Tennessee Tourism Breaks Record Spending for Fourth Consecutive Year with $31.7B in 2024

Tennessee Dept. of Tourism press release, June 27, 2025- Tennessee’s tourism industry set a new record in 2024, generating $31.7 billion in direct visitor spending and welcoming 147 million visits, according to newly released data from Tourism Economics and the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development.

Tourism is a powerful economic driver across all 95 counties, generating $3.3 billion in state and local tax revenue – saving each Tennessee household $1,170 annually on average.

“Tennessee’s tourism momentum is built to last, creating jobs, fueling small businesses, delivering real returns on public investment and generating substantial tax revenues that directly benefit Tennesseans,” said Gov. Bill Lee. “I'm proud of the investments we've made to drive intentional growth, and welcome visitors from around the world to experience Tennessee's urban cities and small towns from Memphis to Mountain City.”

“I’m so grateful to our amazing tourism and hospitality industry for these remarkable results,” said Mark Ezell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development. “The Tennessee Tourism team has been able to leverage bigger tourism budgets to help grow visitor spending over 35% in these last six years. We are leading the nation as one of just a few states that are aggressively growing tax revenue from non-Tennessee residents to benefit all seven million Tennesseans.”

By the Numbers: 2024 Economic Impact of Travel in Tennessee

• Record $31.7 billion in direct visitor spending, a 3.3% year-over-year increase
• 35.5% growth since 2018, more than double the national average of 16.7%
• Visitors spent $87 million per day in 2024
• $3.3 billion in state and local tax revenue in 2024, saving residents $1,170 in taxes each year

International Travel Surged in 2024

• 12.0% year-over-year increase in international visitor spending
• Each international visitor spent $1,278 on average - nearly six times more than a domestic visitor
• Note: These figures do not reflect the 2025 launch of new direct flights from Iceland and Ireland, which open new doors for European visitation

The data underscores the resilience of Tennessee’s tourism industry, which sustained growth despite a challenging year with major weather events, including Hurricane Helene.

In 2024, Tennessee awarded more tourism funding than ever before - investing $1.5 million in marketing grants, $2 million in Tourism Enhancement Grants and $13.75 million in ARPA funds. These investments support marketing and destination development at both the state and local level, help drive year-round visitation in all 95 counties and open new opportunities for rural communities to grow their tourism economies.

With new air service between Memphis and Knoxville; expanded routes into Nashville, Chattanooga and several regional airports; and luxury coach options like Vonlane and Gray Line, Tennessee is primed to attract even more visitors in 2025, with milestones like B.B. King’s 100th birthday in Memphis, Grand Ole Opry’s 100th anniversary in Nashville and Dollywood’s 40th anniversary. Events like MLB Speedway Classic at Bristol and IBMA in Chattanooga are also aimed to draw visitors. Programs like the upcoming MICHELIN Guide to the American South will continue to elevate Tennessee’s culinary brand.

The full 2024 Economic Impact on Travel Report and direct visitor spending data for all 95 counties will be released in September. The statewide report, including methodology, can be found here. All data is sourced from the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development and Tourism Economics, with national benchmarks provided by U.S. Travel Association.

Top Stories

U.S. Supreme Court rules for parents on LGBTQ storybooks

link

 By Esther Wickham, The Center Square, June 27, 2025 - The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision Friday, sided with parents in opting-out their children from school curriculum with LGBTQ storybooks. 

In the case Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court recognized parents have a constitutional right to opt their children out of, for religious reasons, content such as storybooks that push LGBTQ ideology.

"We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of the children," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's opinion. "And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred.

"Given the novelty of its ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ curriculum and no opt-out policy, if any party is pressing a progressive child rearing process in this litigation, clearly it is the [School] Board,” Kavanaugh said. “Such an unprecedented curriculum cannot ‘overbalance’ the parents’ ‘legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.’”

link

This issue arose in 2022 when Montgomery County, the largest school district in Maryland and one of the most religiously diverse counties in the country, reversed its policy on letting parents opt-out their children from LGBTQ-related lessons.

The seven books originally purchased for the 2022-23 school year were "Born Ready," "Intersection Allies," "Love, Violet," "My Rainbow," "Prince & Knight," "Pride Puppy!" and "Uncle Bobby’s Wedding" – all with LGBTQ characters and themes.

The district’s associate superintendent for curriculum, Niki Hazel, explained the district decided to buy those books due to previous storybooks not fully representing all diverse families in their school district.

“The books used in its existing ELA curriculum were not representative of many students and families in Montgomery County because they did not include LGBTQ characters,” Hazel said in a U.S. Supreme Court declaration.

link

Following parents' frustration with reversing this opt-out policy, the Montgomery County Board of Education claimed these opt-outs were too difficult to manage and that it was too hard to find alternative activities for the excused students. 

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said this decision will isolate students from a diverse education. 

“Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education ... That decision guts our free-exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society,” said Sotomayor. “The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent.” 

Eric Baxter, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the group representing the parents who were the plaintiffs in the case, said Friday's decision restored common sense in America. 

“This is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents’ permission,” Baxter said. “Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents — not government —have the final say in how their children are raised.” 

Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education, said the court's decision should have been unanimous.

“In what should have been a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court in Mahmoud v. Taylor upheld by a 6-3 vote the rights of religious parents to opt their children out of LGBTQ themed curriculum," Perry said in a statement to The Center Square. "In a straightforward application of its earlier decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Court wrote that it had long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children, and that policies that interfere with the religious development of children violate the Constitution. Storybooks like those at issue in Mahmoud convey normative messages on sex and gender, and those messages can and often do conflict with the beliefs of parents and their children.”

Maryland parents Friday praised the court’s decision.

“The Supreme Court sent a powerful message today: Parents do not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids. I am deeply grateful to have been part of this historic triumph for parental rights nationwide," said Grace Morrison, one of the Catholic plaintiffs. 

Rod's Comment: Hallelujah!

Top Stories

Council Members Sue Over TN Sanctuary City Restrictions

Zulfat Suara

Delishia Porterfield

Edited by Megan Podsiedlik, The Pamphleteer, June 25, 2025- Seven council members are suing over a Tennessee State Law established during this year’s special session that introduces harsher punishments for local policymakers who try to establish sanctuary cities. 

At-large council members Delishia Porterfield and Zulfat Suara, along with district council
members Clay Capp (District-6), Brenda Gadd (District-24), Sandra Sepulveda (District-30), Terry Vo (District 17), and Ginny Welsch (District 16) are listed as plaintiffs on the suit.

In 2019, a state law went into effect that prohibits state and local governmental entities and officials from adopting sanctuary policies. The General Assembly expanded on the law this February and established criminal penalties that go into effect on July 1. Any official convicted of proposing sanctuary policies will also be removed from office.

Terry Vo

Ginny Welsch

“This snapshot of the political climate demonstrates the State’s aggressive anti-
immigrant stance and the federal government’s equally aggressive efforts to attack any local governmental entities or officials that stand in the way of their immigration enforcement goals,” reads the complaint. “Local officials, therefore, face a profound and concrete likelihood of criminal prosecution under the Act.”

The council members are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and claim the law violates First Amendment rights of locally elected officials. The ACLU has been involved in numerous lawsuits taken up against the state. Notably, they challenged Tennessee’s law that restricts gender-transition interventions for minors. The case was taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the state's authority to protect kids from life‑altering medical practices in an opinion that came down last week.

During a press conference last Wednesday, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti acknowledged ACLU’s involvement in the courtroom battle when explaining the abundance of resources deployed to try to impose policy preferences through lawfare.

Rod's Comment: 

I support the State's ban on sanctuary cities in Tennessee.  Policies that prevent local law enforcement from sharing information about individuals with criminal records with federal immigration authorities can lead to the release of individuals with criminal histories back into the community. Also, it undermines the rule of law in general.  

Should Nashville pass sanctuary policies they would be invalid because of the State ban. That should be sufficient. With the State law in place prohibiting a city from adopting sanctuary policy, should a member of the Metro Council propose such policies, I am certain the Council's legal advisors would inform the Council member that what they were proposing was contrary to state law and advice the member not to introduce it. Should the member introduce it anyway, I would assume the legal analysis would advise the body that the proposed ordinance was contrary to state law, and that should the body adopt the ordinance it would be of no effect. Should the body pass the ordinance anyway, I assume the Nashville mayor would veto it. Should the Council override the veto, the Council would have engaged in some theater and passed an ordinance that would be of no effect. That should be all the safeguards we need to ensure Nashville does not become a sanctuary city. 

