No Kings in America: The Constitutional Crisis at Democracy’s Crossroads
The day America chose sides
At 2:30 PM on June 14, 2025, two competing visions of American power played out 200 miles apart. In Philadelphia, where the Constitution was written, protesters gathered with handmade signs reading “Federal Employees Don’t Work for Kings” and “He was elected president NOT KING.” Their voices rose in a chant that echoed across 248 years of American history: “No kings in America!”
Two hundred miles south, 70-ton Abrams tanks rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue in the most expensive military parade in American history—a $45 million spectacle celebrating both the Army’s 250th anniversary and Donald Trump’s 79th birthday. The president sat in a reviewing stand watching 7,000 soldiers and 150 military vehicles in what critics called a “North Korean-style” display of authoritarian power.
The “No Kings Day” protests spanned more than 2,000 cities nationwide, representing what organizers describe as the largest single-day demonstration against presidential authority in recent American history. From courthouse steps in small towns to major urban centers, millions of Americans explicitly rejected what they characterized as unprecedented monarchical overreach.
But June 14, 2025, was not ordinary political theater. Constitutional scholars describe this moment as the culmination of the most serious threat to American democratic governance since the Civil War—a crisis that began with nine years of systematic constitutional erosion and has accelerated into open defiance of judicial authority and explicit claims to monarchical power.
“I’ve been a federal employee for twenty-three years,” explained one Philadelphia protester, according to local news coverage. “I took an oath to the Constitution, not to any individual. When someone starts calling themselves king, when they ignore court orders, when they talk about serving three terms—that’s exactly what our founders fought a revolution to prevent.”
The founders’ anti-monarchical design
The Founding Fathers designed the American system with one overriding imperative: preventing any leader from accumulating the absolute power they had just fought a war to reject. Their warnings, preserved in letters, speeches, and constitutional debates, anticipated precisely the constitutional crisis now unfolding.
Thomas Jefferson, writing to James Madison in 1787, captured the founders’ deepest concern about executive power: “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”
Jefferson had witnessed European monarchy firsthand during his diplomatic service in France. “There is scarcely an evil known in these countries, which may not be traced to their king, as its source,” he wrote, warning that concentrated power inevitably corrupted regardless of how leaders initially gained authority.
James Madison’s Federalist 47 provided the constitutional architecture that still governs America: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Madison deliberately included “elective” tyranny, recognizing that democratic elections could produce despotic leaders.
The founders’ fears proved prescient when tested by real proposals for American monarchy. In 1782, Colonel Lewis Nicola wrote to George Washington proposing that he become king. Washington’s response revealed the horror such suggestions provoked: “Be assured, Sir, no occurrence in the course of the War, has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the Army.”
Washington called monarchical proposals among the greatest “mischiefs that can befall my Country.” When rumors emerged in 1786 that Nathaniel Gorham had reached out to European royalty about establishing an American monarchy, the proposal generated such outrage that it helped drive support for the Constitutional Convention.
The Constitution explicitly prohibits titles of nobility in Article I, Section 9, with Alexander Hamilton explaining in Federalist 84 that this prohibition represented “the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.”
The nine-year escalation to constitutional crisis
The current constitutional crisis represents the culmination of nine years of escalating claims to executive authority that constitutional scholars describe as unprecedented in American history.
Foundations of Absolute Authority (2017-2020)
Trump’s July 2019 declaration established the framework for unlimited executive power: “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” This statement directly contradicted the founders’ explicit design of limited presidential power within a system of checks and balances.
By April 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump escalated these claims: “When somebody is president of the United States, the authority is total.” Constitutional scholars noted that this assertion of unlimited executive power had no precedent in American history and directly contradicted Supreme Court precedent established in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).
Constitutional Suspension and Dictatorial Rhetoric (2020-2024)
Following his 2020 election loss, Trump’s constitutional rhetoric became explicitly autocratic. In December 2022, he called for “termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution” to reverse election results—the first time in American history that a former president explicitly called for suspending constitutional governance.
