
Protests against a regal presidency have been notably peaceful
AT MIDDAY, BY the time the 'No Kings' march in Chicago was due to start, so many people were squashed into Daley Plaza, in the city's downtown, that it caused a sort of gridlock, with protesters unable to march in any direction. There were a few stirring speeches—for those close enough to hear, anyway—but mostly people milled around enjoying the show. Some came in fancy dress: furries; Mexican wrestlers; clowns and two men dressed as cardboard tanks. Some carried megaphones. The communists, with hammer and sickle flags, were well prepared; the families with small children on cargo-bicycles less so. What united them all was disdain for Donald Trump.
The protests, under the banner 'No Kings', were America's largest in years. There were as many as 2,000 separate events planned, in all the biggest cities and in hundreds of smaller ones. Thousands turned out even in Republican-voting places like Provo, Utah; or Boise, Idaho. Overall attendance was probably in the millions, yet there was little disorder and relatively few arrests.
Meanwhile in Washington, Mr Trump celebrated his 79th birthday by watching a military parade he ordered up—the first in the capital in more than three decades—which culminated in a day of festivities marking the army's 250th birthday. Mr Trump had expressed his desire for a big martial parade during his first term but was dissuaded by advisers who noted that such rituals were a staple of countries like Russia or North Korea. Here as in many other areas, Mr Trump proved determined to throw off constraints during his second term. The president beamed as more than 6,000 soldiers joined a parade down Constitution Avenue, dressed in kit from across the country's history, culminating with a progression of aircraft and tanks that ground up Washington's streets along the way.
Attendees wore MAGA gear and in many ways the mood was similar to a Trump rally, with vendors selling anything from DOGE hats to shirts commemorating the 'big beautiful military parade'. (One young attendee had a shirt that declared: 'I'm here for the tanks.') Many in the crowd didn't understand the fuss. 'I wish it was not the birthday of President Trump,' said Keith Lay, a retired businessman from Tennessee. But he traveled to the capital, he said, to honour the military and his late son, who took his own life after serving two tours of duty in Afghanistan: 'It's for our troops, doggone it.'
Protesters gathered in front of the White House a few blocks away, and a few others appeared elsewhere. Perla Celnicker, a teacher and Mexican immigrant, said she came to protest for the first time on account of Mr Trump's deportation campaign. But seeking to avoid an inflammatory confrontation in Washington, the great majority of anti-Trump protesters assembled elsewhere.
The size of the crowds suggested a summer of sustained anti-Trump protests may lie ahead. The initial lack of violence is a relief. For days beforehand, following protests in Los Angeles that turned violent, Republicans had warned of mass disorder. In Florida one sheriff warned protesters: 'We will kill you, graveyard dead.' Democratic leaders worried that scenes of violence might provoke Mr Trump to send the national guard into more big cities. In New York, NYPD officers donned riot helmets and batons along Fifth Avenue. Yet when it came to it, almost all were orderly. The one exception was in Los Angeles, where police clearing streets ahead of an 8pm downtown curfew once again deployed tear-gas on a small group of protesters who had remained after most went home.
At the end of the march in Chicago, the local police handed out bottles of water. In New York as of 6pm, the police reported making no arrests at all. A crowd in which middle-aged and upper-middle class protesters were well represented was also notably well behaved. At one point some in New York broke into a word-perfect rendition of 'Do You Hear The People Sing' from the French revolution musical 'Les Misérables'. They did not build any barricades themselves. For some the whole thing was rather nostalgic. 'You walk in a crowd like this [and there is a] feeling of love that comes over you for your country and your fellow man,' said Jayne Goldstein, at the march in Manhattan, closing her eyes and smiling. Her first protest was against the Vietnam war.
The peacefulness of the demonstrations contrasted with the violence inflicted by one man in Minnesota. Two state politicians, both Democrats, were shot, with their spouses, in the small hours of June 14th by a man who came to their door dressed as a police officer. One of his victims, Melissa Hortman, the speaker of the state House of Representatives until January, was killed; so was her husband. Senator John Hoffman and his wife underwent surgery in hospital.
It was an 'act of targeted political violence,' said Tim Walz, the state's Democratic governor, at a press conference. The alleged gunman, named as Vance Boelter, a 57-year-old private-security operator, is still on the loose. He is a graduate of a Pentecostal bible college associated with Christian nationalism, and he had in his car a list of nearly 70 different targets, including other Democratic politicians and anti-abortion activists, according to the police. He also had copies of flyers for Minneapolis's No Kings protests.