I think the recent law making it a crime to propose sanctuary policies was unnecessary and was a kiss-ass, suck-up attempt to show felty to Donald Trump. There are lots of things Metro Council cannot do, that I am sure some of the more liberal members of the Council would like to do. Metro Nashville cannot legalize abortion. Metro Nashville cannot pass so called "inclusionary zoning" forcing developers to build affordable housing. Metro cannot impose wage and price controls. Metro can't impose rent control. Metro cannot pass its own minimum wage law. Metro cannot legalize marijuana. In none of these cases is it a crime to propose an ordinance to accomplish these things. 

Having stated the above however, I think it is foolish to sue the state over the law criminalizing proposing sanctuary policies. Should the lawsuit prevail, what would have been accomplished? A member could then introduce an ordinance that should it pass would have no effect. That is the primary reason I oppose the lawsuit. Secondly, I would not want to be associated with these particular Council Members or the ACLU. 

Top Stories

Social Security's Financial Status is Worse than You think

 Truth in Accounting, June 20, 2025 -The recent analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget regarding the 2025 Medicare Trustees’ Report highlights the looming challenges with Medicare and Social Security, but it only scratches the surface of the deeper fiscal issues our country faces. To understand the full financial reality, we must go beyond trust fund “solvency” and examine the actual commitments the federal government has made—and continues to make—without fully accounting for them.

As the Congressional Budget Office has noted:

In the public debate, ‘solvency’ means keeping the trust funds from exhausting their balances and ensuring the ability of the funds to finance promised benefits. Defined that way, however, trust fund solvency is not a meaningful measure of the government’s ability to meet its future obligations.

In other words, solvency in this context is more of a political or legal benchmark than an actual measure of financial health.

The more alarming reality is how much these programs consume of the federal budget. In 2008, spending on Social Security and Health and Human Services (including Medicare) made up 38% of the federal budget. In 2024, that share has grown to 44%, crowding out other priorities and worsening the deficit.

Despite this, Congress continues to make benefit promises without a full understanding—or accounting—of their long-term costs. For example, lawmakers recently expanded Social Security coverage to additional workers without fully assessing the impact on the already strained and largely symbolic trust funds. This is like buying a car knowing only the monthly payments, without understanding the total cost or whether you’ll be able to pay it off.

One of the clearest signs of how disconnected federal accounting is from reality lies in the federal balance sheet itself. According to the Treasury Department, only $241 billion of liabilities for Social Security and Medicare are included in official federal financial statements. This is a tiny fraction of the real financial picture: Social Security carries over $50 trillion in unfunded promises, while Medicare’s unfunded obligations exceed $60 trillion.

Why is this massive gap ignored in the financial statements? Because, as Steve Goss, Chief Actuary of Social Security, explained:

An overriding uncertainty exists under the Social Security (and all Federal Social Insurance) programs. This is the Government’s right and ability to alter potential future benefits. Until benefits become due and payable, there is no binding commitment over which a worker has control and so no liability can be recognized.

In plain terms, the federal government is not legally liable to pay any Social Security or Medicare benefits beyond the checks due next month. These are political promises, not binding obligations—yet millions of Americans base their retirement planning on the assumption that these promises will be honored.

Even the very concept of “trust funds” is misunderstood. The Treasury Department clarifies:

In the federal budget, the term ‘trust fund’ means only that the law requires a particular fund be accounted for separately, used only for a specified purpose, and designated as a trust fund. A change in law may change the future receipts and the terms under which the fund’s resources are spent.

This differs drastically from the private sector, where trust funds involve a fiduciary duty to manage someone else’s money for their benefit. In government, trust funds are little more than internal bookkeeping entries that Congress can change at any time.

At Truth in Accounting, we believe the public and lawmakers deserve honest, complete, and transparent accounting. That includes recognizing the full cost of Social Security and Medicare, understanding the long-term implications of policy changes, and being honest about what has been promised—and what has not.

Until we do so, we are not just engaging in poor financial management—we are undermining the American people's trust and passing unsustainable burdens onto future generations.

Top Stories

Massive Property Tax Increase in Nashville After Council Vote

Top Stories

Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee's Ban on Sex Reassignment Treatment for Minors.

Office of the Attorney General press release, June 18, 2025 -The United States Supreme Court today announced a landmark decision upholding Tennessee’s law restricting gender-transition interventions for minors and affirming the State's authority to protect kids from risky and unproven medical practices.

Tennessee’s lawmakers enacted the challenged legislation in response to a surge in the provision of puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries to minors with gender-identity issues. These medical interventions often result in permanent physical changes and have life-altering effects, including irreversible loss of fertility. Numerous health authorities have concluded that the risks of these interventions outweigh any possible benefit.

"In today's historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism," said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. "A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee's elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand.  I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood."

As Chief Justice John Roberts writes in the 6-3 opinion of the Court: "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process."

"The rapid and unexplained rise in the number of kids seeking these life-altering interventions, despite the lack of supporting evidence, calls for careful scrutiny from our elected leaders," Attorney General Skrmetti asserted. "This victory transcends politics. It's about real Tennessee kids facing real struggles. Families across our state and our nation deserve solutions based on science, not ideology. Today's landmark decision recognizes that the Constitution lets us fulfill society's highest calling - protecting our kids."

To read a copy of the Supreme Court decision, please click here.

Top Stories

To Trump the US Should Demand Respect Because it is the Strongest Bully on the Block

by David Frum, The Atlantic, January 2025-  In 2019, Trump delivered a Fourth of July address on the National Mall. The speech exulted in the fearsome lethality of the U.S. military, but Trump had little to say about American ideals or democratic institutions. Trump has never accepted that the United States is strengthened by its values and principles, by a reputation for trustworthiness and fair dealing. The U.S., to him, should command respect because it is the biggest and strongest bully on the block. When his friend Bill O’Reilly asked him in a 2017 interview about Vladimir Putin, Trump scoffed at the idea that there might be any moral difference between the U.S. and Russia. “You think our country’s so innocent?” (link)

Top Stories

The Mob Makes You Pay Money Right?

 In a midsummer interview, Trump demanded that Taiwan pay the United States directly for defense. “I don’t think we’re any different from an insurance policy,” he said. When the podcaster Joe Rogan asked Trump in October about protecting Taiwan, Trump answered in a more revealing way: “They want us to protect, and they want protection. They don’t pay us money for the protection, you know? The mob makes you pay money, right?”

- David Frum, Marauding Nation, The Atlantic, January 2025

Top Stories

 Trump’s vision has no place for “mutual good” or “mutual advantage.” To him, every trade has a winner and a loser. One side’s success is the other side’s defeat. “We don’t beat China in trade,” he complained in the first Republican presidential-primary debate of 2015. “We don’t beat Japan … We can’t beat Mexico.” His deepest policy grievance is against those foreigners who sell desirable goods and services at an attractive price to willing American buyers.

- David Frum, Marauding Nation, The Atlantic 

Top Stories

TUESDAY NIGHT: MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD (but it won't make a difference)

From The Davidson County Republican Party, June 17,2025-  

Metro Council is planning another property tax hike and time is running out to stop it.

If you live in Davidson County, this matters. Rising costs are already squeezing families, renters, and homeowners. Now they want even more.

� Nashville Metro Courthouse

� Tuesday, June 17

� Arrive by 6PM – Meeting starts at 6:30PM

We need every concerned citizen in that room. To show up. To speak up. To remind council members that they work for the people and NOT special interests.

� NO NEW TAXES

� SHOW UP. SPEAK OUT.

� FIGHT FOR YOUR FUTURE

Rod's Comment: I would like to see an outpouring of opposition to the proposed tax increase, but it would have to be massive to make a difference. It would have to be so big, that members of the Council would work around the clock to create a new budget.  

It is not simply a matter of persuading councilmembers to vote "no." The Council would have to develop and pass an alternative budget. If the Council does not pass a budget by June 30th, the mayor's budget becomes the city budget by default. Persuading a member of the Council to vote "no" on the budget is actually persuading them to cast a vote the effect of which is a vote for the mayor's budget. The only budget before the Council is the mayor's budget and the substitute budget developed by the Budget and Finance Committee. There is no chance one of those budgets will not be the budget of the city. The substitute budget could be tweaked and even have the price tag reduced, but it is highly unlikely to happen. 

Top Stories

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) 30-year Price Tag is Really Alarming

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, June 16, 2025- The House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) would add $3 trillion to the debt through Fiscal Year (FY) 2034 as written and $5 trillion if made permanent. Over the long run, it would add far more to the debt.

