No Kings, No Bureaucrats: Why Ordinary Americans Feel Stuck in the Middle

-- You cannot claim to oppose kings while defending kingdoms. --

On the surface, the recent wave of “No Kings” protests appears to defend a cherished constitutional principle: that executive power must be limited. Protesters invoke the Founders, decry overreach, and appeal to norms of democratic restraint. But peel back the slogans, and a deeper economic logic emerges—one rooted not in political philosophy, but in incentives.

To a classical liberal, the Constitution is not merely symbolic—it is a framework designed to constrain power, distribute decision-making, and protect the right of individuals to define their own version of happiness. Liberty is not granted by the state; it is protected from it. However, classical liberals also recognize the insights of public choice theory: government actors, like market actors, respond to incentives. They are not always public-spirited. They are often budget-maximizers, status-seekers, and risk-averse.

This makes the “No Kings” protests worth reexamining.

Incentives Behind the Protests

The "No Kings" movement has positioned itself as a defender of constitutional order, with participants rallying against perceived executive overreach. However, a classical liberal analysis invites scrutiny not only of rhetoric but of incentives. Donald Trump was elected—for a second term—on a platform that explicitly promised to reduce the size and influence of the federal government. With a higher proportion of the popular vote than in his first election, his victory signaled broad public support for rolling back bureaucracy, slashing federal spending, and restoring constitutional limits on federal power.

Many protest organizers—including progressive nonprofits and labor groups like the ACLU, SEIU, and Indivisible—derive significant funding from government grants or rely on the stability of bureaucratic programs. These organizations and their affiliated supporters often function within ecosystems that would be directly affected by the president’s push to freeze agency spending, slash federal workforce levels, and impose automatic expiration schedules on regulations. Although parts of Trump's agenda lean toward government downsizing, the reforms he is pursuing bypass Congress—leaving the very grants and institutional structures that power these groups in direct jeopardy.

From this vantage point, the protests reflect more than philosophical concern; they represent rational responses to anticipated economic loss. What people believe may shape their rhetoric, but what they do is often shaped by the systems they operate within. Bureaucrats, nonprofit leaders, and those embedded in administrative ecosystems act according to structures that reward the preservation of institutional scope and funding.

This does not mean the protests are disingenuous. But a classical liberal must ask: are these movements defending liberty—or revenue streams? The lack of support among organizers for structural reforms that would strengthen constitutional balance suggests the latter is at least part of the story.

Behavioral Economics: Loss Aversion, Status Quo Bias, and Confirmation Bias

Behavioral economics sheds light on why movements like “No Kings” resonate so deeply—not only with political elites but also with everyday professionals embedded in the bureaucratic system. One powerful explanation is loss aversion: people experience the pain of losing something more intensely than the satisfaction of gaining something of equal value. For those whose incomes, careers, or community status are tied to stable government funding or institutional continuity, even modest reform proposals can feel existential.

This reaction is compounded by status quo bias, the human tendency to prefer existing conditions over change, even when change may lead to better long-term outcomes. Bureaucratic structures, by design, resist disruption. Over time, this leads to systemic inertia, where reforms—however necessary—are perceived as intrusions or threats rather than opportunities for improvement.

A third factor is confirmation bias—our tendency to interpret information in ways that reinforce existing beliefs and interests. In the case of the “No Kings” protests, many participants draw on constitutional rhetoric to justify their dissent, citing executive overreach as the primary concern. But from a classical liberal lens, this explanation is often only partially accurate. The louder outrage may not stem from constitutional principle, but from the real economic and institutional risk to those whose livelihoods depend on the preservation of the administrative state.

Together, these biases influence how threats are perceived and how principles are invoked. What appears to be a protest against executive overreach may also be a reaction to perceived threats to institutional funding and professional continuity. Behavioral economics reminds us that even sincere actors are guided by unconscious incentives and cognitive filters that shape how they interpret risk and justify resistance.

The Classical Liberal View: Process > Power

From a classical liberal perspective, these protests may miss the deeper point. While concerns about executive overreach are valid, the so-called “kingly” behavior being protested is, in many ways, a reaction to the overreach of the administrative state itself. The protests resemble a village outraged not by tyranny, but by the potential loss of a funding stream that sustains its own unchecked expansion. The real issue is not just presidential power, but a bureaucratic system increasingly oriented around self-preservation rather than outcomes, where outcomes are subordinate to continuity and budget protection. As Thomas Sowell reminds us, the intentions of participants matter less than the incentives and constraints that shape their behavior. Whether in a federal agency or a nonprofit dependent on grants, actors tend to protect the structures that support them. Thus, the constitutional imbalance arises not just from a powerful executive, but from a vast administrative village resistant to any reform that threatens its growth.

Classical liberals would remind protesters: you cannot claim to oppose kings while defending kingdoms.

Final Thought

If we want to preserve liberty, we must critique not just who holds power, but how that power is structured and incentivized. In a truly liberal society, slogans give way to systems, and preferences yield to principles. The next time someone chants “No Kings,” a classical liberal might respond, “Then let us also question the crown worn by bureaucracy.”

Resources for the Curious

1. Sowell, Thomas. Knowledge and Decisions. Basic Books, 1980. Articulates how institutions are guided by incentive structures, not intentions—providing the philosophical foundation for analyzing bureaucratic behavior.

2. Silver, Nate. On the Edge: Political Risk, the Culture War, and the Future of Democracy. Penguin Press, 2024. Introduces the concept of “Villagers” as those embedded in the bureaucratic-administrative ecosystem, including nonprofits and academia.

3. Moynihan, Daniel P., and Patricia W. Ingraham. “The Suspect Hand: The Extension of Bureaucratic Control Through Grants.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 50, No. 3, 1990, pp. 321–326. Explores how grant funding extends bureaucratic influence and creates a constituency dependent on maintaining the status quo.

4. Politico. “The Resistance 2.0 Arrives with Nationwide 'No Kings' Protests.” Politico, June 14, 2025. Details the organizing coalitions and their policy positions, confirming major players include ACLU, SEIU, and Indivisible.

5. AP News. “Anti-Trump Demonstrators Crowd Streets, Parks and Plazas across the US.” Associated Press, June 13, 2025. Provides demographic and geographic context for the protests, including turnout in bureaucratic and nonprofit-rich regions.

6. Urban Institute. “Federal Grants to Nonprofits: Key Facts and Trends.” Urban Institute, 2023. Breaks down how nonprofits receive and rely on federal funding, especially those involved in political mobilization.

7. Weaver, Kent. The Politics of Bureaucratic Reform. Brookings Institution Press, 2017. Explains the difficulty of reforming bureaucracies due to internal resistance and external stakeholder dependence.

8. OpenSecrets.org. “ACLU & SEIU Campaign Funding and Lobbying Activity.” Center for Responsive Politics, 2024. Documents the political funding activities of major “No Kings” organizing entities and their alignment with policy advocacy.

9. Hulett, Jeff. “The Challenge of Reducing Government: A Path to Accountability and Consumer Choice.” Personal Finance Reimagined, March 4, 2025. Offers a policy roadmap for real reform—emphasizing structural accountability and the difficulty of reforming systems designed to resist change.

10. Hulett, Jeff. “Rethinking Rationality: The Hidden Diversity in Our Choices.” Personal Finance Reimagined, January 22, 2024. Provides insight into how behavioral diversity complicates collective action—supporting the article’s theme of choice versus institutional conformity.