On Saturday, Oct. 18, students, professors and Middlebury residents gathered, chanting “No Kings” in protest of President Donald Trump’s perceived authoritarian tendencies. The message was clear: Trump is a threat to our country and must be denounced and opposed. The protest raises an important question: is democracy about labeling one leader a “king” while excusing similar authority when it comes from someone you support?
Consider examples of concentrated executive authority, both recent and historical. At the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, governors imposed statewide lockdowns, and federal vaccine mandates restricted access to workplaces, schools and public spaces for the unvaccinated — a clear expansion of government control over personal behavior. At the same time, multiple social media platforms reported pressure from the Biden administration to remove or censor content, raising questions about government influence over public discourse. Even the selection of Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee without a primary victory has been criticized as a top-down decision that bypassed the democratic process. These modern cases echo a long history of presidential overreach: Nixon used the IRS to target political enemies; Franklin Roosevelt ordered the internment of Japanese Americans; Johnson weaponized federal agencies to monitor opponents and civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr.; George W. Bush expanded warrantless surveillance after 9/11; and Obama was accused of controlling journalists, overstepping in Libya, and even earned the moniker ‘deporter-in-chief’ for his record number of deportations.
While contexts differ, these cases show that executive power has long raised concerns about democratic overreach. Yet many of the same students who denounce Trump’s alleged autocracy have celebrated similar authority under Obama or Biden. The inconsistency is striking: Power is condemned when wielded by a disfavored leader, but tolerated, or even applauded, when aligned with partisan preference.
The contradiction was on full display at the recent Political Science Democracy Panel, which concluded that Trump is a wannabe autocrat and that U.S. democracy is at risk. These are bold claims. While I deeply respect the panelists, I believe they ignored comparable “abuses of power” by other presidents. They condemned Trump's supposed efforts to “sideline” opponents without acknowledging the extent to which similar tactics have been deployed against him. Trump has faced multiple impeachments, social media bans, ballot challenges, a federal raid on his estate, two assassination attempts and constant public declarations that he is a “threat to democracy.” Years of political and institutional efforts to marginalize him reinforce this pattern. However, the protest and panel portrayed him as uniquely dangerous, overlooking similar or greater exercises of power by others.
Contrary to popular discourse on campus, I believe President Trump is not a king or a “fascist fool,” as one chant at the rally claimed. If he were truly an autocrat, the ability to protest freely or for scholars to hold public panels criticizing him would not exist. Real autocrats — Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Kim Jong Un in North Korea — don’t just discourage dissent; they allegedly imprison, torture, and even kill opponents. Comparing Trump to them cheapens the meaning of authoritarianism and blurs the line between disagreement and genuine repression.
My critique of the No Kings rallies is not an endorsement of every action by the current administration, nor a defense of all of Trump’s policies or rhetoric. I value the First Amendment and recognize that protest is one of democracy’s most vital expressions — it holds leaders accountable and keeps civic life alive. However, there’s a difference between principled dissent and selective outrage. Protesting a leader simply because you dislike him, while overlooking similar actions by others, reflects inconsistency rather than conviction. Some may argue that Covid-19 mandates or social media moderation were necessary, or that Trump’s rhetoric poses a unique threat — and those arguments deserve to be heard. Yet the principle remains: Democracy depends on consistent, evidence-based scrutiny of all authority. Free protest, open debate, and academic inquiry exist precisely because no leader in America wields unchecked power — a fact the “No Kings” protest itself demonstrates.
If students and faculty truly believe in “No Kings,” that standard must be applied universally. Democracy depends not on who holds power, but on consistent, principled evaluation of authority. Only through consistency of scrutiny does the defense of democracy become meaningful, rather than performative.