We estimate that by FY 2054 the bill would:

• Increase debt by $15 trillion as written, or $31 trillion if made permanent.
• Increase debt to 172 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as written, or 190 percent of GDP if made permanent.
• Increase deficits to 8.4 percent of GDP as written, or 9.6 percent of GDP if made permanent.
• Increase interest costs to 6.0 percent of GDP as written, or 6.6 percent of GDP if made permanent.

These estimates likely understate the fiscal impact of OBBBA, as they assume interest rates that are significantly lower than today’s levels and don’t account for OBBBA’s effects on growth and interest rates. Most modelers have found that after boosting near-term output, OBBBA would reduce long-term output and increase interest rates as a result of additional borrowing.

OBBBA Will Increase Long-Term Borrowing

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the House-passed OBBBA would add roughly $3 trillion to the debt through 2034, including interest, boosting total deficits by 0.8 percent of GDP. Over 30 years, we estimate OBBBA would increase debt by over $15 trillion, boosting deficits by 1.0 percent of GDP.

Although new spending and tax cuts are smaller over the long run than in the early years, a number of offsets expire after 2034, while interest costs continue to accrue as a result of rising debt. We find the primary deficit impact of OBBBA would decline from a peak of 1.6 percent of GDP in 2027 to a low of 0.2 percent of GDP by 2031 before rising to 0.5 to 0.6 percent of GDP between 2035 and 2054. Interest costs will rise gradually to 0.6 percent of GDP by 2054. As a result, OBBBA as written would add about 1.2 percent of GDP to the deficit in 2054.

If temporary provisions in OBBBA are made permanent, we estimate the deficit impact would total $31 trillion through 2054, or 1.9 percent of GDP.

Most significantly, OBBBA sets numerous tax provisions to expire arbitrarily in 2028 or 2029, including temporary enhancements to the standard deduction and Child Tax Credit, tax exemption for tips and overtime, and various business tax breaks. OBBBA also includes significant one-time appropriations for defense, border security, and immigration enforcement, and it includes a number of offsets – mainly related to the delay of Biden Administration rules – that end after the budget window.

With all these provisions made permanent, the primary deficit impact of the bill would remain relatively stable at 1.2 to 1.3 percent of GDP per year over the long run. Meanwhile, interest costs will rise gradually to 1.2 percent of GDP by 2054. As a result, OBBBA with extensions would increase the deficit by 2.4 percent of GDP in 2054.

These estimates, if anything, likely understate the deficit impact of OBBBA. Long-term dynamic estimates from Penn Wharton Budget Model, Yale Budget Lab, and the Joint Committee on Taxation find that OBBBA would slow long-term economic growth and boost interest rates as a result of the higher debt. Assuming interest rates remain around their recent levels – either due to OBBBA or for other reasons – debt would be $55 trillion higher in 2054 under a permanent OBBBA, with more than $34 trillion of that increase due to OBBBA itself.

Deficits and Debt Will Surge under OBBBA

As a result of the additional $15 to $31 trillion of 30-year borrowing under OBBBA, debt levels will surge. CBO already projects debt to rise from 100 percent of GDP today to 154 percent by 2054 under current law. We estimate debt would further rise to 172 percent of GDP under OBBBA as written and 190 percent of GDP if OBBBA were made permanent.

Debt could rise even higher with heightened interest rates. If interest rates remain around their current levels while output grows as projected, debt would reach 218 percent of GDP assuming permanent OBBBA.

Deficits would also rise under these scenarios. Even under current law, annual deficits are projected to rise from 6.2 percent of GDP in 2025 to 7.2 percent by 2054. Under OBBBA deficits would rise to 8.4 percent of GDP, under a permanent OBBBA they would rise to 9.6 percent, and under a permanent OBBBA with current interest rates they would reach 12.0 percent of GDP.

Interest costs alone are projected to grow from 3.2 percent of GDP in 2025 to 5.4 percent by 2054 under current law. Interest costs would climb further to 6.0 percent of GDP by 2054 under OBBBA as written, 6.6 percent under a permanent OBBBA, and 8.9 percent under a permanent OBBBA and current interest rates. Assuming permanent OBBBA and today’s interest rates, interest would consume half of all revenue by 2054.

