News
October 24, 2025
Paul Kengor: Teaching “No Kings” nonsense
I would prefer to ignore the No Kings movement. I wrote about it back in June and received emails from No Kings advocates oddly taking umbrage with my obviously correct assertion that Donald Trump is, of course, not a king. Trump could be called lots of things. He has been denounced as everything from a narcissist to an idiot to a bigot. Those are subject terms, whereas “king” is not. And obviously, Trump isn’t a king. An elementary school student could tell you that.
**Paul Kengor Addresses "No Kings" Movement, Dismisses Claims of Trump as Monarch**
Political commentator and author Paul Kengor has weighed in on the "No Kings" movement, expressing his bemusement at the group's core argument. In a recent commentary, Kengor stated his initial reluctance to engage with the movement, but felt compelled to address what he sees as a fundamental misunderstanding of American governance.
The "No Kings" movement, which appears to advocate against authoritarianism and the concentration of power, has seemingly drawn criticism for some of its assertions. Kengor, who previously addressed the movement back in June, highlighted the group's apparent fixation on former President Donald Trump, with some advocates seemingly suggesting he held or aspired to hold monarchical power.
Kengor firmly refuted this idea, stating, "Trump is, of course, not a king." He argued that while Trump's actions and policies have been subject to intense scrutiny and criticism, labeling him a "king" is simply inaccurate. He emphasized the distinction between subjective criticisms, such as accusations of narcissism, idiocy, or bigotry, and the objective reality that Trump was an elected president operating within the framework of a democratic republic.
"An elementary school student could tell you that," Kengor remarked, underscoring his belief that the claim is self-evidently false. He implied that the movement's focus on this particular aspect detracts from potentially more valid concerns about the balance of power and the preservation of democratic principles.
While Kengor did not elaborate on the specific arguments made by the "No Kings" advocates, his response suggests a disagreement over the application of the "king" label to a democratically elected leader. He appears to be advocating for a more precise and nuanced understanding of political terminology, arguing that the term "king" carries specific historical and legal connotations that simply do not apply to the American presidency, regardless of one's opinion of the individual holding the office. The commentary raises questions about the effectiveness of using potentially inaccurate or hyperbolic language in political discourse and whether it ultimately undermines the credibility of legitimate concerns about government overreach.
Political commentator and author Paul Kengor has weighed in on the "No Kings" movement, expressing his bemusement at the group's core argument. In a recent commentary, Kengor stated his initial reluctance to engage with the movement, but felt compelled to address what he sees as a fundamental misunderstanding of American governance.
The "No Kings" movement, which appears to advocate against authoritarianism and the concentration of power, has seemingly drawn criticism for some of its assertions. Kengor, who previously addressed the movement back in June, highlighted the group's apparent fixation on former President Donald Trump, with some advocates seemingly suggesting he held or aspired to hold monarchical power.
Kengor firmly refuted this idea, stating, "Trump is, of course, not a king." He argued that while Trump's actions and policies have been subject to intense scrutiny and criticism, labeling him a "king" is simply inaccurate. He emphasized the distinction between subjective criticisms, such as accusations of narcissism, idiocy, or bigotry, and the objective reality that Trump was an elected president operating within the framework of a democratic republic.
"An elementary school student could tell you that," Kengor remarked, underscoring his belief that the claim is self-evidently false. He implied that the movement's focus on this particular aspect detracts from potentially more valid concerns about the balance of power and the preservation of democratic principles.
While Kengor did not elaborate on the specific arguments made by the "No Kings" advocates, his response suggests a disagreement over the application of the "king" label to a democratically elected leader. He appears to be advocating for a more precise and nuanced understanding of political terminology, arguing that the term "king" carries specific historical and legal connotations that simply do not apply to the American presidency, regardless of one's opinion of the individual holding the office. The commentary raises questions about the effectiveness of using potentially inaccurate or hyperbolic language in political discourse and whether it ultimately undermines the credibility of legitimate concerns about government overreach.
Category:
Politics