Last weekend, millions of Americans poured into the streets under the banner of “No Kings”, a nationwide protest movement opposing what many see as Donald Trump’s creeping authoritarianism. From New York to Seattle, demonstrators carried signs declaring “We are not subjects” and “Democracy, not dynasty.” The message was unmistakable: the American experiment, built on resistance to monarchy, is facing its most serious internal challenge in generations.
Trump, as always, met dissent with mockery and defiance. While publicly denying that he harbored any royal ambitions, he simultaneously posted an AI-generated video on Truth Social — a surreal digital spectacle showing himself dressed as a monarch, piloting a fighter jet and, in grotesque symbolism, dumping excrement on the very protesters who filled America’s streets.
For his supporters, it was just another example of Trumpian humor. For his critics, it was something far darker: an unmistakable signal of contempt for democratic dissent and the rule of law.
The Rise of the “No Kings” Movement
The No Kings movement began as a loosely organized coalition of civil rights groups, student networks, and local community organizations. But in the months since Trump’s second inauguration, it has evolved into something far larger — a cultural and political uprising rooted in fear that the United States is drifting toward a one-man state.
The immediate catalyst for last weekend’s protests was a series of alarming statements from within the Trump administration suggesting that the president might seek to stay in power beyond constitutional limits. His former adviser, Steve Bannon, recently told The Economist that there was “a plan” for Trump to secure a third term in 2028, despite the Twenty-Second Amendment’s clear prohibition on more than two terms.
At the same time, Trump’s Justice Department has intensified crackdowns on political opponents, and federal agents have been deployed to several Democratic-run cities. In this atmosphere, No Kings organizers see a country approaching a dangerous threshold — a moment when democratic institutions could give way to something resembling open autocracy.
“Everywhere you look, there are signs of militarization, political purges, and the targeting of dissent,” said Maya Rangel, one of the protest coordinators in Chicago. “The question is not whether Trump is preparing for civil war. The question is whether we are ready to stop it.”
Denials and Provocations
The White House, predictably, has denied any such ambitions. In a statement released on Monday, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “President Trump is restoring order to a chaotic nation, not tearing it apart. The left is using fearmongering and lies to divide the American people.”
But Trump himself has made those denials difficult to take seriously. The AI video wasn’t his first flirtation with the imagery of kingship or war. During campaign rallies, he has described himself as “the chosen one” and joked about serving “maybe 12 or 16 more years.”
Political scientist Barbara Walter, a leading expert on civil conflict, joined journalist Jonathan Freedland on The Guardian’s Politics Weekly America podcast to unpack the psychology and tactics behind Trump’s escalating confrontations. Walter’s 2022 book How Civil Wars Start warned that democracies often crumble not through sudden coups but through gradual normalization of violence and dehumanization.
“What we’re seeing now in the U.S. are the classic early warning signs of internal fracture,” Walter explained. “The rhetoric of enemies, the delegitimization of institutions, and the encouragement of vigilante violence — all of these lower the barriers that keep societies from falling into internal conflict.”
The Weaponization of Imagery
The AI video was not just offensive; it was strategic. Trump’s digital team has long understood that imagery and spectacle can do what words alone cannot. The clip of a jet-flying king was crafted to inflame, to provoke outrage and loyalty in equal measure. It turned mockery into a weapon — a way to signal dominance and control even as millions protested his rule.
“Trump’s genius, if you can call it that, lies in his ability to turn every act of opposition into proof of his victimhood,” said Freedland on the podcast. “He recasts protest as persecution, criticism as conspiracy, and resistance as treason.”
This is a tactic familiar to autocrats throughout history: to delegitimize dissent by painting it as rebellion. Once protesters are branded as enemies, any act of repression can be justified as self-defense.
Militarization and the Fear of the “Internal Enemy”
In recent months, Trump’s administration has accelerated the deployment of federal agents — including ICE and National Guard troops — to major cities under the guise of “restoring law and order.” While the official explanation is to combat crime and immigration violations, critics argue that these actions are intended to intimidate and suppress political opposition.
The most chilling moment came earlier this month when reports surfaced that Trump had considered a “surge” of troops to San Francisco before backing down after pleas from prominent business leaders. The episode underscored a new reality: America’s internal divisions are being treated as a battlefield.
“We are in a phase of what I call ‘soft civil conflict,’” said Walter. “It’s not open war yet, but the groundwork is being laid through the normalization of political violence and the erosion of mutual trust.”
The Historical Parallels
For historians, the warning lights are flashing. The U.S. has seen violent polarization before — in the 1850s, in the aftermath of Reconstruction, in the civil rights era — but never with such a concentration of power in one man’s hands combined with the technological means to manipulate perception on a mass scale.
Trump’s use of AI-generated propaganda marks a new frontier in political control. It blurs the line between satire and statecraft, fantasy and policy. In the mirror world he’s built, absurdity becomes authority.
And yet, the protests prove that millions are not fooled. The No Kings rallies represent a collective refusal to surrender reality to spectacle. They are, in their essence, a reaffirmation of citizenship — a reminder that no leader, no matter how powerful or popular, stands above the Constitution.
The Road Ahead
Whether Trump is truly preparing for civil war or merely stoking the fires of division for political gain is almost beside the point. The danger lies in what his tactics unleash — a culture of mistrust so profound that violence becomes thinkable.
As Walter concluded in her conversation with Freedland, “Civil wars don’t begin because everyone wants them. They begin because people stop believing they can resolve their differences any other way.”
The choice now rests not with the president but with the people. The mirror of American democracy is cracking. Whether it shatters — or is repaired — will depend on whether the nation still recognizes its own reflection.
%20(2).png)
