By Berl Falbaum
So, what has been achieved?
That is the question I have posed after each of the three massive protests against President Trump — January 21, 2017, a day after Trump was inaugurated; June 14, 2025; and October 18.
The answer was always the same: Nothing. Over those eight years, not one Trump policy, program or any attack on our democracy was halted or changed in any way: ICE continues its illegal arrests while attacks on the Constitution, law firms, a free press, universities. etc. not only continue but have grown daily.
As The New York Times reported “a dizzying array of [Trump] changes…” continue despite the protests.
Yes, the protesters feel good having their voices heard, and giving Trump hell. But if they wanted change, well, that’s another story.
The problem: There is no strategy, no identifiable objective, no long- term plan.
Even in the first protest, the Women’s March on Washington, the protesters argued among themselves as to the major objective.
Some protested for women’s rights, others against illegal immigration policies, for improved health care, protecting the environment, freedom of religion, pro-choice abortion legislation, and several other causes.
The end result: Confusion and dissension among the protesters, including racial tensions between black and white organizers.
To affect change requires, more than anything, pressure on the targets of protests as well having them pay a price.
For instance, labor unions can achieve more with a 5-to-10-person picket line than the 7 million protesters that reportedly turned out against Trump October 18. Why? Because a picket line is an economic boycott which keeps potential customers from crossing picket lines, and patronizing the targeted business.
That kind of tactic ultimately leads to negotiations and more favorable contracts. What would happen if unions simply demonstrated without the pickets? The answer, of course, is self-evident.
Consider the Civil Rights Movement: Unlike the Trump protesters, civil rights advocates were in the streets continually. But, more important, they organized effective economic boycotts in the South against bus companies and businesses. The segregationists felt the economic pain and slowly relented.
If the movement had relied exclusively on periodic protests in the streets, no matter how large, we might still have a segregated society.
In her column on this subject, Shelley Unglis, executive director of the University of Dayton and research professor of human rights and law, wrote: Change “…requires more than street demonstrations.”
“Broad-scale coordinated mobilization of a sufficient percentage of the population against autocratic takeover and for a renewed democratic future is necessary for success,” she wrote.
Among the actions she proposes: Refuse unlawful corrupt demands; visibly bolster the rule of law; unite in opposition; and harness economic power (as discussed above.)
“The end of American democracy is not a foregone conclusion, despite the unprecedented rate of its decline. It will depend, in part on the choices made by every American,” she said in her column.
Moreover, to impact Trump policies and affect change protesters need to attract not just Democrats but Republicans and Independents as well.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that more than 90 percent of the protesters probably were Democrats who Trump expects to oppose him and who probably did not vote for him in the first place. While the turnout on October 18 was reported at 7 million, Trump received 76-plus million votes in the 2024 election. How many of those voters participated in any of the three demonstrations?
Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, said, “No successful anti-authoritarian movement in the history of the world (emphasis supplied) has relied exclusively on one-day protests, even historic, incredible life-giving one-day protests like [October 18].”
I read numerous interviews conducted with anti-Trump demonstrators and many expressed frustrations about the “effectiveness” of the demonstrations.
For instance, one said the protest was “too fragmented.” Another said “we need a leader like Cesar Chavez, Malcolm X or a Dr. Martin Luther King.” Another complained about “nothing happens when the protests are over.” And one called for general strikes “like in Europe.”
All four were spot on in some respects but the latter hit the proverbial nail on the head. Imagine 7 million people who might seek support from relatives and friends to participate in a national strike. During such a walk out, the strikers might specifically target businesses of CEOs that have given millions to Trump.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, addressing protesters October 18, called for a general strike. Several unions have expressed support.
Clyde Albright, co-founder and executive director of Black Voters Matter, said the “next rally needs to be accompanied by some other type of action as well.”
Now, a general strike may not make Trump tremble — he can’t run again — but it would the Trumpites in Congress who would feel the wrath of their constituents.
Yes, that would take sacrifice — a week or two without a paycheck. But “revolutions” require sacrifice. Many fighters for civil rights and unionists paid with their lives and blood for justice.
There is some hope on the political horizon. In one story, I read that the organizers of “No Kings,” apparently recognizing the need for a new strategy, are discussing possibly launching strikes, boycotts and “some type of disruptions.”
One more point: Media coverage so welcomed by many on the pavement does little to help in pursuing a political agenda. The media have a very short attention span. While the Saturday protests produced lead stories that night, there was hardly a mention of the protests a week later as I wrote this column. And, even worse, the press, in keeping with the journalistic requirement to report both sides of a story, also gives Trump and his supporters, in seeking their reactions, the opportunity to belittle their “enemies,” something Trump almost welcomes, particularly when nothing is at stake for him politically.
The “No Kings” organizers would be well-served in gathering the most intelligent and politically astute strategists and develop a long-term — note “long term” because change will not happen overnight — and adopt measures that will make a difference.
I am looking forward to writing a column in support of a protester who calls for protesting against protesters who want more protests.