In the aftermath, Mr Walz urged protesters in the twin cities of Minneapolis and St Paul not to demonstrate, lest they be targeted too. Thousands turned out anyway, and paid homage to their murdered representative. For all of the fear about mobs, it was a reminder that throughout America's history, many of the worst acts of violence have been committed by lone individuals.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
18 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump's plan for federal student loan revealed: New details emerge in court documents
Newly released court documents reveal the Trump administration tried to move control of the country's $1.6 trillion federal student loan program from the Department of Education to the Treasury Department. The plan, which was being quietly developed, would have shifted responsibility for managing and collecting student loans—a job traditionally handled by the Education Department's Federal Student Aid (FSA) office. That effort was paused after a federal judge blocked broader attempts to restructure the Education Department. The federal student loan system affects over 42 million Americans. Moving oversight to another agency could change how payments are collected, how borrowers are protected, and how the system is regulated. With more borrowers falling behind on payments and credit scores dropping, pressure is rising on the government to manage the system better. The court ruling keeps the current setup in place, at least for now, but future legal or political changes could shift the system in major ways. Also Read: Trump mulls expanding US travel ban to 36 more countries | Full list According to court filings, the Department of Education, under Trump, had been working on an agreement with the Treasury to review how federal student loans are managed. Rachel Oglesby, the department's chief of staff, confirmed this in a court filing on Tuesday. Nine Education Department staffers were also scheduled to move to the Treasury to help review loan collections. That plan was stopped after US District Judge Myong Joun issued a ruling last month. The judge also ordered the Education Department to rehire over 1,300 workers laid off earlier this year and blocked efforts to shift loan oversight to the Small Business Administration (SBA). The ruling keeps the federal student loan program under the Education Department's control. It also prevents any transfers of authority to other agencies without Congress getting involved. Some policy experts argue the Treasury has more experience handling public funds than the SBA, but say a move like this would still require a change in law. Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, loan management must stay within the Federal Student Aid office. A past Treasury pilot program from 2014 to 2015 tried collecting defaulted student loans but brought in less money than private collection firms. Other proposals to link student loan payments to wages have also faced problems tied to income tracking and privacy rules. Meanwhile, student loan debt is becoming a growing problem. The pandemic-related pause on loan payments has ended, and many borrowers are struggling to catch up. Between January and March 2025, nearly six million borrowers were 90 days or more behind on payments or in default, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Many saw large drops in their credit scores, which could make it harder to qualify for mortgages, car loans, or other types of credit.


Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Elon Musk takes subtle jab at Donald Trump during nationwide 'No Kings' protests
Tesla CEO Elon Musk took a veiled dig at US President Donald Trump as millions of people rallied on the streets of American cities during 'No Kings' protests. Taking to X, Musk posted a video of a SpaceX Starship rocket landing successfully along with the caption, 'No gods or kings, only men.' This post follows Musk's grovelling apology after a highly publicized argument with Trump over the latter's 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Musk's remark was uploaded just hours after the 'No Kings' protests, which were nationwide demonstrations this weekedn against Trump and his immigration policy. On X, some people conjectured that the billionaire might be deliberately criticizing Trump by nodding to them. In addition, he posted the exact identical thing with the remark, 'Anyone else think of this yesterday?' 'Hey @elonmusk, are you joining our #NoKingsProtest?' another asked. Also Read: US lawmaker Melissa Hortman broke down in tears hours before fatal Minnesota shooting: Watch viral video here Trump warned about canceling Musk's federal contracts during the fallout, and Musk asserted that because Trump is named in some of the documents pertaining to sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein, the Trump administration has not made all of them public. 'I regret some of my posts about President Donald Trump last week. They went too far,' Musk stated in a repentant post. Meanwhile, users also referred to the link to the video game Bioshock, which depicts a dystopian underwater city established to allow scientists and businessmen to function free of governmental oversight. The city's motto, which is displayed on banners all across the city, is 'No gods or kings, only man.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' the SpaceX CEO wrote on X. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' According to the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, fewer Republicans now see Trump's former government efficiency advocate Musk "very favorably" as compared to April.


Mint
31 minutes ago
- Mint
Barry Eichengreen: Is the US Federal Reserve's independence at threat?
