#NoKings isn’t Hyperbole

Someone on Twitter today commented the whole “NoKings” thing is political grandstanding. Just people throwing a fit because the “Free Sh!t Army” isn’t getting their way anymore. That Trump’s executive actions don’t even “remotely approach” monarchical power.

Trying to explain the realities of monarchy and the actual power kings wielded (or didn’t), the nuance of constitutional design, and why that dismissal is historically illiterate would take more than a tweet or ten, so I’m responding here. I’ll try to keep it brief all the same.

Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

When Americans hear “king,” most think Louis XIV declaring “L’état, c’est moi.” Divine right. Absolute power. Beheadings. That’s not what monarchy looked like for most of human history.

Absolute monarchy was a brief historical aberration, mostly confined to 17th and 18th century Europe. And even then, historians note it was “absolutist only in appearance.” In practice, most monarchs remained dependent on administrators, checked by institutions, balanced by factions of the landed aristocracy. For the other several thousand years of recorded monarchy—medieval Europe, early modern Europe, most of Asia—kings operated under constraints they couldn’t eliminate. Not because they were enlightened. Because they had no choice.

The king is under no man, but he is under God and the law, for the law makes the king.

Henry de Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, c. 1250

Most people don’t realize just what historical kings could and couldn’t do.

Medieval European kings faced powerful nobles who had their own courts, collected their own taxes, and fielded their own armies. These nobles jealously guarded their rights and privileges. Try to increase royal authority? They pushed back. In England, the nobility expected to counsel the king—formally through royal councils, informally through constant consultation. They let the king govern, but only as long as their interests were respected and their advice sought. The king couldn’t fire them. Couldn’t ignore them. Couldn’t seize their power. The nobility controlled land, military forces, and local justice. The king needed them more than they needed him.

By the 13th century in England, Magna Carta established something simple: Taxes could not be levied without common consent. Parliament successfully asserted power over taxation throughout the medieval period. Under Edward I, Parliament emerged as a gathering of representatives—aristocrats and townsmen called by the king to consider matters of state. According to Magna Carta, the king could not violate the nobles’ “traditional” rights and privileges. The government had to follow the law. When King John tried to ignore Magna Carta in 1215, the barons had an answer. They could overrule the king’s will if he defied the charter. Could seize his castles and possessions if necessary.

The king possessed executive, legislative, and judicial power in theory.

In practice? Clear limits had been imposed. Trying to exceed them could get you deposed.

Or killed.

Here’s what really constrained every monarch before the modern era: Money. None of the great European kingdoms in their autocratic phase ever secured sufficient permanent revenue. Kings could only get money through chicanery—selling offices, robbing the church, lucky conquests, or dealing with parliaments on a semi-equal footing. Historian William Bouwsma noted that governments were “perennially in financial trouble, unable to tap the wealth of those ablest to pay.” Even absolute monarchs like Louis XIV couldn’t simply command resources at will. Want to make war? Need Parliament’s consent for taxation. Want to build a palace? Better negotiate with nobles. Want to expand bureaucracy? Hope you can sell enough offices to fund it. Medieval and early modern kings were constantly negotiating with power centers they couldn’t eliminate.

Most monarchs remained dependent on administrators. These officials were checked by institutions, balanced by factions of the aristocracy. Rulers were held accountable through intermediaries—nobles who would report back on affairs. Little room for unilateral action without consultation. The law itself constrained kings. Not because they respected it out of virtue. Because custom, tradition, and powerful subjects enforced it. Henry de Bracton, 13th-century jurist: The king was under the law. If he exceeded it, he should be “bridled” by his earls and barons.

The typical medieval or early modern monarch had to share power with nobles who controlled their own military forces and tax bases, gain consent for taxation from representative bodies, work through councils and parliaments to govern effectively, respect customary rights and privileges they couldn’t simply abolish, and depend on cooperation from powerful subjects who could rebel, refuse support, or literally seize their castles.

This wasn’t some enlightened proto-democracy. This was raw power politics.

Kings who tried to exceed these constraints faced rebellion. Deposition. Assassination.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

Declaration of Independence, 1776

Now let’s look at what Trump and his administration are actually asserting as presidential power. Trump’s claim: Article II gives him authority to “do whatever I want as president.” His OMB Director Russell Vought was explicit. They’re trying to “identify the pockets of independence and seize them.”

Seize. That’s the word he used.

This means firing anyone in the executive branch at will regardless of statutory protections Congress established, eliminating independent agencies like the SEC, FTC, and FDIC that Congress created to operate independently from White House political control, purging civil servants and replacing them with political loyalists, and controlling every regulatory decision across hundreds of federal agencies. No medieval king could fire every local official, judge, or administrator at will. They had to work with and through entrenched power structures. Trump is claiming he can eliminate those structures entirely.

Trump has attempted to use impoundment—refusing to spend money Congress appropriated. This power was explicitly outlawed by Congress in 1974 after Nixon abused it. Some legal scholars argue presidents retain inherent constitutional authority to refuse spending, but the 1974 law reflects Congress’s clear intent to constrain this power. Medieval kings couldn’t refuse to pay debts or ignore Parliamentary appropriations. They’d face rebellion. The power of the purse was the primary tool that made kings accountable to representative bodies. Trump is claiming he can simply ignore what Congress appropriates. Withhold funds at his discretion.

February 18, 2025. Trump signed an executive order asserting “the president’s authority over almost all regulatory agencies that were created by Congress to act independently, or semi-independently, from the president.” Constitutional law professor Frank Bowman called this “a step toward an open declaration of dictatorship.” Trump is essentially saying “I am the law.” The agencies in question—SEC, FTC, CFPB, NLRB, and others—were deliberately structured by Congress to be insulated from direct presidential control. Not because Congress was being difficult. Because we learned through bitter experience that certain functions need to operate based on law and evidence rather than presidential whim. Prosecuting securities fraud. Protecting consumers. Adjudicating labor disputes. Medieval kings had to work through established institutions they couldn’t simply abolish.

Trump is claiming he can restructure or eliminate any institution that constrains his will.

Federal judges—including ones Trump himself appointed—rule against his actions. Trump’s response: Calls them “corrupt.” Ignores their orders. Threatens emergency powers to override them. Questions their legitimacy to check executive power. Judge Karin Immergut—Trump appointed her—blocked his National Guard deployment to Portland because the evidence showed no “rebellion” justifying it under law. Trump’s response? Deploy California Guard to circumvent her order. When she blocked that too? He threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act: “If courts were holding us up… sure, I’d do that.”

Medieval kings who openly defied courts and customary law faced organized resistance from nobles who had the power to enforce constraints.

Trump is systematically delegitimizing the judiciary’s authority to check him. And a significant portion of the public is cheering it on.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

James Madison, Federalist No. 47, 1788

The legal framework Trump uses is called “unitary executive theory”—the claim that the Constitution vests all executive power solely in the president, making him the sole authority over every function and person in the executive branch. Legal scholars have been blunt about what this means. The Brennan Center: It allows “a chief executive to rule over the executive branch like a monarch.” Critics note it “looks a lot like absolute monarchy.” Former Attorney General Bill Barr defended this vision, argued the American Revolution was a rejection of Parliament, not the king, that presidential power should be expansive and largely unchecked. Claimed this isn’t new—it’s what the Framers intended. Proponents insist this is constitutional originalism, not monarchy.

Historians disagree. Strongly.

Constitutional scholar Caleb Nelson examined founding-era documents and concluded that “most members of the founding generation did not think that they were giving the president the royal prerogative, and the Vesting Clause of Article Two does not do so.”There’s an entire law review article titled “The Unitary Executive Theory Is Plainly Wrong and Anti-American: Presidents Are Not Kings.” It documents how “the convention was replete with references against a monarchy.” Delegate after delegate spoke against anything resembling kingship: Edmund Randolph said a unitary executive “would be too much of a monarchy.” James Madison called elected monarchies “turbulent and unhappy.” George Mason referenced “the Genius of our people is republican” and would not accept a king. Multiple delegates warned about “the danger of monarchy” and the risk of “tyranny.”

