News

No Kings Day Isn’t What You Think

June 14, 2025
editor

June 15, 2025 09:00 AM PST

(PenniesToSave.com) – “No Kings Day” erupted across dozens of U.S. cities on June 14, combining anti‑authoritarian slogans with protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles. Supporters claim the events are a spontaneous defense of civil liberties. Critics counter that sophisticated gear, expensive advertising, and possible foreign money point to something more calculated. Understanding the dollars, motives, and policy context behind these marches helps everyday Americans decide whether the rhetoric matches reality.

Quick Links

Who Is Bankrolling the Movement, and Why Does It Matter?

Christy Walton, a Walmart heiress worth an estimated eighteen billion dollars, purchased a full‑page advertisement in The New York Times urging Americans to mark June 14 as a day to “stand against kings.” The single placement cost roughly two‑hundred‑fifty‑thousand dollars. Federal subpoenas also target Neville Roy Singham, a China‑based tech investor, after e‑mails suggested his nonprofit network reimbursed livestream equipment and travel stipends. House investigators have traced at least ninety‑three‑thousand dollars in wire transfers from Singham‑linked charities to Los Angeles‑based immigration groups between March and May.

Why does this matter? If tax‑exempt funds or foreign‑sourced cash bankroll street actions that strain local police budgets, taxpayers effectively subsidize protest logistics without consent. For families watching grocery prices and property taxes, undisclosed spending erodes confidence in both philanthropy and public order.

How Do Protesters Afford Military‑Grade Masks and Shields?

Camera crews repeatedly filmed protesters wearing Bionic Shield Model 720 full‑face respirators. The manufacturer lists each mask at one‑hundred‑ninety‑nine dollars, while the required P100 filter pair retails for thirty‑nine dollars. Protest streams from downtown L.A. showed at least thirty masks alongside forty DefendTec polycarbonate riot shieldspriced at one‑hundred‑twenty dollars apiece. That single drop represents more than ten‑thousand dollars in hardware.

FBI affidavits allege that Alejandro Orellana, a Teamsters Local 396 steward, used a personal truck to deliver the gear and later texted a contact, “expenses covered—send invoice.” Agents seized two Ledger crypto wallets from his apartment; blockchain analytics show a recent inbound transfer of eleven‑point‑four Monero, worth roughly two‑thousand dollars. These findings suggest a reimbursement chain far beyond a lone union driver deciding to splurge.

Are Unions Like the Teamsters Officially Involved?

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters insists it neither endorsed nor financed “No Kings Day.” Yet Orellana’s status as a shop steward allowed him to leverage union credibility—and possibly warehouse space—without triggering alarms. Labor law experts note that if even informal union resources helped move prohibited gear, both local and national offices could face civil liability under the Labor‑Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.

For rank‑and‑file members paying monthly dues, the episode raises uncomfortable questions: are resources meant for collective bargaining being diverted into high‑risk activism? Transparency audits and strict internal oversight will be crucial to maintain member trust.

Do Billionaires and Foreign Donors Have Hidden Agendas?

Christy Walton promotes the protests as a moral stand, yet critics argue lower corporate taxes and looser trade rules benefit Walmart. A weakened administration facing street unrest may prove more pliable on commerce policy.

Neville Roy Singham funds media outlets that echo Beijing’s geopolitical talking points. Analysts warn that large‑scale U.S. protests framed as “anti‑authoritarian” but aimed squarely at a single president dovetail with Chinese propaganda that the American system is unstable.

Other Silicon Valley donors, including past supporters of bail funds, could gain reputational benefit by appearing to champion social justice while deflecting scrutiny from their own labor practices. The average citizen should weigh whether noble slogans mask strategic self‑interest.

How Different Are Trump’s Immigration Policies from Obama’s, and Why Protest Now?

According to the Department of Homeland Security Yearbook, the Obama administration removed 3.05 million individuals between 2009 and 2016, averaging 387‑000 deportations per year, with the 2012 peak reaching 409‑849. By contrast, ICE reported 935‑000 removals from 2017 through 2020 under President Trump, an average of 233‑000 annually. Yet Trump’s “Zero Tolerance” family‑separation directive and high‑profile workplace raids generated more intense media coverage than the quieter, data‑driven removals under Obama.

The disparity underscores how tone and optics, not sheer numbers, drive public outrage. Voters weighing policy substance should distinguish between enforcement volume and enforcement theater.

Could False‑Flag Tactics in MAGA Gear Skew Public Perception?

Reddit’s r/ProtestFinderUSA hosted a thread advising participants to “buy cheap red hats, act unhinged.” The post garnered only seventy‑four up‑votes, but DHS classified the idea as a low‑probability, high‑impact threat in a June 11 regional bulletin. Even a handful of staged incidents could dominate cable news cycles, distorting the entire event’s narrative and deepening partisan distrust.

Media literacy is the public’s best defense. Cell‑phone footage without verification, especially clips featuring obscured faces in political costumes, should be treated cautiously before shaping opinions.

What Are the Broader Economic and Social Consequences?

Los Angeles budget officials estimate overtime for police and sanitation linked to June 14 exceeded three‑point‑six million dollars. Downtown retailers reported a twenty‑three percent drop in weekend foot traffic, citing barricaded streets and customer uncertainty. Small businesses already grappling with inflation shoulder these losses directly.

Longer term, routine disruptive protests can drive residents to relocate and discourage tourism, shrinking the tax base that funds schools and infrastructure. Balancing First‑Amendment rights with community stability means demanding transparency from organizers while ensuring law enforcement remains proportionate.

Where Does This Leave the Average American?

An informed citizen should ask three questions: Who pays, what do they gain, and how does the policy record compare with the protest claims? Scrutinizing funding trails, cost breakdowns, and historical data guards against adopting narratives crafted by unseen benefactors. Democracy thrives when voters weigh evidence rather than slogans.

Final Thoughts

Faith in American self‑government depends on openness. By demanding clear financial disclosures from protest organizers and verifying claims with official data, citizens can engage confidently in civil debate without falling prey to hidden agendas.

Works Cited