TEHRAN – In an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times, Philip Rocco, a professor of political science at Marquette University, examines the rise of the “No Kings” protests across the United States. 

He describes the movement as both a revival of America’s anti-authoritarian tradition and a response to the growing concentration of power in the executive branch under President Donald Trump’s second term. 

Rocco argues that the protests expose deep tensions between federal and state governments while signaling a broader crisis of democratic accountability. 

By invoking the revolutionary slogan “No Kings,” he notes, activists are linking the nation’s founding ideals to today’s fight against inequality, political polarization, and the erosion of institutional checks and balances.

The following is the text of the interview:

How would you contextualize the emergence of the “No Kings” protest in the broader history of U.S. political dissent?  Are we witnessing a new form of grassroots activism or an extension of long-standing anti-authoritarian movements?

That’s a great question. I’m not a social movements scholar, so it’s hard for me to give a definitive answer, but I can say that the form of protest we’re seeing now draws on a long tradition of social movement mobilization going back at least a century.

At the same time, activists today are responding to new demands, new threats, and new challenges in mobilizing a populace that’s quite socially fragmented. People no longer have the same social institutions that used to connect them routinely, even half a century ago.

That has required using new forms of technology and communication to bring people together. By many measures, these are among the largest protests the United States has ever seen.

The slogan “No Kings” resonates strongly with American democratic principles. How do you interpret its symbolic meaning in today’s polarized political landscape?

The choice of “No Kings” as a political formula is consistent with what successful social movements tend to do: they choose a symbol that’s robust to different interpretations.

You have groups focused on the administration’s attacks on workers, immigrants, and marginalized communities, as well as those concerned about fundamental democratic rights like voting and free speech. There’s so much going on that finding a symbol that speaks to all those different groups can be difficult.

“No Kings” works because it means different things to different people, while also drawing on America’s founding ideals. Next year marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and the movement has highlighted its list of grievances against a king—drawing deliberate historical parallels.

Given your research on federalism and intergovernmental partnerships, how would you interpret the “No Kings” protests? Do they reflect a breakdown in federal, state, and local relations rather than just partisan backlash?

During the Trump administration, we’ve seen a kind of weaponization of intergovernmental relations—using the denial of funding to state and local governments to enforce loyalty to the president’s personal priorities.
We also saw federalization of the National Guard without the usual factual basis, and claims of “rebellion” where there were none. Governors and mayors have responded not just through litigation, but also through public political speech, mobilizing citizens to look critically at what’s happening to basic protections in the Bill of Rights.
We’re witnessing an intensification of conflict between federal and state governments that goes beyond typical partisan federalism. The administration has challenged state and local autonomy in a fundamental way.

Do you think these protests are purely anti-Trump, or do they signify a deeper frustration with the U.S. political system as a whole?
Without a doubt, the Trump administration is emblematic of broader problems that many protesters have with American politics: extreme income inequality, unequal political access, and a sense that government no longer represents working-class voters.
Cuts to programs like food stamps and Medicaid to finance tax cuts for the wealthy are not unique to Trump. Those grievances predate him—but Trump provides a focal point for them like no other.

What long-term effects could the “No Kings” protest have on the Republican Party, especially in terms of leadership and ideology?

It’s too soon to tell. The contest for control within the party is still unfolding, especially as Trump’s political influence wanes. Interestingly, there have been more protests in counties that voted for Trump than in previous years, but I haven’t seen evidence that this is shifting party strategy yet.

Republican support for Trump remains resilient, and elections are still decided by tight margins. If protests are going to reshape the party, it may take time before we see that effect.

Academically speaking, how do you distinguish between strong executive leadership and the personalization of power? Where does the current U.S. context fall?

The growing power of the executive branch makes it difficult for Congress to assert leadership when the president pushes in another direction. Over the last year, we’ve seen the executive impound funds Congress has appropriated, with little congressional pushback.

What distinguishes the personalization of power from simple executive expansion is the use of state resources for personal political gain. For example, it would have been unthinkable for a prior president to deny disaster aid to a state simply because it didn’t vote for them—but now we’ve seen signs that this is happening. That’s not just strong leadership; that’s the use of office to advance personal power.

Looking historically, which period of U.S. political development most resembles the current moment? Are we repeating cycles from past “imperial presidencies,” or entering new territory?

It’s difficult to draw direct historical parallels because the federal government today wields far greater power than in earlier eras.

We can trace threads back to illiberal moments—like the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams, the Civil War, or the Redeemer period after Reconstruction—but the current situation is unique. Even at those times of intense social conflict, power was not as concentrated in the presidency as it is now. This moment feels rather singular.