It’s always dangerous to accept “participation” statistics about public events, so I’ll take equal grains of salt with the White House’s estimate of 250,000 attendees at Donald Trump’s June 14 birthday parade in Washington, DC, and the American Civil Liberties Union’s estimate of more than five million participants in more than 2,100 “No Kings” rallies around the US on the same day.

I attended the “No Kings” event in Gainesville, Florida, with a friend. Media estimates for participants in that rally range from 1,500 to 3,000. My impression is that real attendance came closer to, and probably exceeded, the higher figure.

I didn’t go to the rally with any particular issue on my mind. I didn’t make a sign to wave, or take advantage of any of the offerings of signs hitting on various subjects.

While it’s fair to say that I’m “anti-Trump” both in general and on any number of specifics, my goal (and, I think, my friend’s) wasn’t so much to express that sentiment as to “take the temperature.” What issues would enjoy the loudest support/opposition? Would MAGA counter-protesters show up? Would the protesters, the counter-protesters, or the police engage in violence?

Thankfully, I saw no violence. I saw no counter-protesters. Oddly, at a gathering of thousands with tense political implications, I saw not a single uniformed police officer. I’m not saying they weren’t there. But I walked around quite a bit and IF they were there they weren’t prominent.

The simplest “temperature” measure, of course, was opposition to the presidency of Donald Trump.  Nobody (or at least nobody I encountered) seemed to disagree with that.

Why? Well, that’s where the crowd got all over the place.

I saw signs opposing US support for Israel’s war in Gaza (but, oddly, no signs referencing Iran or the Russia-Ukraine war);  signs opposing cuts to federal funding of everything from Medicaid to university research; signs opposing Elon Musk; signs supporting LGBTQ people and causes; signs opposing Trump’s war on immigrants; signs supporting free speech, civil liberties, and due process; and just general anti-Trump signage.

The initial talk by the main “organizer” stressed that the 50501 movement (which “coordinated” the “No Kings” events) is “decentralized” and “non-partisan.” Perhaps the former, but far from the latter. Various Democratic Party organizations, and “progressive” organizations at least nominally affiliated with the party, ran booths. Groups of people wearing similar t-shirts suggested those organizations had specifically turned out their members for the event.

Let me be blunt: Whether the organizers intended it or not, the nationwide simultaneous rallies became, in effect, the Democratic Party’s first major campaign event for the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. Those of who oppose Trump but aren’t Democrats came along for the ride. Our support was co-opted whether we liked it or not.

So: I had fun, but found the pervasive “no REPUBLICAN kings” vibe disappointingly narrow.

Until we reject the whole idea of letting ourselves be ruled by politicians, the senile party hacks who lord it over us are “kings” whether we call them that or not.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On June 12, Axios reported, the US regime refused to support Israeli strikes on Iran … but US president Donald Trump said such strikes “might very well happen” even though he wouldn’t want Israel to “blow it” (“it” being a new nuclear deal to replace the one Trump began violating in 2018).

Hours later, Israeli aircraft attacked, apparently damaging Iranian nuclear facilities and killing top military figures. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the action as “unilateral” and emphasized that “we are not involved.”

Within hours, however, Trump described the Israeli strikes as, effectively, an outsourcing of US policy. “We knew just about everything,” he said. “We knew enough that we gave Iran 60 days to make a deal and today is 61, right? So, you know, we knew everything.”

After which US forces put its air defense capabilities in the region to work helping Israel blunt the impact of Iranian counterstrikes.

One reasonable conclusion, drawn by any number of reasonable people, is that Trump and Rubio were lying to begin with and that the Israeli strikes enjoyed US approval and possibly even active, direct US support (such as the use of US aerial refueling for the Israeli aircraft).

That certainly seems possible, but I’d like to offer a different theory: Trump got played. The Israelis said they intended to strike. Trump said not to. The Israelis struck anyway, betting that Trump would circle back to claim prior knowledge and tacit approval, then throw in to defend Israel from the consequences of its actions.

I don’t know that either theory will ever be fully proven as correct, but the latter theory tracks with everything we know about Trump’s history and method.

As a “leader,” Trump is congenitally incapable of admitting either of two things: Error or weakness.

Prior to running for politics, he operated entirely on “brand,” not actual accomplishment.

Over decades as a real estate developer, casino operator, etc., he racked up multiple business bankruptcies and built a smaller fortune than he’d have earned from investing his inheritance in an S&P 500-indexed mutual fund and going on permanent vacation.

When sequential failures in real business moved him to go  full Hollywood with The Apprentice, the focus was on being a “boss”  dispensing sage advice to (or yelling “you’re fired” at) future business moguls (most of whom subsequently sank from view).

Having failed upward into the presidency, his strategy remains the same: Promote a Trump “brand” built on the pretense that he’s competent and in charge. When both prove false, just change the story to fit the image.

In my opinion, the Israelis correctly saw Trump as an easy mark and acted accordingly. We’ll get stuck with the bill, in treasure and quite possibly blood.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“[F]rom now on,” US president Donald Trump wrote in his Truth Social temper tantrum over anti-ICE protests in Lose Angeles, “MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests.”

I agree with what Trump’s saying … but not with what he means.

He’s ordering protesters not to wear masks (they’ll ignore him, as they should).

He should be ordering the police and military personnel across from those protesters to uncover their faces.

Over the last several years, it’s become common to see photos and videos of supposed “law enforcement personnel” conducting operations while wearing balaclavas and other face coverings to hide their identities. Not just while working “crowd control” at demonstrations, but when busting into homes and businesses to investigate alleged crimes, serve warrants, etc.

That needs to end, now, for two reasons.

The first reason is that it’s unsafe for everyone involved.

Hypothetical:

You’re going about your lawful personal business when someone wearing a ski mask and dark jacket with large lettering on the back runs at you, waving a gun and yelling “Freeze! Police!” (or “ICE!” or “FBI!” or whatever).

Is he or she actually a police officer of some kind?

Or are you about to be mugged, raped, murdered, or some combination of those things?

If you weren’t conducting yourself violently at the moment of contact,  you’d have a solid “stand your ground” case if you whipped out a handgun and put that person down. Your fear of  death or grievous bodily harm in such a situation would be entirely reasonable.

If you weren’t conducting yourself violently at the moment of contact, the proper approach by a real police officer would be to politely introduce himself or herself, with face uncovered and service weapon holstered, produce photo identification matching said face, and state his or her business with you.

We’ve seen a recent spate of arrests for impersonating ICE agents and other “law enforcement personnel” while detaining and even raping others. Those incidents may or may not have involved masks, but letting real cops wear masks makes impersonating them easier — and their jobs harder if onlookers justifiably intervene versus unidentifiable masked assailants.

The second reason is about who owes what to whom.

As a private citizen, who you are and what you look like is none of the government’s business until and unless there’s probable cause to believe you’ve committed, or are in the act of committing, a crime.

As a government employee, who a cop is and what he or she looks like is entirely the public’s business any time we want it to be. The cop at least pretends to work for — “serve and protect” — us, while collecting a paycheck from the taxes we fork over.

We’re the bosses, at least in theory. They’re our employees, at least in theory.  The idea that they’re entitled to hide their identities from us while waving guns at us and ordering us around gets that relationship completely bass-ackward.

We shouldn’t have to show your faces. They should.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY