‘No Kings' protesters in Virginia and San Francisco struck by motorists
Protesters at 'No Kings' events in Culpeper, Virginia, and San Francisco, California, have been struck by motorists, according to local news reports.
The protests are taking place at about 2,000 sites nationwide, from big cities to small towns. A coalition of more than 100 groups planned the protests, which are committed to a principle of nonviolence.
Police in the northern Virginia city of Culpeper identified 21-year-old Joseph R Checklick Jr as the motorist there. No injuries have been reported; police said that they have filed reckless driving charges against Checklick, and that more charges may be filed. Organizers estimated that more than 600 protesters showed up in the town of 21,000.
In San Francisco, at least four 'No Kings' protesters in San Francisco were struck by a motorist who then fled the scene, according to NBC News. Law enforcement detained the individual, and stated that the protesters suffered non-life-threatening injuries.
Related: Millions across US turn out for 'No Kings' protests against Donald Trump
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, tens of thousands of protesters are filling the streets across the Bay Area. The No Kings protests come on the heels of constant anti-Ice protests in San Francisco in solidarity with the anti-Ice Los Angeles protests.
In response to the protests in Los Angeles this week, Donald Trump deployed the national guard and US marines to the city to crack down on protesters who have demonstrated against his ramped-up deportations, defying state and local authorities in a show of military force that hasn't been seen in the US since the civil rights era.
Earlier on Saturday, two Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota, one of whom was killed, were shot in what local officials called a politically motivated attack. The state's police and governor cautioned people to not attend demonstrations across the state 'out of an abundance of caution'.
Minnesota police are still searching for the suspect – whom officials have confirmed is Vance Boelter, 57 – in those shootings, and noted several No Kings protest flyers inside the vehicle.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Social Security's 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Estimate Is Getting a "Trump Bump" -- Here's How Much Extra You Might Receive
As many as nine out of 10 retirees rely on their Social Security income to cover some portion of their expenses. Estimates for Social Security's 2026 cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) are climbing, and President Trump's tariff and trade policy looks to be the culprit. Though an above-average COLA for a fifth-consecutive year would be welcome on paper, retirees continue to get the short end of the stick when it comes to annual raises. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Last month, Social Security's retired-worker benefit made history, with the average payout topping $2,000 for the first time since the program's inception. Although this represents a modest monthly benefit, it's nevertheless proved vital to helping aging workers cover their expenses. In each of the prior 23 years, pollster Gallup surveyed retirees about their reliance on the Social Security income they're receiving. Between 80% and 90% of respondents noted it was a "major" or "minor" income source. In other words, only around one in 10 retirees could, in theory, make do without their Social Security check. For an overwhelming majority of Social Security beneficiaries, nothing is more important than knowing precisely how much they'll receive each month -- and that begins with the program's annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which is announced during the second week of October. This year's COLA announcement will be of particular interest, with President Donald Trump's tariff and trade policies expected to directly affect how much Social Security beneficiaries will receive per month in 2026. But before digging into the specifics of how President Trump's policies are expected to impact the pocketbooks of seniors, survivors, and workers with disabilities, it's important to understand the building blocks of what Social Security's COLA is and why it matters. The program's COLA is effectively the "raise" passed along on a near-annual basis that accounts for the impact of inflation (rising prices) on benefits. For example, if a large basket of goods and services increased in cost by 3% from one year to the next, Social Security benefits would need to climb by a commensurate amount, or buying power for Social Security recipients would decrease. In the 35 years following the issuance of the first retired-worker check in January 1940, COLAs were assigned at random by special sessions of Congress. Only a total of 11 COLAs were passed along during this timeline, with no adjustments made in the 1940s. Beginning in 1975, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) was adopted as Social Security's inflationary measure that would allow for annual cost-of-living adjustments. The CPI-W has over 200 spending categories, each of which has its own unique percentage weighting. These