Rod's Comment: For those of you not familiar with The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, it is a is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization committed to educating the public on issues with significant fiscal policy impact. The leadership of the organization includes some of the nation's leading budget experts, including many past heads of the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Government Accountability Office. 

CRFB was founded in 1980. It is one of the organizations that has been on my giving list for many years. They have always been non-partisan but were sometimes referred to as a conservative organization, I assume because it used to be that conservatives were more concerned, or at least more outspoken in their concern, about fiscal responsibility than liberals and anyone questioning rising debt and deficit spending was considered a conservative.  Critics of CRFB used to primarily be liberals, and champions of CRFB used to be conservatives. In this Trump era that is reversed.

The Trump critics of CRFB contend that the organizations predictions are inaccurate because they say Trump's policies are going to unleash rapid economic growth which will produce much more revenue that is forecast in CRFB models. 

I think the Trump critics are wildly mistaken and see Trump tariff policies and uncertainties surrounding tariff policy and also Trump's immigration policies which will rob America of both low-end workers we need to keep the economy humming as well as high-end tech expertise and innovators necessary for innovation and growth. I think the Trump critics are living in a dream world and have faith and are deluding themselves. 

Top Stories

What I Saw at The Big Beautiful "No Kings" Protest in Nashville Yesterday.

me

 by Rod Williams, June 15, 2025- I attended the anti-Trump protest yesterday at the bicentennial mall state park. It was a big crowd. It is hard to estimate the size, but the mall lawn was full, and people spread out along Rosa Parks and Jefferson streets. I would not be surprised if there were not 5,000 people in attendance.

I had reservations about joining anti-Trump protests because I know I fundamentally disagree with the political position of most of those in attendance. I am sure the vast majority of those in attendance are Democrats and liberal and I am a traditional pre-Trump conservative Reaganite Republican.  I feel however that Trump is such a threat to our democracy that it is necessary to swallow hard and join anyone who wants to stop Trump and stand up to his authoritarianism and his cruelty and insane policies. 

It is kind of strange watching how conservatives have embraced Trump, but also how liberals are supporting some policies they would never have supported in more normal times, such as a strong foreign policy that supports a strong NATO and America's leadership role in the world, things like a balanced budget, resistance to an overreaching federal government, federalism, state's rights, constitutionalism, and free trade. The views I have always had, seem to be more prevalent on the left than the Trumpian right these days. Of course, I know that on many fundamentals I will always disagree with liberals.  The shifting policy positions, however, can make your head spin.  I think if we get past Trump and still have a democracy, both liberals and conservatives will revert to form. Who knows, however? There may be new alliances, and old political identities may fade, and there may be a reshuffled of the components that define the current political classifications. 

As I said, I was apprehensive about attending this rally. However, after attending the April 5th "Hands Off Democracy" rally in Centennial Park, I felt more comfortable attending this one.  While at yesterday's rally, there were a few class warfare signs, a few advocating a greater welfare state, and a few random signs advocating this or that particular cause with which I disagree, most were not things that were offensive. Most of the signs were on theme. There were a lot of anti-ICE signs, and, I would say, more pro-due process signs than anything else.  I only saw maybe four or five people draped with or waving Mexican flags. I saw one pro-Palestinian sign. 

There was a big drum circle in the center of the carillon. There were chants of, "No Justice; No Peace," and "The People United can Never be Defeated," and "This is What Democracy Looks Like."  Couldn't do it. I may march with the libs but can't join their choir.

It was a fun event. I can see how some shallow people get caught up in activism. A big protest like this is simply fun. It is sort of like Mardi Gras without the alcohol, or a rock concert, or a sporting event. People dance and chant, dress in attention getting costumes, make clever signs, and enjoy comradery. Also, it makes people feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves and makes them feel like they are doing something meaningful. I don't think it makes much difference whether it is a pro-Trump rally or an anti-Trump rally, I think the components that make people drawn to movements are the same.

The above being said, in times like these I think we do need to protest. I fear for the future of our democracy and think Trump desires to be a dictator. He has told us that he may find it necessary to suspend the constitution at some point. We need to take him seriously. It appears to me, he is following the dictator's playbook and laying the groundwork to assume dictatorial powers. While we still can, we need to fight back.

If anyone wants a flavor of the event, there are numerous YouTube video of the event. Here are several: link, link, and link.  Here are a few pictures that I found interesting. 

My Family and friend at the event

Top Stories