Trump’s December 2023 declaration normalized previously unthinkable authoritarian language. When Fox News host Sean Hannity offered Trump the opportunity to reject dictatorial ambitions, Trump responded: “Except for Day One. After that, I am not a dictator.”
The Supreme Court’s Immunity Revolution (2024)
The Supreme Court’s July 1, 2024 decision in Trump v. United States fundamentally altered the constitutional balance of power. The Court granted presidents absolute immunity for “core constitutional powers” and presumptive immunity for all “official acts,” creating legal protection for previously prosecutable behavior.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent warned that the majority had created a constitutional monarchy: “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” Her dissent noted that under the majority’s reasoning, a president could order the Navy SEALs to assassinate a political rival, organize a military coup, or take a bribe in exchange for a pardon—all with legal immunity.
The ACLU characterized the decision as placing “presidents above the law”, warning that it provided Trump with legal cover for monarchical behavior previously constrained by potential prosecution.
Explicit Monarchical Symbolism (2025)
Trump’s second presidency marked an unprecedented escalation from theoretical claims to explicit royal imagery. On February 19, 2025, Trump posted on Truth Social: “CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!”
The White House amplified this messaging by sharing AI-generated imagery showing Trump wearing a bejeweled golden crown, distributed across official government social media accounts. This represented the first time in American history that a president explicitly embraced royal symbolism through official channels.
Just days earlier, Trump had posted a Napoleon Bonaparte quote: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” positioning himself above legal constraints in language that echoed absolute monarchs throughout history.
Court Defiance and Constitutional Breakdown (Spring 2025)
Trump’s claims to monarchical authority moved from rhetoric to action when he openly defied federal court orders. When federal judges issued restraining orders against immigration enforcement operations, the Trump administration continued deportations despite judicial intervention.
This marked the first time since the Civil War that a president systematically ignored federal court authority, creating what legal scholars describe as a constitutional crisis that threatens the fundamental principle of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Third-Term Constitutional Challenge (2025)
Trump’s March 30, 2025 statement that he was “not joking” about seeking a third term accompanied systematic efforts to override constitutional term limits. NBC News reported that Trump told them “there are methods” for seeking a third term, suggesting constitutional loopholes or amendment processes.
Representative Andy Ogles introduced a constitutional amendment in January 2025 to allow Trump to serve three terms, marking the first serious congressional attempt to extend presidential terms since the 22nd Amendment’s ratification in 1951. Constitutional scholars disputed claims of legal “loopholes” for third terms, emphasizing that the 22nd Amendment’s language clearly prohibits three presidential terms.
The international context of democratic breakdown
Constitutional scholars now describe the current moment as the most serious threat to American democracy since the Civil War, with Harvard Kennedy School experts characterizing the administration’s actions as “the most severe attack on the rule of law in the United States since confederate armed forces began lobbing artillery shells into Fort Sumter in 1861”.
Harvard political scientist Steven Levitsky, who has studied democratic breakdown globally, warned that “U.S. democracy will likely break down during the Second Trump administration”. Unlike previous American constitutional crises—the Civil War, Watergate, the 1876 election—this crisis involves what scholars call “crown-presidentialism”: a hybrid system where an elected leader wields the guardian powers of a monarch while claiming fidelity to democratic constitutional design.
Over 500 political scientists surveyed by Bright Line Watch found that the vast majority believe “the United States is moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism”. Democracy ratings dropped from 67 to 55 on a 100-point scale, reflecting scholarly consensus about accelerating democratic deterioration unprecedented in American history.
The institutional capture pattern follows the international playbook documented by scholars studying democratic backsliding. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s transformation from elected reformer to autocrat provides the template: pack courts with loyalists, capture independent agencies, weaponize justice systems, and maintain electoral facades while hollowing out democratic substance. One international observer noted that “Trump went further in two months than Orban could in 15 years” of dismantling Hungarian democracy.