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.
So, what has been achieved?
That is the question I have posed after each of the three massive protests against President Trump — January 21, 2017, a day after Trump was inaugurated; June 14, 2025; and October 18.
The answer was always the same: Nothing. Over those eight years, not one Trump policy, program or any attack on our democracy was halted or changed in any way: ICE continues its illegal arrests while attacks on the Constitution, law firms, a free press, universities. etc. not only continue but have grown daily.
As The New York Times reported “a dizzying array of [Trump] changes…” continue despite the protests.
Yes, the protesters feel good having their voices heard, and giving Trump hell. But if they wanted change, well, that’s another story.
The problem: There is no strategy, no identifiable objective, no long- term plan.
Even in the first protest, the Women’s March on Washington, the protesters argued among themselves as to the major objective.
Some protested for women’s rights, others against illegal immigration policies, for improved health care, protecting the environment, freedom of religion, pro-choice abortion legislation, and several other causes.
The end result: Confusion and dissension among the protesters, including racial tensions between black and white organizers.
To affect change requires, more than anything, pressure on the targets of protests as well having them pay a price.
For instance, labor unions can achieve more with a 5-to-10-person picket line than the 7 million protesters that reportedly turned out against Trump October 18. Why? Because a picket line is an economic boycott which keeps potential customers from crossing picket lines, and patronizing the targeted business.
That kind of tactic ultimately leads to negotiations and more favorable contracts. What would happen if unions simply demonstrated without the pickets? The answer, of course, is self-evident.
Consider the Civil Rights Movement: Unlike the Trump protesters, civil rights advocates were in the streets continually. But, more important, they organized effective economic boycotts in the South against bus companies and businesses. The segregationists felt the economic pain and slowly relented.
If the movement had relied exclusively on periodic protests in the streets, no matter how large, we might still have a segregated society.
In her column on this subject, Shelley Unglis, executive director of the University of Dayton and research professor of human rights and law, wrote: Change “…requires more than street demonstrations.”
“Broad-scale coordinated mobilization of a sufficient percentage of the population against autocratic takeover and for a renewed democratic future is necessary for success,” she wrote.
Among the actions she proposes: Refuse unlawful corrupt demands; visibly bolster the rule of law; unite in opposition; and harness economic power (as discussed above.)
“The end of American democracy is not a foregone conclusion, despite the unprecedented rate of its decline. It will depend, in part on the choices made by every American,” she said in her column.
Moreover, to impact Trump policies and affect change protesters need to attract not just Democrats but Republicans and Independents as well.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that more than 90 percent of the protesters probably were Democrats who Trump expects to oppose him and who probably did not vote for him in the first place. While the turnout on October 18 was reported at 7 million, Trump received 76-plus million votes in the 2024 election. How many of those voters participated in any of the three demonstrations?
Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, said, “No successful anti-authoritarian movement in the history of the world (emphasis supplied) has relied exclusively on one-day protests, even historic, incredible life-giving one-day protests like [October 18].”
I read numerous interviews conducted with anti-Trump demonstrators and many expressed frustrations about the “effectiveness” of the demonstrations.
For instance, one said the protest was “too fragmented.” Another said “we need a leader like Cesar Chavez, Malcolm X or a Dr. Martin Luther King.” Another complained about “nothing happens when the protests are over.” And one called for general strikes “like in Europe.”
All four were spot on in some respects but the latter hit the proverbial nail on the head. Imagine 7 million people who might seek support from relatives and friends to participate in a national strike. During such a walk out, the strikers might specifically target businesses of CEOs that have given millions to Trump.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, addressing protesters October 18, called for a general strike. Several unions have expressed support.
Clyde Albright, co-founder and executive director of Black Voters Matter, said the “next rally needs to be accompanied by some other type of action as well.”
Now, a general strike may not make Trump tremble — he can’t run again — but it would the Trumpites in Congress who would feel the wrath of their constituents.
Yes, that would take sacrifice — a week or two without a paycheck. But “revolutions” require sacrifice. Many fighters for civil rights and unionists paid with their lives and blood for justice.
There is some hope on the political horizon. In one story, I read that the organizers of “No Kings,” apparently recognizing the need for a new strategy, are discussing possibly launching strikes, boycotts and “some type of disruptions.”
One more point: Media coverage so welcomed by many on the pavement does little to help in pursuing a political agenda. The media have a very short attention span. While the Saturday protests produced lead stories that night, there was hardly a mention of the protests a week later as I wrote this column. And, even worse, the press, in keeping with the journalistic requirement to report both sides of a story, also gives Trump and his supporters, in seeking their reactions, the opportunity to belittle their “enemies,” something Trump almost welcomes, particularly when nothing is at stake for him politically.
The “No Kings” organizers would be well-served in gathering the most intelligent and politically astute strategists and develop a long-term — note “long term” because change will not happen overnight — and adopt measures that will make a difference.
I am looking forward to writing a column in support of a protester who calls for protesting against protesters who want more protests.
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.
