Nationwide Protests Erupt Against Trump’s Executive Power and Musk’s Role in Government

Opponents of former President Trump took to the streets on Presidents Day, staging demonstrations across the country to protest his sweeping executive actions and his appointment of tech billionaire Elon Musk to a key government role.The protests, organized by various progressive groups, underscored growing concerns over Trump’s governance style and the influence of wealthy elites in shaping policy.On February 17, thousands gathered in major cities, declaring it “No Kings Day” to push back against Trump’s aggressive use of executive orders and his administration’s move to significantly downsize the federal government.A central theme of the protests was resistance to Musk’s growing influence, particularly his leadership of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a new commission tasked with cutting federal spending.“We are at a critical crossroads in American history,” a joint statement from the 50501 Movement, Political Revolution, and No Voice Unheard read. “We demand that our voices be heard and that the White House serves the American people—not a tech billionaire looking to buy influence.”The demonstrations drew large crowds in Washington, where thousands gathered near the U.S. Capitol, even though lawmakers were out of session for the federal holiday. Protesters held signs criticizing Musk’s role in government, with one banner reading, “No one elected Elon Musk.” Across the country, nearly 1,000 people marched in Boston, while hundreds rallied at state capitols in Texas and California.

“America has no king,” declared Build the Resistance, another organizer of the protests. “Trump and his wealthy allies are undermining the Constitution and tearing apart democratic institutions.”Indivisible, a progressive advocacy group, also joined the demonstrations as part of its “Musk or Us” initiative. In addition to the Presidents Day protests, activists are planning further demonstrations outside lawmakers’ offices and Tesla dealerships to highlight concerns over Musk’s deepening involvement in federal policy decisions.Musk’s appointment as the head of DOGE has been a focal point of controversy. As a special government employee, Musk has gained direct access to Trump’s administration, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and unchecked power.DOGE has aggressively targeted federal agencies, leading to the dismissal of thousands of federal workers. The Office of Personnel Management recently purged probationary employees, while others were pressured into buyout offers under the administration’s “Fork in the Road” initiative.DOGE has also moved to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, a decision that has sparked fears about the federal government’s ability to maintain critical programs and uphold national security.Privacy advocates warn that drastic changes within federal agencies could lead to breaches in sensitive government data.

The Presidents Day protests mark the second large-scale mobilization by the 50501 Movement in recent weeks. On February 5, the group reported organizing more than 80 protests across all 50 states, drawing an estimated 20,000 participants.Organizers say the growing public response signals widespread discontent with Trump’s leadership and his extensive use of executive power.“We are witnessing an erosion of constitutional rights,” the 50501 Movement stated. “Federal judges have already halted multiple executive orders, yet Trump continues to push forward, disregarding the checks and balances that define American democracy.”The statement also condemned elected officials who have remained silent, accusing them of prioritizing political self-preservation over defending democratic principles. “Many in Congress are paralyzed by fear of losing their positions.But in the face of this crisis, a new wave of unity is rising. Americans from every background are standing together to demand accountability and defend our rights,” the release added.As tensions rise, activists vow to keep the pressure on Trump’s administration. With Musk’s role expanding and federal agencies facing upheaval, protests are expected to continue in the coming weeks.

The battle over executive power and government restructuring is far from over, and the movement against Trump’s policies shows no signs of slowing down.

Rep. Jake Auchincloss Criticizes Trump’s DOJ for Dropping Corruption Charges Against NYC Mayor Eric Adams  

Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.) has strongly condemned the Trump administration’s Justice Department for its recent decision to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Speaking on NewsNation’s The Hill Sunday, Auchincloss argued that the move undermines the rule of law and represents a blatant example of political interference. During the interview, anchor Chris Stirewalt asked Auchincloss about the resignations of multiple top federal prosecutors who refused to comply with the order to dismiss the charges against Adams. “What I say about it is that this president is replacing the rule of law with the law of the ruler,” Auchincloss responded. “He came into office, he pardoned violent criminals from the Jan. 6 insurrection, including men who tased cops in the neck.

Those people are now recommitting crimes back in their communities. He fired inspectors general and federal prosecutors without cause, and now he is directly bullying the Southern District of New York to act in a corrupt manner,” he continued. The controversy erupted after Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove instructed prosecutors to dismiss all charges against Adams without reviewing the strength of the case. Bove defended the decision by claiming that the prosecution “improperly interfered” with Adams’s 2025 mayoral campaign and “unduly restricted” the mayor’s ability to focus on key issues such as illegal immigration and violent crime. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan had charged Adams in September with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, solicitation of a contribution by a foreign national, and bribery. As his trial approached, Adams had moved closer to Trump politically, a shift that raised concerns about a possible quid pro quo. The abrupt dismissal of the charges only deepened those suspicions. The DOJ’s decision triggered immediate backlash and led to multiple resignations within the Southern District of New York. The interim U.S. attorney for Manhattan and several other prosecutors stepped down in protest, refusing to be part of what they saw as a politically motivated maneuver. Auchincloss praised the prosecutors for standing their ground, singling out Hagan Scotten, the assistant United States attorney who resigned rather than comply with the DOJ order. “That was the lead prosecutor on Eric Adams, and he resigned rather than pursue this corrupt path,” Auchincloss said. “And he said anybody who followed this order would be a fool or a coward. Now Hagan Scotten clerked for a conservative Supreme Court justice. He is no fool.

He is a decorated special forces officer. He’s no coward. Can Republicans answer the same? Because right now they look like both.”President Trump, when asked about the resignations, distanced himself from the case and dismissed the significance of the prosecutors stepping down.“I don’t know about it,” Trump said from the Oval Office on Friday. “Obviously, I’m not involved in that, but I would say this. If they had a problem — and these are mostly people from the previous administration, you understand. So they weren’t going to be there anyway.