weightings are what allow the CPI-W to be expressed as a single figure each month, which leads to crisp month-to-month and year-to-year comparisons to see if prices are, collectively, rising (inflation) or declining (deflation). When calculating Social Security's COLA, only CPI-W readings from the third quarter (July through September) are taken into consideration. If the average CPI-W reading in the third quarter of the current year is higher than the comparable period of the previous year, inflation has occurred, and beneficiaries are due for a beefier payout. Following a decade of anemic raises in the 2010s -- three years during the decade (2010, 2011, and 2016) saw no COLA passed along due to deflation -- beneficiaries have enjoyed four consecutive years of above-average cost-of-living adjustments and are hoping for this streak to continue. A historic increase in U.S. money supply during the COVID-19 pandemic sent the prevailing rate of inflation soaring to a four-decade high. This resulted in COLAs of 5.9% in 2022, 8.7% in 2023, 3.2% in 2024, and 2.5% in 2025, respectively. For context, the average annual increase in benefits since 2010 is 2.3%. While estimates for Social Security's 2026 cost-of-living adjustment came in below this average shortly after President Donald Trump took office for his nonconsecutive second term, the script has now been flipped. Nonpartisan senior advocacy group The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) was forecasting a 2.2% COLA for 2026 as recently as March. Meanwhile, independent Social Security and Medicare policy analyst Mary Johnson, who retired from TSCL last year, was calling for a 2.2% increase in April following the release of the March inflation report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). After the release of the May inflation report from the BLS, both TSCL and Johnson are now forecasting a 2026 COLA of 2.5%. A 2.5% COLA would increase the average retired-worker benefit by $50 per month next year, as well as lift monthly checks for the typical worker with disabilities and survivor beneficiary by $40 and $39, respectively. This 0.3% increase in both forecasts over the past couple of months is estimated to boost the average Social Security payout (for all beneficiaries) by approximately $5.57 per month in 2026. This "Trump bump" is the result of the president's tariff and trade policies having a very modest inflationary impact on domestic prices. Charging a global import duty on all countries while imposing higher "reciprocal tariff rates" on dozens of countries that have historically run adverse trade imbalances with the U.S. can result in these higher costs being passed along to consumers. Though a lot can change with Trump's tariff and trade policy in the coming weeks and months, its current design points to a modest bump in the 2026 COLA. On paper, a fifth consecutive year where COLAs are above average (compared to the previous 16 years) probably sounds great. With the average retired-worker payout cresting $2,000 per month, an added $50 per month would be welcome in 2026. But the fact of the matter is that a 0.3% bump in COLA estimates since Trump introduced his tariff and trade policy doesn't remotely move the needle when it comes to what retirees have been shortchanged for more than a decade. Though the CPI-W is designed to be an all-encompassing measure of inflation, it has an inherent flaw that can be seen in its full name. Specifically, it tracks the spending habits of "urban wage earners and clerical workers," who, in many instances, are working-age Americans not currently receiving a Social Security benefit. Urban wage earners and clerical workers spend their money very differently than seniors. Whereas the former has a higher percentage of their monthly budgets devoted to things like education, apparel, and transportation, seniors spend a higher percentage on shelter and medical care services. Even though an overwhelming majority of Social Security beneficiaries are aged 62 and above, the CPI-W doesn't factor in this added importance of shelter and medical care services inflation. The end result for retirees has been a persistent decline in the buying power of a Social Security dollar. According to a study conducted by TSCL, the purchasing power of a Social Security dollar has dropped by 20% since 2010. A very modest "Trump bump" isn't going to offset this. What's more, the aforementioned two costs that matter most to retirees -- shelter and medical care services -- have had higher trailing-12-month (TTM) inflation rates than the annually issued Social Security COLA. The BLS inflation report for May showed TTM increases of 3.9% for shelter and 3% for medical care services, respectively. As long as the program's cost-of-living adjustment trails the annual inflation rate for these two key expenses, retirees will continue getting the short end of the stick. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security's 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Estimate Is Getting a "Trump Bump" -- Here's How Much Extra You Might Receive was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Were the No Kings protests the largest single-day demonstration in American history?
