TEHRAN – In an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times, Marquette University political science professor Philip Rocco reflects on the “No Kings” protests taking place across the United States.
He describes the movement as both a revival of America’s anti-authoritarian tradition and a response to the increasing concentration of power in the executive branch under President Donald Trump’s second term.
Rocco argues that the protests expose deep tensions between the federal and state governments and signal a broader crisis of democratic accountability.
By citing the revolutionary slogan “There is no king,” activists are linking the nation’s founding ideals to today’s fight against inequality, political polarization, and the erosion of institutional checks and balances, he notes.
The text of the interview is below.
How do you contextualize the emergence of the “No Kings” protests within the broader history of political opposition in the United States? Are we witnessing a new form of grassroots movement or an extension of long-standing anti-authoritarian movements?
That’s a great question. I’m not a social movement scholar, so it’s difficult to give a definitive answer, but I can say that the forms of protest we’re seeing today are based on a long tradition of social movement mobilization that goes back at least a century.
At the same time, today’s activists are responding to new demands, new threats, and new challenges in mobilizing largely socially divided masses. People no longer have the social institutions that brought them together on a daily basis even half a century ago.
This required using new forms of technology and communication to bring people together. From many perspectives, these are among the largest protests the United States has ever experienced.
The slogan “No Kings” resonates strongly with American democratic principles. How do you interpret its symbolic meaning in today’s polarized political climate?
Choosing “no king” as a political formula is consistent with what successful social movements tend to do. They choose symbols that stand up to different interpretations.
Some groups focus on the regime’s attacks on workers, immigrants, and marginalized communities, while others are concerned about basic democratic rights such as voting and free speech. With so much going on, it can be difficult to find a symbol that fits all the different groups.
“No Kings” works because, while it draws on the ideals of America’s founding, it means different things to different people. Next year marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and the movement is highlighting a list of grievances against the king and deliberately drawing historical parallels.
Given your work on federalism and intergovernmental partnerships, how do you interpret the “No Kings” protests? Do they reflect a breakdown in federal-state-local relationships rather than just partisan backlash?
During the Trump administration, we have seen a kind of weaponization of intergovernmental relations, using the denial of funding to state and local governments to force loyalty to the president’s personal priorities.
There were also unfounded claims of federalization of the National Guard and unsubstantiated “insurrection” without any basis in ordinary facts. Governors and mayors responded not only through lawsuits but also through public political speech, mobilizing citizens to take a critical look at what was happening to basic protections in the Bill of Rights.
We are witnessing an escalation of conflict between the federal and state governments that goes beyond typical partisan federalism. The regime challenged state and local autonomy in fundamental ways.
Do you think these protests are purely anti-Trump, or do you think they represent a deep dissatisfaction with the American political system as a whole?
Without a doubt, the Trump administration is emblematic of broader problems that many protesters have with American politics, including extreme income inequality, unequal political access, and a sense that the government is no longer representative of working-class voters.
Trump is not alone in cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid, which are meant to finance tax cuts for the wealthy. These grievances predate him, but Trump uniquely provides a focus for them.
What long-term impact could the “No Kings” protests have on the Republican Party, especially in terms of leadership and ideology?
It’s too early to say that. Particularly as President Trump’s political influence weakens, the struggle for leadership within the party continues. Interestingly, there are more protests than usual in counties that voted for Trump, but we have yet to see any evidence that this is changing the party’s strategy.
Republican support for Trump remains strong, and the election remains decided by close margins. If the protests change the shape of the party, it may take some time for the effects to be felt.
Academically speaking, how do you distinguish between strong executive leadership and privatization of power? Where does the current situation in the United States fit in?
The growing power of the executive branch makes it difficult for Congress to provide leadership if the president moves in a different direction. Over the last year, we’ve seen Congress defund executive agencies with little Congressional pushback.
The difference between the privatization of power and mere administrative expansion is the use of national resources for personal political gain. For example, it would have been unthinkable for previous presidents to deny disaster aid to a state just because it didn’t get a yes vote, but there are now signs that this is happening. It’s not just strong leadership. It’s about using the office to increase personal power.
Historically, which period of U.S. political development most resembles the present? Are we repeating the “imperial president” cycle of the past, or are we entering new territory?
Today’s federal government wields far more power than in previous eras, so it’s difficult to draw direct historical parallels.
Although it can be traced back to illiberal eras such as the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams, the Civil War, and the messianic era after Reconstruction, the current situation is unique. Even in times of intense social conflict, power was not as concentrated in the office of the president as it is today. This moment feels quite unique.