They were all going to be gone or dismissed … because what you do is you come in and you put new people in.”He went on to downplay the controversy, suggesting that the resignations were inconsequential.“So when you say resigned, they were gonna be gone anyway,” Trump said. “But I know nothing about the individual case. I know that they didn’t feel it was much of a case. They also felt that it was unfair with the election.”Critics, including Auchincloss, have dismissed Trump’s explanation, arguing that the order to drop the charges was politically motivated and designed to reward Adams for his recent alignment with Trump.The Justice Department’s decision has also sparked broader concerns about the integrity of federal law enforcement under Trump. Legal experts and former DOJ officials have warned that using the department to protect political allies and punish opponents threatens the fundamental principles of justice.For Democrats, the episode serves as further evidence of what they see as Trump’s pattern of interfering with the justice system.They point to his history of granting pardons to political allies, firing inspectors general who investigated wrongdoing in his administration, and pressuring the DOJ to pursue investigations into his opponents.Meanwhile, Republicans have largely remained silent on the issue, avoiding direct criticism of the administration’s handling of the case. Some, however, have privately expressed concerns that such actions could undermine public trust in law enforcement and set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.The fallout from the Adams case is likely to continue in the coming weeks as congressional Democrats push for more oversight and accountability within the DOJ. Some lawmakers are already calling for an investigation into the decision-making process behind the dropped charges.The controversy underscores the deep divisions in Washington over the role of the Justice Department and whether it can remain independent under Trump’s leadership. While the administration insists that its actions are aimed at correcting past political abuses, critics argue that Trump is weaponizing the DOJ for his own benefit.

As the debate unfolds, one thing is clear: the decision to drop the charges against Adams has only intensified scrutiny of Trump’s approach to governance and his willingness to use federal power to advance his political interests.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen Criticizes Trump Administration’s ‘Mixed Messages’ on Ukraine

PauseMuteLoaded: 6.92%Remaining Time -10:30Close Player   Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) expressed concern over what she described as contradictory statements from the Trump administration regarding Ukraine. Speaking in an interview on CBS News’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Shaheen argued that recent remarks from senior officials send conflicting signals about U.S. policy toward the ongoing war.“Well, I think it was a mixed [message] coming from the administration,” Shaheen told host Margaret Brennan.“On the one hand, you heard Secretary Hegseth saying they were gonna take NATO off the table, that Ukraine needed to give up territory, and on the other hand, you had Vice President Vance saying that everything should be on the table, including the possibility of putting boots on the ground in Ukraine. So, it’s a mixed message.”Her comments reflect broader concerns in Washington regarding how the Trump administration plans to navigate the Ukraine conflict, as President Trump has pushed for a negotiated settlement with Russia. On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed the Ukraine Contact Defense Group and stated that he does “not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.

”His remarks align with the administration’s recent diplomatic efforts aimed at bringing an end to the war. Additionally,  Hegseth indicated that Ukraine will likely not recover all of its lost territory from Russia, a statement that many in Congress see as a concession to Moscow. Vice President J.D. Vance has offered a different perspective, suggesting that military intervention remains an option to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin into adhering to any ceasefire agreement. When asked by The Wall Street Journal about possible measures to enforce an agreement, Vance acknowledged that a range of economic and military tools could be considered.“There are instruments of pressure, absolutely,” Vance said. “And again, if you look at President Trump’s approach to this, the range of options is extremely broad. And there are economic tools of leverage. There [are], of course, military tools of leverage.”“There’s a whole host of things that we could do,” he continued. “But fundamentally,

I think the president wants to have a productive negotiation, both with Putin and with [Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky].”Vance also emphasized Trump’s opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, a position the former president has consistently held.“The president has been very clear that he doesn’t like the idea of moving Ukraine into NATO,” Vance said. “I also think the president is very clear that whenever he walks in a negotiation, everything is on the table.”The conflicting rhetoric from Hegseth and Vance underscores the broader challenge the administration faces as it attempts to broker a settlement while balancing support from Congress and U.S. allies.Trump has long criticized America’s financial and military assistance to Ukraine, arguing that European countries should take on a greater share of the burden.

His administration’s latest diplomatic push reflects that stance, even as lawmakers from both parties continue advocating for strong U.S. support for Kyiv.Shaheen pointed out that Congress remains committed to assisting Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression.“There is strong bipartisan support in Congress to help Ukraine in this unfair war that Russia has initiated,” she said.Her remarks highlight the growing divide between Trump’s administration, which is pushing for a swift resolution that may involve territorial concessions, and members of Congress who remain steadfast in backing Ukraine’s sovereignty.The Biden administration previously supported Ukraine’s efforts to fully reclaim occupied territories and advocated for its eventual NATO membership. The shift in tone under Trump has raised concerns among U.S. allies in Europe, who worry that any concessions to Russia could embolden further aggression.Despite internal disagreements, the Trump administration insists it is committed to ending the war in a way that prioritizes U.S. interests. Trump has claimed he could secure a deal quickly if given the opportunity, though details of his plan remain unclear.The mixed messaging from top officials, however, leaves key questions unanswered. If Ukraine’s NATO membership is no longer under consideration, and if the U.S. is open to some level of territorial compromise, what leverage remains to push Russia into a lasting peace?And how would U.S. lawmakers, particularly those who have backed strong military aid to Ukraine, react to such a shift in strategy?As negotiations continue, the Trump administration will need to clarify its position to avoid sending conflicting signals to allies, adversaries, and the American public.

With Congress remaining firm in its support for Ukraine, and the administration advocating for a settlement, tensions over the U.S. role in the conflict are likely to persist.