Anti-Trump Protests Get Underway Across the Country
They came out in defense of national parks and small businesses, public education and health care for veterans, abortion rights and fair elections. They were against tariffs and oligarchs, dark money and fascism, the deportation of legal immigrants and the Department of Government Efficiency.
Demonstrators had no shortage of causes as they gathered in towns and cities across the country on Saturday for a day of protest against President Donald J. Trump's policies. Rallies were planned in all 50 states, and images of some of the earliest posted on social media showed crowds in places like St. Augustine, Fla., and Buffalo, and marchers in rainy Frankfort, Ky.
The mass action, 'Hands Off!,' was planned at a time when many on the left have bemoaned what they considered a lack of strong resistance to President Trump. The president has moved aggressively to punish people and institutions he viewed as out of step with his ideology.
The rallies were organized by Indivisible, MoveOn and several other groups that led protests about abortion rights, gun violence and racial justice during the first Trump administration. Organizers said they hoped to shift the emphasis to pocketbook issues like health care and Social Security, with the message that President Trump is making life harder for the average American while benefiting his richest friends.
They also moved away from focusing on massive demonstrations, like the 2017 Women's March on Washington, to instead plan dozens of local gatherings in communities large and small.
Judging by the waving placards, some demonstrators had specific issues, while others opposed the Trump administration and MAGA movement in general. 'Hands off my money, rights, democracy,' one sign proclaimed. 'Make lying wrong again,' said another.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Large crowds demonstrate, march at anti-Trump 'No Kings' protest in Denver
Large crowds peacefully gathered in front of the Colorado State Capitol in Denver Saturday to take part in one of several anti-Trump 'No Kings' rallies in Colorado and across the country.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals panel scrutinizes judge's block on Trump National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) got a frosty reception at a federal appeals court Tuesday afternoon as it scrutinized a lower judge's ruling blocking President Trump's federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appeared inclined to let Trump maintain control of the guardsmen, weighing the scope of the president's discretion in times of conflict and whether the courts have the authority to intervene at all. The judges seemed to believe Supreme Court precedent provides the president with broad authority to declare emergencies that can trigger the ability for him to deploy the troops. 'Those are maybe good arguments for the Supreme Court to reconsider those cases,' Judge Eric Miller, one of Trump appointees on the panel, told California's lawyer. 'But they've told us repeatedly that when there is a case that is directly applicable to an issue, even if we think it's been undercut by later developments…we're supposed to follow the applicable case and leave it to them to overrule it,' Miller added. The judges repeatedly stressed an 1827 Supreme Court decision, Martin v. Mott, that gives the president exclusive authority to decide whether an exigency justifying the use of military power has arisen. Samuel Harbourt, California's attorney, insisted 'it was a very different case.' 'If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you,' Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Obama, told him. 'But the problem that I see for you is that Mott seem to be dealing with very similar phrasing about whenever there is an invasion, then the President has discretion, and it seemingly rejected the exact argument that you're making.' Judge Mark Bennett, the other Trump appointee, questioned whether the courts could intervene in the Los Angeles deployment even if there was some limited role for judicial review. 'With the facts here and the language in Martin v. Mott, how can that test be met here?' he asked. Trump deployed the National Guard over a week ago as protests erupted in Los Angeles over the administration's immigration raids, devolving at times into violence. He cited a statute that allows the guard to be federalized when there is a rebellion or when the president can't execute federal law with regular forces. Tuesday's arguments followed a district judge's order directing Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, called Trump's takeover illegal and said it exceeded the scope of the statute. The Justice Department appealed the ruling within minutes of its release, and the 9th Circuit panel granted the government's request to temporarily halt the ruling as its request for a longer pause is considered. Brett Shumate, who represented the government at Tuesday's arguments, said Breyer 'improperly second-guessed' Trump's judgment about the need to call up the guard, interfering with his commander-in-chief powers. 'It upends the military chain of command. It gives state governors veto power over the President's military orders. It puts article three judges on a collision course with the commander in chief. And it endangers lives,' Shumate said. California also argues that regardless of whether the triggering conditions were met, Trump did not follow the statute's mandate to issue his order 'through' the state's governor. California says that requires Newsom to consent, which he did not. But at least some of the judges appeared skeptical of that argument, too. 'It's a very roundabout way, I mean, of imposing a consultation requirement,' said Miller. The appeals court could now rule at any time. Before adjourning, the panel noted Breyer is moving quickly to a Friday hearing on whether to grant a longer injunction. His ruling would moot the current appeal. And if the administration loses, they asked for the deployment to remain intact until they have an opportunity to file an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court. Updated on June 18 at 5:58 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard deployed, for now
A federal appeals court panel late Thursday allowed President Trump to keep the National Guard deployed in Los Angeles, for now. The three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously extended its pause of a judge's order finding Trump's deployment illegal and forcing him to return control of the troops to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). 'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us. And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,' the appeals panel wrote in its unsigned, 38-page decision. The panel said it disagreed with the administration that Trump's decision isn't reviewable by the courts, but the judges acknowledged they must be 'highly deferential.' 'Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,' the opinion reads. Trump has sent in thousands of National Guard troops to protect immigration officers in the wake of recent protests in Los Angeles, which at times have devolved into violence. The move quickly sparked a lawsuit from Newsom and the state's attorney general. Though the 9th Circuit's decision marks a victory for Trump in the legal battle, it may be short-lived. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who issued last week's decision invalidating the deployment, is set to hold a hearing Friday on whether to issue an indefinite injunction. Breyer is an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. In deploying the troops, Trump cited a statute that allows him to federalize the National Guard whenever there is a rebellion or when he cannot execute federal laws with regular forces. The appeals panel said Thursday it agreed the latter trigger was likely met, so it didn't need to reach the question of whether there was a rebellion. 'Plaintiffs' own submissions state that some protesters threw objects, including Molotov cocktails, and vandalized property. According to the declarations submitted by Defendants, those activities significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute the laws,' the opinion reads. The three-judge appeals panel comprised two Trump-nominated judges, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, and Judge Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Biden. The 9th Circuit also rejected Newsom's argument Trump failed a statutory requirement to issue his deployment order 'through' the governor. Newsom contended it established a requirement that he consent, but the appeals panel said notifying the adjutant general of the California National Guard was likely sufficient. The panel stressed the statute 'does not give governors any veto power over the President's federalization decision.' 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court. The president is not a king and not above the law,' Newsom said in a statement. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' he continued. Updated June 20 at 8:30 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
