Democrats have spent years calling Donald Trump a king, insisting that his approach to executive power resembles a monarchy. Activists have marched with “No Kings” signs since his first term, and the theme has persisted into his second.

The argument is that Trump uses power in ways that endanger constitutional limits. But when these claims are compared with the institutional agenda of the Democrat Party, the contrast becomes clear. Trump may test the boundaries of executive authority, just as every modern president has done. Still, Democrats are advancing proposals that would permanently erode constitutional checks and give their party power no president has ever possessed.

Trump’s actions show why the “king” label never matched reality. When he issued an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, he pushed executive authority in a direction that, in my view, exceeds constitutional limits. I believe Congress — not the executive branch — holds the authority to define the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” under the 14th Amendment.

He also approved a federal purchase of Intel stock, a small but symbolic expansion of executive action. These moves reflect efforts to pursue policy goals aggressively, but they did not create new constitutional powers. Courts blocked or limited many of them, and none reshaped the federal government.

Even January 6, which remains the most contentious event of his political career, did not expand executive authority. Claiming that an election was unfair, even if inaccurate, does not change the structure of government. I do not believe the 2020 election was rigged to the extent that it altered the outcome, although the media environment clearly favored Democrats. But the point remains: none of these disputes altered the separation of powers or weakened constitutional guardrails.

The Democrat agenda moves in the opposite direction. It targets the Constitution’s institutional foundations, and many of its core proposals would eliminate the very checks that prevent any political movement from consolidating national power.

Court packing is the clearest example. Expanding the Supreme Court would instantly weaken judicial independence and allow any future congressional majority to add justices until the Court aligned with its ideological goals. Adam Schiff, Elizabeth Warren, and Jasmine Crockett — figures representing the mainstream of today’s Democrat Party — support this idea.

Schiff describes recent Supreme Court decisions on abortion, elections, and campaign finance as evidence that “rights and freedoms are receding,” and his solution is not persuasion or legislation.

Instead, Schiff proposes restructuring the Supreme Court so future rulings align with his preferences. He also supports abolishing the Electoral College and amending the Constitution to overturn Citizens United. These proposals do not protect democracy; they remove constraints on national power.

Court packing eliminates judicial independence, and eliminating the Electoral College rewires a core constitutional mechanism simply because Democrats dislike its recent outcomes. These are efforts to centralize power in ways no president — including Trump — has attempted.

Democrats have also embraced race-based policies that contradict core constitutional principles. DEI mandates, preferential hiring systems, and direct cash reparations based solely on skin color violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Representative Jasmine Crockett, now running for the Senate, continues to support cash reparations for black Americans based entirely on racial identity. Policies of this kind reject the foundational American belief that rights cannot be allocated on the basis of race. They reflect a view of government in which those in power may distribute benefits according to ideological preferences rather than equal treatment under the law.

If the definition of “king-like” behavior is the pursuit of power without limits, the Democrat Party’s institutional agenda fits the description far more than anything in Trump’s presidency. The irony is that the same political movement marching under “No Kings” banners is advancing the most sweeping concentration of authority in modern American history.