Listen to the article
Democrats who championed “No Kings” protests just weeks ago are facing widespread criticism for their enthusiastic reception of King Charles III during his recent address to Congress, highlighting what critics call a glaring contradiction in their political messaging.
The British monarch’s visit to Washington exposed a stark contrast between Democrats’ earlier anti-monarchy rhetoric and their behavior during the royal visit. Republican lawmakers were quick to point out the apparent hypocrisy.
“Hold on a minute, wasn’t this the same Jon Ossoff who was just out there a few weeks ago hooting and hollering about ‘No Kings’ at his rally… He’ll shout ‘No Kings’ all day, but once the king comes around, man, he’s got him a front-row seat,” said Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.), referring to his Democratic colleague from Georgia.
Similarly, Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) remarked, “I was on my way to hear an actual King speak. Funny how the ‘No Kings’ crowd is nowhere to be found. Guess the outrage depends on who’s talking?”
The “No Kings” movement gained momentum earlier this year as a protest against former President Donald Trump following the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken under their constitutional authority. Several prominent Democrats participated in these demonstrations, which were held nationwide.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) spoke at a March 29 protest in Minnesota alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders, telling attendees that Americans pledge allegiance to the “Constitution, not a King.” Similarly, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) appeared at a protest in his state, celebrating free speech against Trump and declaring “No Kings, not now, not ever” in his social media messaging.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer even authored the “No Kings Act” in 2024 as a direct rebuke to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Yet cameras captured many of these same Democrats applauding King Charles during his congressional address.
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was among those highlighting the contradiction: “‘No Kings’ protest leaders welcome KING CHARLES with a standing ovation; you can’t make this up.” Social media footage showed several Democrats who had previously participated in “No Kings” events, including Rep. Beyer, smiling and clapping for the monarch.
The criticism extended beyond political figures. Actor Michael Rapaport shared photos of Rep. Omar taking pictures of Charles on her phone, writing: “Look who was elated to see the king – Ms. No Kings.” Conservative commentator Robby Starbuck called Democrats the “Biggest bull**** artists of the century,” while others circulated footage from the speech with captions mocking the apparent inconsistency.
Trump himself addressed the “No Kings” protests during an interview with CBS’s Norah O’Donnell. When asked about Cole Allen, the suspect in the Trump Hilton assassination attempt who had allegedly attended such a protest in California, Trump retorted: “No Kings, yeah… If I was a king, I wouldn’t be dealing with you.”
The royal visit created additional political friction when Trump announced he had agreed to Charles’s request to remove trade restrictions on whiskey to facilitate business between Scotland and Kentucky’s liquor industry. Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, a Democrat representing George Washington’s former home district, criticized the move, saying: “Now we’re taking orders from the King of England. George Washington just rolled over.”
The controversy highlights the challenges politicians face when navigating symbolic rhetoric against the practical realities of diplomatic protocol. While “No Kings” emerged as a potent political slogan against Trump’s perceived overreach of executive power, the same lawmakers found themselves in an awkward position when confronted with an actual monarch during a state visit.
Representatives Beyer, Ossoff, and Omar did not respond to requests for comment on the apparent contradiction between their “No Kings” activism and their reception of King Charles.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
It’s interesting to see the apparent contradiction in the Democrats’ stance on monarchy. Their earlier protests against ‘No Kings’ now seem at odds with their warm welcome of King Charles. I wonder if this reveals a disconnect between their rhetoric and actual behavior.
The Democrats’ warm welcome of King Charles is certainly an intriguing turn of events given their previous ‘No Kings’ rhetoric. It will be interesting to see how they reconcile this apparent contradiction in their stance on monarchical power.
It’s intriguing to see the Democrats’ stance on monarchy shift so dramatically, from vocal opposition to enthusiastic welcome. This poses an interesting challenge for them in terms of maintaining coherent and credible political positions.
The contrast between the Democrats’ past anti-monarchy protests and their current embrace of King Charles is quite striking. It raises questions about the consistency and authenticity of their political messaging on this issue.
I’m curious to understand the Democrats’ reasoning behind their reception of King Charles. While the Republicans’ criticism of hypocrisy seems valid, there may be more complexity to the Democrats’ shifting position that’s worth exploring further.
This situation highlights the complexities and contradictions that can arise in political messaging and positioning. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats reconcile their past ‘No Kings’ stance with their current warm reception of the British monarch.
The Republicans seem to have a point in calling out the apparent hypocrisy in the Democrats’ treatment of King Charles. However, politics is often more nuanced than simple black-and-white positions, so I’m curious to understand the Democrats’ rationale here.
The Republicans make a fair point – it does seem hypocritical for Democrats who championed anti-monarchy protests to now enthusiastically receive the King. This highlights the nuances and complexities in political messaging and positioning.