This model represents what political scientists call “competitive authoritarianism,” where leaders use “democratic tools to attain power; once there, they dismantle those processes” while maintaining electoral facades. Steven Levitsky identified Trump’s language as “classic authoritarian discourse,” while Princeton’s Kim Lane Scheppele noted a crucial distinction: unlike many historical autocrats, Trump has “a mass movement willing to fight for him.”
Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz explained the structural threat to constitutional governance: “The thing that prevents the president from being an absolute monarch is Congress controls the power of the purse strings.” Trump’s systematic efforts to circumvent congressional authority through emergency declarations and executive orders represent direct attacks on this fundamental constitutional safeguard.
The European Parliament declared in 2022 that Hungary “can no longer be considered a full democracy” due to systematic erosion of rule of law, media freedom, and judicial independence. Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan similarly used elected authority to create “hyperpresidential” autocracy, while Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez established “competitive authoritarianism” where elections occur but aren’t free or fair.
The human consequences of constitutional crisis
Beyond legal abstractions, the constitutional crisis has profound consequences for Americans navigating daily life under increasingly autocratic governance.
In Houston, social worker HallGeorge expressed frustration with the $45 million military parade cost while social programs face cuts: “People are starving. Individuals are suffering. We need those funds allocated elsewhere. What about investing in education? What about providing food for the needy?”
Lyn Stubbs, another Atlanta social worker, characterized the parade as designed to “inflate his own ego” and to “intimidate” opponents, reflecting broader concerns about the use of military imagery for political purposes.
Melissa Steach, a Waffle House employee and union member, connected current immigration raids to broader patterns of authoritarianism: “Them being able to come in and violate that sanctity of homes, schools, businesses, it triggers something in me, and it makes me so uncomfortable with what’s going on. It needs to stop.”
Federal employees, bound by oaths to the Constitution rather than individual leaders, face particular pressure as political appointees override professional expertise and ignore legal constraints. Career civil servants describe institutional breakdown as basic administrative functions become politicized and judicial decisions are treated as optional.
The constitutional resistance movement
The “No Kings Day” protests represent more than political opposition—they embody constitutional restoration rooted in founding principles that transcend partisan divisions.
Organizers deliberately chose Trump’s birthday to create symbolic confrontation between democratic participation and authoritarian celebration. The strategic decision to protest “everywhere Trump isn’t” rather than confronting his military parade directly demonstrated tactical sophistication designed to control narrative and avoid violence.
Kristin Crowe, organizer with the Indivisible Georgia Coalition, articulated the fundamental democratic message driving the protests: “In America, we have no kings, we have no thrones; the authority resides with the people, and this nation is owned by the populace.”
Chris Machki, co-founder of Coastal Georgia for Democracy, emphasized the constitutional principles at stake: “We are peaceful people. We are your neighbors. We’re here as volunteers. We’re just upset. People are upset and ready to speak out.” He expressed being “fundamentally bothered and disturbed by the lack of separation of powers and the lack of following the rule of law and the constitution.”
The movement’s messaging deliberately invokes founding-era principles. Signs reading “Federal Employees Don’t Work for Kings” and “He was elected president NOT KING” connect contemporary resistance to revolutionary-era rejection of monarchical authority. The emphasis on waving American flags and demonstrating “what patriotism actually looks like” reclaims patriotic symbols for constitutional governance.
The protests succeeded in mobilizing Americans across more than 2,000 communities, including red, blue, and purple states, suggesting broad resonance with foundational American values that transcend political partisanship.
Constitutional scholars’ warnings
Harvard Kennedy School experts describe the current crisis as “the most serious undermining of the structure of the Constitution in our history”, comparing the threat to constitutional governance to the Civil War period when fundamental structures of American government faced existential challenge.
Fifteen founding-era historians filed a legal brief arguing that presidential immunity “would transform the presidency into a monarchy—exactly what the Framers of the Constitution sought to avoid”. The historians emphasized that the Constitution was designed to ensure presidents, unlike kings, remained subject to legal accountability and that the founders explicitly rejected the British model of royal immunity.