The independence of the US Federal Reserve is back in the spotlight. Late last month, Fed Chair Jerome Powell met at the White House with President Donald Trump 'to discuss economic developments," as the Fed antiseptically put it in a post-meeting statement. Market participants will wonder what went on. Held at the president's request, the meeting was exceptional but not unprecedented. Fed chairs have met with presidents on occasion, although those occasions generally were less than propitious. In 1965, William McChesney Martin met with Lyndon B. Johnson at LBJ's Texas ranch. Johnson worried that a Fed interest-rate hike had created headwinds for growth, and anticipated a challenging midterm election. Also Read: Powell versus Trump: Why Fed independence matters in times of turmoil Johnson confronted the Fed chair physically as well as verbally, using his considerable girth to pin Martin to a wall. The impact on Fed policy is disputed to this day. President Richard Nixon met with his Fed Chair Arthur Burns on scores of occasions, regularly pressing him to pursue expansionary monetary policies, which Burns obligingly did. In 1984, with another election looming, Ronald Reagan summoned Paul Volcker to the White House, where James Baker, the president's chief of staff, instructed Volcker not to raise rates. Ben Bernanke met repeatedly with George W. Bush during the Global Financial Crisis, when cooperation to prevent collapse of the financial system was imperative. Powell himself dined with Trump at the White House in 2019. Periodic meetings pose no threat to central bank independence. Independence requires accountability. And in describing the Fed's priorities and general outlook to the president, the Fed chair is demonstrating accountability to the public. But as in the case of Nixon and Burns, a president who regularly harangues the Fed chair, specifically over interest-rate policy, threatens that independence. Also Read: The US-China trade truce doesn't solve the Fed's headache Trump has, of course, repeatedly criticized the Fed's interest-rate decisions. The post-meeting statement issued by the Fed was careful to say that 'expectations for monetary policy" were not discussed. So far so good, assuming the statement can be taken at face value. The second event raising questions about Fed independence was the Supreme Court's 22 May decision in Trump vs Wilcox in which the court granted an administration request to allow the president to fire members of independent government agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which oversees union elections and labour laws. Technically, the court paused a lower court ruling that would have stayed the president's power of dismissal, suggesting that presidential discretion is justified because NLRB members 'exercise considerable executive power." In other words, they are de facto members of the executive branch, subordinate to the president. This logic would appear to put the Federal Reserve squarely in Trump's crosshairs. Also Read: Barry Eichengreen: Trump is taking aim at the IMF, World Bank and US Fed But in a 6-3 ruling, the six-member majority on the court explicitly exempted the Fed. 'The Federal Reserve," the justices reasoned, 'is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States." This argument might be seen as providing strong support for Fed independence, except that it is illiterate, illogical and ahistorical. The First and Second Banks of the US, which executed limited functions on behalf of the government between 1791 and 1836, were private banks, full stop. Along with providing depository services to the government, they competed with other banks, extending commercial loans. There was nothing quasi about their private status. In contrast, the Federal Reserve Board—if we assume that's what the justices mean when they write 'Federal Reserve"—is made up of seven presidentially-appointed public servants. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), responsible for interest-rate policy, includes those seven board members and five regional Reserve Bank presidents, who are appointed by Reserve Bank directors, subject to the approval of the Federal Reserve Board. The regional Reserve Banks come closest to being 'quasi-private,' because private citizens serve on their boards. But to argue that the same is true of the FOMC or the Federal Reserve System as a whole is a non sequitur. Also Read: The Fed's 'Mission Impossible' is now 'Mission Accomplished' Beyond the Fed's governance is the scope of its authority. The First and Second Banks of the US lacked statutory authority to regulate banks, a key public-policy mandate of the Federal Reserve. In justifying its decision, the majority cited an earlier ruling, Seila Law LLC vs Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in which the court affirmed the president's power to remove the heads of agencies led by a single director and not a board. That decision included a footnote that the Second Bank and the Fed 'can claim a special historical status." But it provided no legal basis for that statement, and no judgment of validity of the claim. The note reads like a ChatGPT hallucination. Removing checks on presidential powers while arbitrarily exempting the Fed opens the door to arbitrarily not exempting the US central bank. Advocates of Fed independence should be worried. Maybe that's what Trump and Powell talked about. ©2025/Project Syndicate The author is professor of economics and political science at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author, most recently, of 'In Defense of Public Debt'