October 18, 2025 • 13 mins
Millions of Americans join “No Kings” rallies across all 50 states, protesting Trump’s immigration, education, and security policies amid growing fears of autocracy and civil unrest. Dive into the latest U.S. political movement shaking the nation and challenging presidential power. #USPolitics #TrumpNews #NoKingsProtest #PoliticalPodcast #BreakingNews #AmericanDemocracy #ProtestNews #WhiteHouse #CivilRights #Congress #PoliticalNews #USProtests
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-political-current--6768289/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the debate.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
This weekend, the United States is really set to witness
something quite significant. I think it's one of the most
visible nationwide political demonstrations we've seen in a while, the
No King's mobilization. We're talking about what over twenty six
hundred simultaneous protests scheduled across all fifty states. The sheer
scale and frankly, the provocative language being used, it demands
(00:24):
that we look deeper, move beyond just listing the policy grievances,
and really try to understand the movement's true character.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
That's exactly right. And the organizers you mentioned, groups like Indivisible,
they're positioning this mobilization as well an essential defense, almost
an existential one, you could say, for American democracy against
what they see as executive actions on immigration, security, education,
actions they claim are pushing the nation toward autocracy.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Right, and that brings us directly to the core question,
the central tension we really need to unpack today. Does
this No King's movement fundamentally represent a critical defense of
core American constitutional principles against executive overreach, or is it
perhaps better understood as a massive, quite sophisticated partisan political
(01:16):
operation one driven primarily by let's say, ideological animosity against
the current administration.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
And I'll be making the case that while the rhetoric, yes,
it's compelling, and it's certainly rooted in that constitutional language,
the functional reality of it and the immediate political context
surrounding it that firmly establishes this, in my view, as
a hyper partisan strategy, one really aimed at delegitimizing the
(01:43):
executive and frankly mobilizing the opposition base.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
And I'm going to argue the opposite that the source
material actually points quite strongly towards the movement's decentralized origins.
It's truly staggering scale, and importantly, its precise focus on specific, identifiable,
aggressive policy actions. All of this serves as proof I
believe that this is a robust civic response to genuine
(02:10):
threats concerning the accumulation of executive power.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Hmmmm, I see it differently. Look, while the constitutional language
is powerful, I mean saying we don't have kings, that
resonates right the political machine, it just immediately absorbs that power.
So my thesis is that this mobilization, it serves a
very clear political strategy, essentially measuring the frustration levels of
the opposition, and crucially maintaining intense pressure against the conservative agenda,
(02:36):
and agenda that, let's be honest, has rolled out incredibly
quickly over the past year or so.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
I'm I'm just not fully convinced by that line of reasoning,
because I think you might be minimizing the specific policy triggers,
the things that actually drove this mobilization in the first place.
This isn't just you know, generalized anger out there. It's
framed as a direct reaction to concrete executive actions. We
(03:01):
are talking about the very visible deployment of National Guard
troops into major cities, often under quite vague mandates. We're
talking about the push to slash the federal workforce, eliminating
potentially thousands of career positions, and significantly the direct cuts
to funding for elite universities, apparently based on ideological grounds,
(03:23):
specifically relating to campus diversity initiatives and pro Palestinian protest dances.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Okay, okay, I grant you those are aggressive moves, high
visibility policy actions, no question, But do aggressive policies automatically
mean constitutional defenses underway rather than just while a political counterattack?
The context here is just so crucial. This isn't happening
(03:49):
in a vacuum. It follows a similar large scale event
earlier this year, right, thousands of coordinated protests then too.
To me, this looks less like some spontaneous civic defense
springing up and more like a sustained, organized calendar of opposition,
one intended really to maintain electoral pressure.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
But that pressure surely is sourced from the bottom up.
