Local opinion: A dismissive editorial peers through rose-colored glasses

I’m concerned about the Boston Herald’s editorial printed in this paper on April 8, which argues that democracy remains strong based on two recent federal court decisions restraining President Trump’s overreach.

I disagree. The editorial is peering through rose-colored glasses.

In both cases, the judges were unequivocal: the destruction of the East Wing ballroom and the defunding of PBS and NPR are patently illegal. The rulings were important, and indeed, the Herald was right to acknowledge them.

But it’s crucial to weigh in on what the Herald omitted, and disregarded. One needs to ask, are two court orders opposing the administration’s policies sufficient to declare our democracy strong and resilient?

The Herald goes further, criticizing Democrats for overreacting per the following quote: “Dictators can’t be stopped by judicial rulings.” The article also questions the purpose of the No Kings movement, portraying protesters as misguided or “confounded” by the court decisions. This characterization is both dismissive and oversimplified.

The No Kings movement is not a response to isolated incidents. Protesters are raising concerns about a wide range of issues: deportations, civilian deaths abroad, imprisonment without due process, defunding of agencies, prosecution of political opponents, alleged cover-ups and corruption, threats to elections, rising costs of living, and the killing of two Minneapolis protesters.

Since emerging less than a year ago, No Kings has grown rapidly. On March 28, over 8 million people protested in more than 3,100 towns and cities nationwide. Notably, opposition has also appeared in traditionally Republican areas. At The Villages, in Florida — where 68% of voters supported Trump in 2024 — thousands turned out to protest.

This is not confusion — the protests reflect erosion of confidence in democracy, even within the administration’s base.

Given this broader context, the Herald’s optimism about two court decisions appears overstated. It omits a July 2025 Washington Post report indicating the administration defied or undermined court authority in 57 of 165 cases — nearly 35%. Such friction between branches of government is not a sign of institutional health but is a warning the courts are not effectively holding the executive branch accountable.

And the East Wing ruling was weakened when the judge allowed construction to continue during appeal, based on “safety and security” concerns, thus blurring the line between judicial authority and enforcement.

Moreover, the Herald overlooks the president’s singular leverage over Congress. The Republican-led passage of the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which included $1.1 billion in cuts to PBS and NPR, undercuts the court’s attempt to restrain the administration, weakening and even nullifying the court’s decisions.

Legal institutions have also raised concerns. The American Bar Association, citing the World Justice Project, ranked the U.S. 26th out of 142 countries in its Rule of Law Index. The index emphasizes the erosion of constraints on government powers, a weakness in judicial independence and a preponderance towards authoritarianism.

By all indications, the Herald has missed its mark in offering us reassurance of the court’s stability and the strength of democracy. And when it values confidence over honest scrutiny, its words ring hollow.

Likewise, protest is a foundational element of the First Amendment and is not only relevant in today’s political environment but is absolutely necessary.