The Founders fought a revolution against a king. They designed Article II specifically to create an executive that was not a monarch—constrained by law, checked by other branches, accountable to the people.

Trump’s “unitary executive” theory attempts to give the American president powers that the Founders explicitly rejected, that most actual historical kings never possessed in practice, and that would eliminate the checks and balances that define constitutional government.

We are a government of laws, not of men.

John Adams, Novanglus Essays, 1774

Let’s return to that Twitter claim. That Trump’s actions don’t even “remotely approach” monarchical power.

Here’s what we know.

Historical kings generally shared power with nobles who controlled independent military and financial resources, required consent from representative bodies for taxation, worked through councils and institutions they couldn’t abolish, faced customary law and traditional rights they couldn’t ignore without risking rebellion, and depended on cooperation from powerful subjects with their own bases of power. Trump is claiming authority to fire anyone in the executive branch without cause or process, eliminate or control all independent agencies regardless of statutory protections, ignore Congressional spending decisions through impoundment, override court orders through emergency powers, purge civil servants and replace them with personal loyalists, and centralize all regulatory and administrative power directly under his personal control.

Trump is asserting a scope of direct, unilateral, unchecked control that most monarchs throughout history could never have exercised. Even if they wanted to.

The modern administrative state gives the presidency tools of power medieval or early modern monarchs never possessed—millions of federal employees, vast technological capabilities, military forces, intelligence agencies, law enforcement apparatus. Trump is claiming unchecked personal authority over all of it. And he’s doing it while systematically attacking the legitimacy of every institution—Congress, courts, civil service, independent agencies—that could check that power.

In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

The phrase “NoKings” isn’t political grandstanding. It’s a direct reference to the founding principle of American government: We don’t have kings.

Period. Full stop.

No kings.

The Founders didn’t just dislike monarchy aesthetically. They understood that concentrating unchecked power in a single person—regardless of title—was tyranny. They built a system where Congress makes laws (Article I), the President executes laws—not makes them, not ignores them, executes them (Article II), and courts interpret laws and check if executive actions are lawful (Article III). When the President claims he can ignore Congressional statutes, defy court orders, fire anyone who won’t do his bidding, eliminate independent agencies, and control all regulatory functions personally—he’s not being a “strong leader.” He’s attempting to accumulate exactly the powers Madison called tyranny.

The Founders deliberately made government inefficient. Created friction. Built in conflict between branches. Because they understood something we’re forgetting. Madison, Federalist No. 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

The system wasn’t designed to trust leaders. It was designed to constrain them.

Every single one of them.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania Assembly Reply to the Governor, 1755

I researched democratic backsliding extensively for my article “This We’ll Defend.” Documented how democracies die. The pattern is consistent: Phase One, delegitimize Congress as “do-nothing,” “bought by special interests,” a source of “gridlock” that “can’t get anything done.” Congressional approval sits at 15-25%. Americans don’t evaluate Congress on performance or constitutional role anymore. Only whether their team is winning. Phase Two, delegitimize the judiciary as “activist judges legislating from the bench,” issuing “politically motivated rulings,” being “corrupt judges who hate Trump.” Supreme Court trust collapsed 27 points in six years, from 68% to 41%. Federal judiciary confidence dropped 24 points in four years. Most damning: 56% of Americans now believe Supreme Court decisions are based mainly on politics rather than law. Phase Three, elevate the executive as sole legitimate authority—“only the president can get things done,” “he has a mandate from voters,” “strong executive action is necessary because the other branches failed.”

Here’s the split: 78% of Americans say expanding presidential power is “too risky” in the abstract. But 59-78% of Republicans support giving Trump specifically more power.

The principle isn’t “checks and balances matter.” It’s become “my guy should do whatever he wants.”

This is the exact pattern that played out in Hungary, Poland, Turkey—countries that still have elections but where democratic accountability is functionally gone. V-Dem Institute’s Director, March 2025: “The U.S. was on track to lose its democracy status in six months.”

