Millions of Americans gathered across the United States on June 14, 2025, in protests organized under the banner “No Kings,” demonstrating against actions perceived as expanding presidential power. The demonstrations highlighted public opposition to immigration roundups, budget cuts, and what many participants described as growing authoritarianism, occurring just days after the deployment of federal troops to address related protests in Los Angeles.
Contents
Key Takeaways:
- Millions participated in largely peaceful nationwide protests on June 14, 2025.
- Demonstrators opposed presidential actions including immigration policies and budget cuts.
- The protests followed a controversial federal military deployment to counter earlier demonstrations in Los Angeles.
- The events underscore the ongoing tension between public dissent and executive authority in the U.S.
Protests Across the Country
On June 14, 2025, rallies took place in cities across the United States. Organized under the name “No Kings,” the protests drew millions of participants expressing dissent over various government policies and the actions of the current administration. Issues cited by protesters included recent immigration enforcement operations and reductions in government social programs. Many demonstrators voiced concerns about what they characterized as an increase in presidential authority and a shift toward authoritarianism.
The nationwide events were largely peaceful, with isolated incidents of confrontation or property damage reported in some locations.
Historical Context of US Protests
Public protest has a long and significant history in the United States, serving as a frequent mechanism for citizens to advocate for or protect their rights. Historical examples range from the Boston Tea Party and the Civil Rights movement to the Stonewall uprising, the Tea Party movement, and the Black Lives Matter demonstrations. These movements illustrate the role of public assembly in shaping American society and policy.
Large-scale protests have occurred with increased frequency in recent months. Earlier events, such as the “Hands Off” protests on April 5, 2025, focused on issues like proposed budget cuts to social safety nets. Participants in these demonstrations often state their belief that they are acting to safeguard democratic principles.
Administration’s Response to Dissent
The administration has frequently criticized protesters and the concept of public protest itself. The president has used terms like “troublemakers, agitators, insurrectionists” to describe demonstrators. Ahead of a military parade held in Washington, D.C., on June 14, the president stated that potential protesters “will be met with very heavy force.”
This stance echoes the administration’s reaction to the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020. Reports from 2022 indicated that the former Secretary of Defense stated the president had inquired about the possibility of shooting protesters during the 2020 demonstrations following the death of George Floyd.
Researchers who compile data on protests in the U.S. note that while protests can advance movement goals, they also influence government behavior and policy decisions.
Protest: Expression of Democracy or Target for Suppression?
Protests are widely viewed as a fundamental expression of democracy, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble.
Conversely, suppressing protests can be a method for governments to counter challenges to their policies or authority. For leaders seeking to increase executive power or move towards an autocratic system, protest suppression can offer opportunities, though it also carries risks.
Well-attended protests can mobilize large segments of the population, increase public awareness through media coverage and social media, and strengthen participants’ commitment to a cause. Research suggests that sustained, nonviolent movements involving at least 3.5% of the population have historically often succeeded in achieving their objectives against governments, as seen in cases like the movement against Augusto Pinochet’s regime in Chile in the 1980s, which employed diverse tactics beyond just demonstrations.
Protest organizers frequently encourage participants to engage in broader activism, including contacting elected officials, registering to vote, or participating in community support efforts. Large-scale street protests are often seen as a starting point for deeper civic engagement.
Risks and Opportunities for Both Sides
Leaders of protest movements cannot control the actions of all participants or individuals who join or are adjacent to the events. This can lead to instances where individuals with different motives or agendas engage in confrontational behavior, including violence against property or law enforcement.
Recent protests in Los Angeles, for example, saw incidents such as self-driving cars being set on fire and objects thrown at officers, alongside instances of vandalism. Authorities also employed measures like chemical irritants and pepper balls against demonstrators.
For groups opposing actions seen as moves toward autocracy, large protests are intended to demonstrate mass rejection of such policies. Organizations like 50501 and Indivisible aimed for millions to attend the “No Kings” protests on June 14 with this goal in mind.
However, protests also present opportunities for the administration.
Demonstrators holding signs and flags face members of the military standing guard outside a large building.Demonstrators face California National Guard members outside the Federal Building in Los Angeles on June 9, 2025, during protests.
Misrepresenting and Restricting Dissent
Protests can be used by leaders consolidating power as justification for actions that further undermine democratic norms or institutions. The recent protests in Los Angeles, which focused on the administration’s immigration raids conducted by ICE, illustrate this dynamic.
Autocratic systems often involve politicizing independent institutions, including the military. The Los Angeles protests provided an occasion for this, with the administration deploying Marines and the California National Guard to respond to the demonstrations. While domestic deployment of the military has occurred in U.S. history, it remains rare.
This deployment took place shortly after a speech by the president at a military base in North Carolina, where military personnel reportedly cheered political statements, raising concerns about the military norm of nonpartisanship.
The deployment in Los Angeles also diverged from typical procedures, as the National Guard is usually under the control of state governors. The administration proceeded with the deployment despite objections from both the Los Angeles mayor and California’s governor. The state subsequently sued the federal government over the action, with an initial court decision ruling the federal action illegal, a decision which the administration has appealed.
Disinformation is another tactic associated with autocratic rule. The administration’s portrayal of the Los Angeles protests described a chaotic, gang-ridden city marked by widespread violence. Reports from individuals on the ground contradicted this narrative, characterizing the protests as largely peaceful and confined to a small area of the city.
Beyond military deployment and narrative control, restricting dissent can involve targeting individuals associated with protests. In Los Angeles, this included instances of journalists covering the events being targeted, along with the arrests of prominent figures like a union president and the temporary detention of a U.S. Senator from California.
The events of June 14 presented a stark contrast: a military parade in Washington, D.C., showcasing federal power, juxtaposed with millions of citizens across the country exercising their First Amendment rights to protest the actions of the executive. This dynamic highlights the deep political division and the ongoing tension between efforts to concentrate executive authority and public resistance.
