Why many Riverdale residents stayed home during ‘No Kings’ protests

To the Editor,

I read with interest the Riverdale Press account of the latest “No Kings” protest, particularly the involvement of Riverdalians (“Riverdale keeps momentum with third No Kings protest,” April 2). The story notes that around 600 Riverdale residents participated in a previous march, perhaps representative of this year’s event.

With Riverdale’s estimated population at 47,850, according to the latest census, I’d suggest a more accurate headline: “Overwhelming majority of Riverdale residents reject ‘No Kings’ rhetoric, stay home.”

The silence of the 99 percent is telling. It suggests a community recognizing that the “No Kings” slogan is not just performative but factually incorrect. There is no king in America. Our system of checks and balances functions exactly as designed — even, especially, now.

During his second term, President Trump has issued roughly 630 actions, including executive orders, and almost all have been challenged in court. According to The New York Times, 162 have been halted, though are still active. Of 155 other cases, Trump’s actions were completely overturned 59 times, with the president winning only seven cases; the rest were dismissed.

And just this week, the Trump administration began refunding to importers $166 billion in tariffs, after the Supreme Court struck down the trade policy in February.

If this were a monarchy, not a single order would have been stopped. The judiciary — staffed by appointees of both parties — routinely halts executive overreach, proof positive that the Republic is healthy.

Moreover, rather than ruling by decree, the administration has delivered measurable results through legitimate democratic channels. Tax relief, deregulation and energy expansion have generated economic momentum, and the president’s tariff agenda has positively impacted the trade deficit and industrial protection.

Then there’s his executive order (EO 14201) banning biological males from competing in female sports, which 79 percent of Americans, including 67 percent of Democrats, support, according to a New York Times/Ipsos poll, with 56 percent adding he has about the right amount of power. Does this sound like a king? Or does it sound like a president operating within a robust, contentious, fully functional democracy?

I understand concerns over immigration, voting procedures and wealth inequality drive passionate feelings. But hatred of a president is not a governing strategy; it’s a personal affliction voters can remedy at the ballot box in 2028.

For the next march, I suggest The Press interview some of the 47,250 Riverdalians who stayed home. You might find their quiet confidence in American institutions is a far more interesting story than the noise of the few.

CHRISTOPHER HOSFORD