I mean the sheer scope we talked about over twenty
six hundred events all fifty states, involved more than three
hundred different grassroots groups like Indivisible. Doesn't that suggest a
deep decentralized frustration. This doesn't feel like some top down
political stunt orchestrated purely in Washington.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Perhaps not purely orchestrated, but we absolutely cannot ignore who
is standing on those stages, who is lending their voice
and platform to this. The marches are explicitly backed by major,
very high profile partisan figures Senator Bernie Sanders, Congresswoman Alexandria
Ocasio Cortes, and very notably former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Now,
(04:56):
the involvement of the losing presidential candidate from the last
cycle and current progressive leadership that instantly colors the movement,
doesn't it Their presence, I argue, shifts the narrative away
from pure civic defense towards organized opposition campaigning, almost regardless
of the science that individual protesters are carrying.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
That's a compelling point about the optics, certainly. But let's
try to unpack this difference between aggressive policy and autocracy,
because that really seems to be at the heart of
the constitutional argument here. You seem to view the use
of the term autocracy as maybe rhetorical overkill.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Precisely, yes, and the President himself denied the label, didn't
he He said, I'm not a king now. Look deploying
the National Guard domestically, or weaponizing federal funding to punish
universities based on their politics, that's certainly heavy handed. I
wouldn't dispute that, But is it fundamentally different in kind
from high stakes actions taken by previous administrations from both parties.
(05:55):
My concern is that using a term like autocracy is
perhaps designed more to if you amplify part as an opposition,
you know, to the maximum possible level. It's meant to
mobilize voters by creating this existential frame not necessarily to
reflect a literal imminent constitutional collapse.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
But if we actually look at the constitutional mechanisms the
protesters seem to be referencing, I think it holds up
better than that. The founders they were deeply concerned about. Well,
two things relevant here, One the executive weaponizing the military
for domestic political intimidation, and two the executive unilaterally wielding
the power of the purse, specifically cutting funding to punish
(06:34):
dissent or certain groups. So when the executive cuts university
funding based on ideological disagreement, well, that is a highly specific,
direct challenge to the independence of those institutions. And deploying
quasi military force in cities, whether it's to protect immigration
agents or combat crime, that feels exactly like the kind
of domestic overreach that justifies the no King's framing. For
(06:55):
the participants, this feels like a genuine path toward autocracy,
and so the reaction is, in their view, principled.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
The principle may feel genuine to them. I accept that,
but the political mechanism, it just co ops it almost instantly.
Let's talk about that organizational scale versus the centralized endorsement
issue again. I acknowledge the three hundred plus local groups okay,
and the comprehensive logistics are impressive. The ACOU providing legal
training for marshals, the de escalation training. That all points
(07:23):
to a serious civic effort. But how can we honestly
separate a movement entirely from partisan politics when the most
visible figures helping to define it in the public eye
are the leaders of the organized political opposition.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Well, I would suggest the causality might run the other way.
The scale again across all fifty states, it seems to
confirm that the motivation originates with widespread citizen frustration over
those specific policy ships we've discussed the endorsements. Perhaps they're
simply powerful political figures recognizing and then aligning themselves with
(07:56):
a pre existing potent ground swell. They lend support, yes, absolutely,
but they don't necessarily define the core purpose. That purpose,
i'd argue, remains focused on tangible policy resistance and maintaining
checks on power.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
But the political apparatus is just so highly efficient at
capitalizing on exactly that kind of frustration. So even if
the original intent is pure civic principle, the political outcome
gets immediately polarized. Let's look at the framing war itself.
The protest frames itself as exercising the right to peacefully protest,
(08:31):
focusing on civic order.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
And that's the key, isn't it. They are grounding their
action in that fundamental American principle of assembly and petition.
They're explicitly invoking the spirit of anti monarchy that dates
back to the founding. This is, by definition, civic action
intended to defend specific constitutional boundaries.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that the intent
can remain untainted once the political machinery fully engages. We
have to analyze the counter narrative. Look at how speaker
Mike Johnson. He immediately labeled the rallies the Hate America rally.
He dismissed it dismissively as what a big party organized
by Democrat leaders.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
That's an interesting point, although I might frame it slightly differently.
Johnson's framing is, well, it's clearly a political attack, isn't it.
It's intended to mobilize his own base and delegitimize the
protest entirely. It's rhetorical warfare, plain and simple.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Exactly rhetorical warfare. And the fact that this warfare is instantaneous,
that it happens immediately. That tells us something crucial about
the current environment, doesn't it. It illustrates that for significant
political forces, this protest is viewed entirely through a lens
of extreme ideological opposition and animosity, not constitutional discourse. The protest,
(09:56):
whatever its origins, is immediately converted into political war and
this just highlights the deep polarization where any large scale
civic action taken against the administration is almost instantly stripped
of any potential non partisan character it might have had.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
But I have to reject the idea that a hostile
political attack from the opposition automatically somehow nullifies the legitimate
constitutional character of the original protest itself. The protest, I maintain,
is defined by its core motivation challenging specific policies and
defending perceived rights, not by the aggressive rhetoric that's deployed
(10:33):
against it. The motivation seems to be policy change, not
necessarily electoral gain for one specific party.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
But the measurable strategic value. The functional outcome, which perhaps
you dismissed a bit earlier, arguably is electoral gain, or
at least electoral insight. It allows the opposition forces to
gauge the intensity of anti Trump frustration across the country,
which is an absolutely indispensable tool in any campaign strategy.