We’re there now. October 2025.

The independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788

Someone says opposing Trump’s power grabs is political grandstanding. People “not getting their way.”

They’re missing what’s actually happening.

This isn’t about policy disagreements.

It’s about whether the President is subject to law.

Whether courts can check executive power or whether any judge who rules against the President is “corrupt.”

Whether Congress’s constitutional authority over spending and agency structure matters, or whether the President can simply override it.

Whether independent institutions can exist, or whether everything must answer directly to one person.

Throughout most of history, even kings had to work within constraints they couldn’t eliminate. Powerful nobles. Representative bodies. Customary law. Financial dependency. Institutional structures they inherited and couldn’t simply abolish.

Trump is claiming authority that exceeds what most monarchs ever possessed in practice. And he’s doing it in a system the Founders designed specifically to prevent exactly this concentration of power.

The person who called this “grandstanding” thinks it’s about partisanship. About their side losing.

Fuck that.

It’s about whether the American constitutional system—the division of powers, the checks and balances, the limits on executive authority—survives.

The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.

James Madison, Constitutional Convention, July 11, 1787

When educated people argue the President should have unchecked authority over the executive branch, that courts checking him are “corrupt,” that Congressional constraints are “obstruction”—we’re not having a policy debate. We’re watching constitutional government dismantle in real-time.

The comparison to monarchy isn’t hyperbolic. It’s historically accurate and constitutionally precise.

Most kings throughout history couldn’t do what Trump is claiming he should be able to do. And the American system was explicitly designed to ensure no one could. That’s not grandstanding. That’s the entire point of the Constitution. And if we forget it, we won’t have a constitutional republic much longer. We’ll have something else. Something the Founders fought a revolution to escape. Something they built an entire system of government to prevent.

A king by another name.

Madison was right. Somehow we forgot. And we’re about to pay the price—unless we remember what “NoKings” actually means. It means the President isn’t above the law. Can’t ignore courts. Can’t claim unlimited authority. Can’t concentrate all power in his own hands. It means the Constitution establishes limits. And those limits apply to everyone. Even—especially—the people we vote for. Even—especially—“our guy.”

Because the moment we say “unlimited power is fine when my side has it,” we’ve abandoned the founding principle of American government.

And we’ve voluntarily submitted to exactly what the Founders warned us against.

---

Works Cited

Primary Historical Sources

Bracton, Henry de. De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae [On the Laws and Customs of England]. c. 1250.

Franklin, Benjamin. “Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor.” November 11, 1755.

Hamilton, Alexander. “Federalist No. 78: The Judiciary Department.” The Federalist Papers, 1788.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Kentucky Resolutions.” 1798.

Madison, James. “Federalist No. 47: The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts.” The Federalist Papers, 1788.

—. “Federalist No. 51: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments.” The Federalist Papers, 1788.

—. Constitutional Convention. July 11, 1787.

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. 1776.

The Declaration of Independence. 1776.

Historical Scholarship

Bouwsma, William. Venice and the Defense of Republican Liberty: Renaissance Values in the Age of the Counter Reformation. University of California Press, 1968.

Brown, A.L. The Governance of Late Medieval England 1272-1461. Stanford University Press, 1989.

Tuck, Anthony. Crown and Nobility 1272-1461. Barnes & Noble Books, 1985.

Trump Administration Actions and Court Cases

Oregon v. Trump. U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Judge Karin J. Immergut. October 4, 2025.

Trump, Donald J. Executive Order on Independent Regulatory Agencies. February 18, 2025.

Trump, Donald J. Statements on Article II powers. 2019-2025.

Vought, Russell. Interview with Tucker Carlson. November 2024.

Additional Sources

Barr, William. Speech to the Federalist Society. November 2019.

V-Dem Institute. Democracy status reports. March 2025.

Welch, Peter and Neal Katyal. “Are There Guardrails to the Expansion of Executive Power?” Public discussion at Dartmouth College. 1 March 2025.