New Jersey is a crazy mess and this weekend, things got a bit crazier as thousands came out for a “No Kings” protest against President Trump, supported by the very same people who voted to re-elect Governor Phil Murphy in 2021.
The Twilight Zone has arrived.
A post by X user Morgan Marek went viral, highlighting a perceived hypocrisy in the “No Kings” movement—a slogan often associated with anti-authoritarian sentiments, particularly against figures like President Donald Trump.
Marek’s post sarcastically lists a series of mandates and restrictions, juxtaposing the anti-monarchical rhetoric with what she sees as overreaching government control.
It appeared to pointed directly at New Jersey and Governor Phil Murphy, who many in the state refer to as “King Philip”.
The post ends with a pointed question: “The hypocrisy is astounding. WHO is actually the tyrant here?” While the post doesn’t name a specific leader, it invites a deeper look at governance, especially in the context of New Jersey under Governor Phil Murphy, where some argue the state has faced more stringent control than under Trump’s federal policies.
The “No Kings” Irony
The “No Kings” phrase echoes the American Revolution’s rejection of monarchy, repurposed in modern times to criticize perceived authoritarianism. Marek’s list—masks, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, business closures, and limits on gatherings—mocks the idea that such measures contradict the anti-king sentiment. The post suggests that while protesters may target Trump, the real overreach might lie closer to home, particularly with state-level leaders like Murphy.
Trump vs. Murphy: A Comparative Lens
During Trump’s presidency, federal responses to the COVID-19 pandemic left much to state governors, including Murphy. Trump’s administration pushed for individual freedoms, often clashing with public health experts, but stopped short of nationwide mandates.
In contrast, Governor Murphy, a Democrat, implemented some of the strictest measures in the U.S. New Jersey saw prolonged lockdowns, mandatory mask policies, and business shutdowns that devastated local economies. For instance, indoor dining was banned for months, and capacity limits persisted well into 2021.
Murphy also faced backlash for rejecting certain religious exemptions and enforcing social distancing rules that separated families during hospital visits—a point Marek echoes with “your family members will die alone.”
Data from 2020-2021 shows New Jersey’s economic recovery lagged behind national averages, with small businesses reporting higher closure rates than in many other states. Critics argue Murphy’s policies, while rooted in public health, exceeded federal guidelines and ignored local input, painting him as a “king” in practice despite the “No Kings” rhetoric aimed at Trump.
The Hypocrisy Unraveled
The hypocrisy Marek highlights lies in the selective outrage. Trump, a polarizing figure, became a lightning rod for “No Kings” protests, yet his influence over state-level decisions was limited. Murphy, however, wielded direct power, issuing executive orders that shaped daily life in New Jersey more tangibly than Trump’s broader policies. The post’s mention of a hotline to “tattle on your neighbor” alludes to Murphy’s snitch line for reporting lockdown violations—a move that fueled perceptions of authoritarianism.
Who’s the Tyrant?
Marek’s question doesn’t provide an answer, but the comparison suggests a need to scrutinize local leaders alongside national ones.
While Trump’s style invited criticism, Murphy’s hands-on governance in New Jersey arguably imposed more immediate restrictions.
The “No Kings” movement, if genuine, might better direct its energy toward state capitals where executive power is most felt.
Morgan Marek’s post serves as a provocative mirror, reflecting the contradictions within anti-authoritarian protests. While Trump remains a symbol of overreach for many, the lived experience under Governor Murphy in New Jersey reveals a deeper irony. True resistance to “kings” requires looking beyond federal figureheads to the statehouses where mandates hit hardest. As New Jersey continues to recover, this debate underscores the need for balanced governance—neither monarchic nor blindly punitive.