Moving forward, it seems almost impossible in practice to separate
(11:02):
the civic energy from the strategic political advantage it undeniably provides.
Speaker 6 (11:08):
As we draw towards a close then, I'd say the
strongest evidence for the constitutional defense argument still lies in
the specificity of the grievances, the executive's apparent willingness to
use quasi military force domestically and to weaponize federal funding
for what looks like ideological retribution. And again, the massive
decentralized scale indicates a broad, genuine and principled reaction to
(11:32):
these perceived abuses of power. The citizens involved seem to
be demanding accountability based on these tangible threats to institutional stability.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
And my conclusion remains that while the initial intent might
well be constitutional in spirit, this movement simply cannot exist
purely as a defensive principle in the current climate. The
hyper part is in political environment. Coupled with the explicit
backing of those high profile political figures. It means the
movement is functionally serving as the leading edge of the
(12:01):
organized opposition strategy. Its primary utility, whether intended by every
participant or not, ends up being political, challenging the administration's legitimacy,
and importantly measuring that anti Trump energy.
Speaker 7 (12:14):
Ultimately, I think what the source material really presents us
with is a fundamental tension inherent in modern political mobilization.
The question becomes, can a mass protest truly exist primarily
as a neutral civic defense mechanism or is it almost
inevitably absorbed and ultimately defined by the partisan political apparatus
(12:37):
it seeks to challenge.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Exactly, And then listener really has to weigh that stated
principled intent of the grassroots organizers against the unavoidable political
context and those high profile endorsements. The question is in
just whether the policies themselves are aggressive, but whether any
significant movement can realistically avoid being strategically captured in today's
(12:59):
hyper polarized political environment. There's clearly much more to explore
here regarding the mechanics and consequences of mobilization in our time.
Welcome to the debate.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
This weekend, the United States is really set to witness
something quite significant. I think it's one of the most
visible nationwide political demonstrations we've seen in a while, the
No King's mobilization. We're talking about what over twenty six
hundred simultaneous protests scheduled across all fifty states. The sheer
scale and frankly, the provocative language being used, it demands
(00:24):
that we look deeper, move beyond just listing the policy grievances,
and really try to understand the movement's true character.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
That's exactly right. And the organizers you mentioned, groups like Indivisible,
they're positioning this mobilization as well an essential defense, almost
an existential one, you could say, for American democracy against
what they see as executive actions on immigration, security, education,
actions they claim are pushing the nation toward autocracy.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Right, and that brings us directly to the core question,
the central tension we really need to unpack today. Does
this No King's movement fundamentally represent a critical defense of
core American constitutional principles against executive overreach, or is it
perhaps better understood as a massive, quite sophisticated partisan political
(01:16):
operation one driven primarily by let's say, ideological animosity against
the current administration.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
And I'll be making the case that while the rhetoric, yes,
it's compelling, and it's certainly rooted in that constitutional language,
the functional reality of it and the immediate political context
surrounding it that firmly establishes this, in my view, as
a hyper partisan strategy, one really aimed at delegitimizing the
(01:43):
executive and frankly mobilizing the opposition base.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
And I'm going to argue the opposite that the source
material actually points quite strongly towards the movement's decentralized origins.
It's truly staggering scale, and importantly, its precise focus on specific, identifiable,
aggressive policy actions. All of this serves as proof I
believe that this is a robust civic response to genuine
(02:10):
threats concerning the accumulation of executive power.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Hmmmm, I see it differently. Look, while the constitutional language
is powerful, I mean saying we don't have kings, that
resonates right the political machine, it just immediately absorbs that power.