Congressional Democrats responded with the “No Kings Act” (S. 4973), introduced by Chuck Schumer with 34 co-sponsors. The legislation explicitly reaffirms that presidents have no immunity from criminal prosecution and removes the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the Act. The bill’s title deliberately invokes founding-era anti-monarchical principles, citing Federalist No. 69 where Alexander Hamilton distinguished American presidents from “sacred and inviolable” British monarchs.
The Brennan Center for Justice emphasized that “founding-era history doesn’t support Trump’s immunity claim”, noting that the founders explicitly rejected the British model of royal immunity. The Constitution was designed to ensure that presidents, unlike kings, remained subject to legal accountability.
Legal scholars note that modern democratic breakdown follows patterns different from dramatic military coups. Instead, elected leaders accumulate power gradually, using seemingly legitimate means to eliminate checks and balances while maintaining democratic facades. This process, documented globally, makes democratic erosion difficult to recognize until institutional damage becomes irreversible.
Constitutional law professors warn that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision created what one scholar called a “loaded weapon” for presidential abuse, fundamentally altering the constitutional balance of power in ways that the founders never intended and explicitly sought to prevent.
The choice at democracy’s crossroads
June 14, 2025, crystallized a choice that has been building for nine years: whether America will preserve the founders’ vision of constitutional government or abandon it for the monarchical authority they explicitly rejected.
The constitutional moment that began with Trump’s escalating claims to absolute power now demands resolution through democratic institutions. Either American institutions will constrain presidential authority within constitutional limits, or the founders’ worst fears about “elective despotism” will be realized.
George Washington’s warning in his Farewell Address proved prophetic: extreme partisanship would enable “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men” to “subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government,” ultimately leading citizens to “seek security… in the absolute power of an individual.”
The choice facing America mirrors the founders’ original decision in 1776: whether to accept monarchical authority for the promise of stability and strength, or to embrace the uncertainty and responsibility of constitutional self-governance. The founders chose revolution over royal authority, constitutional complexity over monarchical simplicity, and democratic accountability over autocratic efficiency.
The protests demonstrate a conscious effort to reclaim patriotic symbols, with organizers emphasizing that “the flag doesn’t belong to President Trump. It belongs to us”. The movement’s messaging bridges generations, connecting through cultural touchstones from 1990s indie rock to 1970s civic education, while maintaining focus on the binary constitutional choice now facing the nation.
Historical precedent suggests that constitutional coalitions can emerge across partisan lines when fundamental principles face threat. The Watergate crisis ultimately produced bipartisan constitutional response when Republicans abandoned Nixon as evidence mounted. Post-Watergate reforms demonstrated how constitutional crisis can strengthen democratic institutions through enhanced oversight and legal constraints on executive power.
Whether this constitutional moment strengthens or destroys American democracy depends on institutional responses to both Trump’s monarchical assertions and citizens’ democratic resistance. The “No Kings Day” protests demonstrate that millions of Americans recognize the stakes and remain committed to self-governance over authoritarian rule.
But the ultimate test lies ahead: whether democratic institutions can constrain extra-constitutional power while preserving republican government for future generations. As the founders understood, democracy requires more than good intentions—it demands eternal vigilance against the accumulation of power in any individual, regardless of how they acquired it.
The protesters’ message echoes across 248 years of American history: “No thrones. No crowns. No kings.” Whether America honors that founding principle or abandons it will determine not just the nation’s future, but the global future of constitutional democracy itself.
As demonstrations concluded on the evening of June 14, the fundamental question remained: Will America’s constitutional institutions prove strong enough to constrain a president who has explicitly embraced the monarchical authority that the founders fought a revolution to reject? The answer will define whether the American experiment in constitutional democracy survives into its third century.
This story is based on extensive reporting, constitutional analysis, and historical research. All claims are supported by linked sources and verifiable documentation.