Recent protests across the United States have seen thousands gather under the “No Kings” banner, but their focus isn’t on defending constitutional principles. Instead, these demonstrations target the President’s constitutional authority to oversee the Executive Branch of government.
The fundamental question at stake in Washington following Trump’s second inauguration centers on presidential control over federal agencies within the Executive Branch. While the Constitution’s Vesting Clause clearly states that executive power resides with the President, opposition has mounted against the administration’s attempts to dismantle government censorship operations.
A significant development occurred when Secretary of State Rubio moved to shut down and defund the State Department’s Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R/FIMI), previously known as the Global Engagement Center (GEC). Under former Secretary Blinken’s leadership, the GEC had been accused of suppressing dissent through various censorship mechanisms targeting American media outlets.
This decision was challenged when California District Judge Susan Illston issued a ruling preventing Secretary Rubio from dismantling R/FIMI. The judge’s decision effectively suggests that not only can this organization continue its censorship activities regarding controversial topics like the Hunter Biden laptop story and lab-leak theories, but that presidential authority over the State Department itself is constitutionally limited.
Judge Illston’s ruling follows her previous injunction that blocked Trump from reorganizing or reducing staff across 22 executive agencies, including departments managing trillions in annual budgets. Similar resistance has emerged from other quarters, with NPR and PBS arguing that the First Amendment requires continued federal funding of their operations, despite presidential orders to cease such support.
The judiciary has consistently intervened to restrict presidential control over various federal departments, including Education, border operations, the NIH, and National Guard. Former Treasury Secretaries have publicly opposed changes to bureaucratic structures, claiming such modifications would undermine democracy.
A striking irony emerges when examining these “No Kings” protesters’ recent history. Many who now oppose executive authority previously supported unprecedented government interventions during the pandemic era, including business closures, restrictions on religious
gatherings, travel limitations, and mandatory health measures – all implemented without legislative action.
The movement appears less focused on promoting individual liberty and democratic governance than on preserving bureaucratic power
structures. These structures are maintained by well-compensated elites in both public and private sectors who restrict citizens’ freedoms while funding their operations through taxation and debt.
This resistance to presidential authority represents a fundamental challenge to constitutional governance, where unelected officials claim permanent authority over vast government resources and reject the president’s constitutional role as chief executive. The current situation reveals a paradox: those claiming to oppose monarchy actually support an extensive bureaucratic system that exercises significant control over American life while operating beyond democratic accountability.
The movement demonstrates how segments of society, particularly those benefiting from governmental authority, actively work to preserve their influence by limiting constitutional executive power. This creates a system where bureaucratic authority becomes effectively permanent and immune to democratic oversight, despite clear
constitutional provisions for presidential control of executive functions.