So my thesis is that this mobilization, it serves a
very clear political strategy, essentially measuring the frustration levels of
the opposition, and crucially maintaining intense pressure against the conservative agenda,
(02:36):
and agenda that, let's be honest, has rolled out incredibly
quickly over the past year or so.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
I'm I'm just not fully convinced by that line of reasoning,
because I think you might be minimizing the specific policy triggers,
the things that actually drove this mobilization in the first place.
This isn't just you know, generalized anger out there. It's
framed as a direct reaction to concrete executive actions. We
(03:01):
are talking about the very visible deployment of National Guard
troops into major cities, often under quite vague mandates. We're
talking about the push to slash the federal workforce, eliminating
potentially thousands of career positions, and significantly the direct cuts
to funding for elite universities, apparently based on ideological grounds,
(03:23):
specifically relating to campus diversity initiatives and pro Palestinian protest dances.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Okay, okay, I grant you those are aggressive moves, high
visibility policy actions, no question, But do aggressive policies automatically
mean constitutional defenses underway rather than just while a political counterattack?
The context here is just so crucial. This isn't happening
(03:49):
in a vacuum. It follows a similar large scale event
earlier this year, right, thousands of coordinated protests then too.
To me, this looks less like some spontaneous civic defense
springing up and more like a sustained, organized calendar of opposition,
one intended really to maintain electoral pressure.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
But that pressure surely is sourced from the bottom up.
I mean the sheer scope we talked about over twenty
six hundred events all fifty states, involved more than three
hundred different grassroots groups like Indivisible. Doesn't that suggest a
deep decentralized frustration. This doesn't feel like some top down
political stunt orchestrated purely in Washington.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
Perhaps not purely orchestrated, but we absolutely cannot ignore who
is standing on those stages, who is lending their voice
and platform to this. The marches are explicitly backed by major,
very high profile partisan figures Senator Bernie Sanders, Congresswoman Alexandria
Ocasio Cortes, and very notably former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Now,
(04:56):
the involvement of the losing presidential candidate from the last
cycle and current progressive leadership that instantly colors the movement,
doesn't it Their presence, I argue, shifts the narrative away
from pure civic defense towards organized opposition campaigning, almost regardless
of the science that individual protesters are carrying.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
That's a compelling point about the optics, certainly. But let's
try to unpack this difference between aggressive policy and autocracy,
because that really seems to be at the heart of
the constitutional argument here. You seem to view the use
of the term autocracy as maybe rhetorical overkill.
Speaker 3 (05:32):
Precisely, yes, and the President himself denied the label, didn't
he He said, I'm not a king now. Look deploying
the National Guard domestically, or weaponizing federal funding to punish
universities based on their politics, that's certainly heavy handed. I
wouldn't dispute that, But is it fundamentally different in kind
from high stakes actions taken by previous administrations from both parties.
(05:55):
My concern is that using a term like autocracy is
perhaps designed more to if you amplify part as an opposition,
you know, to the maximum possible level. It's meant to
mobilize voters by creating this existential frame not necessarily to
reflect a literal imminent constitutional collapse.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
But if we actually look at the constitutional mechanisms the
protesters seem to be referencing, I think it holds up
better than that. The founders they were deeply concerned about. Well,
two things relevant here, One the executive weaponizing the military
for domestic political intimidation, and two the executive unilaterally wielding
the power of the purse, specifically cutting funding to punish
(06:34):
dissent or certain groups. So when the executive cuts university
funding based on ideological disagreement, well, that is a highly specific,
direct challenge to the independence of those institutions. And deploying
quasi military force in cities, whether it's to protect immigration
agents or combat crime, that feels exactly like the kind
of domestic overreach that justifies the no King's framing. For
(06:55):
the participants, this feels like a genuine path toward autocracy,
and so the reaction is, in their view, principled.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
The principle may feel genuine to them. I accept that,
but the political mechanism, it just co ops it almost instantly.
Let's talk about that organizational scale versus the centralized endorsement
issue again. I acknowledge the three hundred plus local groups okay,
and the comprehensive logistics are impressive. The ACOU providing legal
training for marshals, the de escalation training. That all points
(07:23):
to a serious civic effort. But how can we honestly
separate a movement entirely from partisan politics when the most
visible figures helping to define it in the public eye
are the leaders of the organized political opposition.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Well, I would suggest the causality might run the other way.
