaders have launched rhetorical assaults on the movement. Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming dismissed the protests as a “big ‘I hate America’ rally,” while US House Majority Leader Steve Scalise echoed that framing. US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson escalated the rhetoric further, accusing demonstrators of being “Hamas supporters,” “antifa types,” and “Marxists.”

Bouie further states that White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt further inflamed tensions by claiming that the Democratic Party's base consists of “Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.”

According to the author, this coordinated messaging suggests more than ideological rejection; rather, it reflects political fear.

The Republican Party is navigating a volatile moment. Amid a government shutdown, Bouie writes that recent polling from the Associated Press shows that more Americans blame Trump and Republicans in Congress than Democrats. Public sentiment also leans in favor of extending Affordable Care Act tax credits, leaving Republicans on the defensive.

In this context, demonizing the No Kings protest may be an effort to redirect public attention and consolidate the party’s base.

But there is also a deeper concern: that mass, visible, and sustained protest undercuts the image Trump seeks to project, that of an uncontested leader with a direct mandate from “the people.”

Challenging Trump’s authority in the streets

Bouie states the Trump administration’s expansion of executive power relies heavily on voluntary compliance by institutions outside the executive branch. That compliance, in turn, rests on the perception that Trump’s authority is widely accepted by the public.

He adds that the anti-Trump protests now unfolding across the country directly challenge that narrative, highlighting that the message is clear: Trump’s rule is contested, his popularity exaggerated, and his attempts at consolidating power are not going unopposed.

The NYT writer emphasizes that the No Kings movement sends a warning to institutions under pressure: standing with the administration could come at the cost of public support and legitimacy.

A sign of weakness, not strength

Bouie states that Republican leaders investing so much energy in attacking peaceful protesters is more a sign of vulnerability than of strength, and reflects an awareness that, despite Trump’s political machinery and rhetoric, his support is neither universal nor unshakable.

For critics of the administration, the NYT writer says this moment serves as a reminder: the system is under strain, but it is not yet broken. Protest, dissent, and civil resistance remain powerful tools, and the louder the attacks from the top, the clearer it becomes that those tools are having an effect.