The scale again across all fifty states, it seems to
confirm that the motivation originates with widespread citizen frustration over
those specific policy ships we've discussed the endorsements. Perhaps they're
simply powerful political figures recognizing and then aligning themselves with
(07:56):
a pre existing potent ground swell. They lend support, yes, absolutely,
but they don't necessarily define the core purpose. That purpose,
i'd argue, remains focused on tangible policy resistance and maintaining
checks on power.
Speaker 4 (08:10):
But the political apparatus is just so highly efficient at
capitalizing on exactly that kind of frustration. So even if
the original intent is pure civic principle, the political outcome
gets immediately polarized. Let's look at the framing war itself.
The protest frames itself as exercising the right to peacefully protest,
(08:31):
focusing on civic order.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
And that's the key, isn't it. They are grounding their
action in that fundamental American principle of assembly and petition.
They're explicitly invoking the spirit of anti monarchy that dates
back to the founding. This is, by definition, civic action
intended to defend specific constitutional boundaries.
Speaker 3 (08:55):
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that the intent
can remain untainted once the political machinery fully engages. We
have to analyze the counter narrative. Look at how speaker
Mike Johnson. He immediately labeled the rallies the Hate America rally.
He dismissed it dismissively as what a big party organized
by Democrat leaders.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
That's an interesting point, although I might frame it slightly differently.
Johnson's framing is, well, it's clearly a political attack, isn't it.
It's intended to mobilize his own base and delegitimize the
protest entirely. It's rhetorical warfare, plain and simple.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
Exactly rhetorical warfare. And the fact that this warfare is instantaneous,
that it happens immediately. That tells us something crucial about
the current environment, doesn't it. It illustrates that for significant
political forces, this protest is viewed entirely through a lens
of extreme ideological opposition and animosity, not constitutional discourse. The protest,
(09:56):
whatever its origins, is immediately converted into political war and
this just highlights the deep polarization where any large scale
civic action taken against the administration is almost instantly stripped
of any potential non partisan character it might have had.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
But I have to reject the idea that a hostile
political attack from the opposition automatically somehow nullifies the legitimate
constitutional character of the original protest itself. The protest, I maintain,
is defined by its core motivation challenging specific policies and
defending perceived rights, not by the aggressive rhetoric that's deployed
(10:33):
against it. The motivation seems to be policy change, not
necessarily electoral gain for one specific party.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
But the measurable strategic value. The functional outcome, which perhaps
you dismissed a bit earlier, arguably is electoral gain, or
at least electoral insight. It allows the opposition forces to
gauge the intensity of anti Trump frustration across the country,
which is an absolutely indispensable tool in any campaign strategy.
Moving forward, it seems almost impossible in practice to separate
(11:02):
the civic energy from the strategic political advantage it undeniably provides.
Speaker 6 (11:08):
As we draw towards a close then, I'd say the
strongest evidence for the constitutional defense argument still lies in
the specificity of the grievances, the executive's apparent willingness to
use quasi military force domestically and to weaponize federal funding
for what looks like ideological retribution. And again, the massive
decentralized scale indicates a broad, genuine and principled reaction to
(11:32):
these perceived abuses of power. The citizens involved seem to
be demanding accountability based on these tangible threats to institutional stability.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
And my conclusion remains that while the initial intent might
well be constitutional in spirit, this movement simply cannot exist
purely as a defensive principle in the current climate. The
hyper part is in political environment. Coupled with the explicit
backing of those high profile political figures. It means the
movement is functionally serving as the leading edge of the
(12:01):
organized opposition strategy. Its primary utility, whether intended by every
participant or not, ends up being political, challenging the administration's legitimacy,
and importantly measuring that anti Trump energy.
Speaker 7 (12:14):
Ultimately, I think what the source material really presents us
with is a fundamental tension inherent in modern political mobilization.
The question becomes, can a mass protest truly exist primarily
as a neutral civic defense mechanism or is it almost
inevitably absorbed and ultimately defined by the partisan political apparatus
(12:37):
it seeks to challenge.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
Exactly, And then listener really has to weigh that stated
principled intent of the grassroots organizers against the unavoidable political
context and those high profile endorsements. The question is in
just whether the policies themselves are aggressive, but whether any
significant movement can realistically avoid being strategically captured in today's
(12:59):
hyper polarized political environment. There's clearly much more to explore
here regarding the mechanics and consequences of mobilization in our time.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.