The scale of last weekend's 'No Kings' protests is now becoming clearer, with one estimate suggesting that Saturday was among the biggest ever single-day protests in US history. Working out exactly where the protest ranks compared with similar recent events has been a project of G Elliott Morris, a data journalist who runs the Substack Strength in Numbers, calculated turnout between 4 million and 6 million, which would be 1.2-1.8% of the US population. This could exceed the previous record in recent history, when between 3.3 million and 5.6 million people showed up at the 2017 Women's March to rally against Trump's misogynistic rhetoric. Morris estimated the No Kings Day protest turnout in two steps. First, his team gathered data at events for as many locations as possible, defaulting to tallies published in local newspapers. Where that wasn't available, they relied on estimates from organizers and attenders themselves. To come up with a rough approximation of nationwide numbers, he then estimated the attendance in each unreported protest would be equal to the median of the attendance in places where data did exist. 'That's a tough approximation, but at least an empirical one,' Morris wrote in an email. 'We use the median instead of the average to control for outliers, [such as the fact that] big cities pull the average up, but most events are not huge urban protests.' Morris stressed that the Strength in Numbers tally remains unofficial, and he hopes that researchers will 'build' on his data when they conduct more studies. But his estimation is similar to that made by Ezra Levin, the co-founder of Indivisible, the progressive non-profit that organized the event. He estimated that 5 million people across the globe took to the streets. If 1.8% of the US adult population showed up to protest, it sends a signal to other people that you can stand up, too Omar Wasow Not everyone is ready to call it the biggest protest ever. Jeremy Pressman of the Crowd Counting Consortium, a joint Harvard University/University of Connecticut project that estimates political crowds, told USA Today it would take 'some time' to get an official tally. Meanwhile Steven Cheung, Trump's director of communications, unsurprisingly called the protests 'a complete and utter failure with minuscule attendance' on X. (No Kings took place on Donald Trump's birthday, which coincided with a parade the president threw in celebration of the US army's 250th anniversary.) Omar Wasow, an assistant professor in UC Berkeley's department of political science, told the Guardian that the demonstration was 'without question, among the largest single-day protests in history'. Wasow compared protest movements to standing ovations given at a theater. 'We see a cascade effect: if one person stands after the curtain drops, then more follow,' he said. 'If 1.8% of the US adult population showed up to protest on Saturday, those are the people who stood up to clap first. It sends a signal to all these other people that you can stand up, too.' The 1963 March on Washington, where Dr Martin Luther King Jr made his famous 'I have a dream' speech was at the time one of the largest protests in history, with up to a half a million people in attendance. It was dwarfed in size by the first Earth Day protests in 1970, in which 20 million people helped spark the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. 'At the time this was about 10% of the US population, possibly the largest we will ever realistically see – unless the political environment deteriorates significantly, prompting more backlash,' Morris said. In 1986 at the Hands Across America fundraiser, an estimated 5 million Americans formed a human chain to raise money to fight hunger and homelessness (each person was asked to donate $10, though many participants didn't end up paying and the politics of the Coca-Cola-sponsored event were murky). More than a million people took to the streets in 2006 for a boycott called 'A Day Without Immigrants' in protest of stricter immigration laws. Polls taken during the summer of 2020 found that between 15 and 26 million Americans protested against the murder of George Floyd during the month of June (though day-by-day numbers were smaller). Gloria J Browne-Marshall, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and author of A Protest History of the United States, said that it was difficult to compare crowd sizes for various protests, especially ones that take place over the course of several days and span various locations. 'There are different processes that have been used over the years, from eyeballing things to actually counting the number of people per square mile,' she said. Related: 'No Kings' protests stir US as Trump celebrates birthday with military parade – in pictures In the days following No Kings, an idea put forth by the political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan called the 3.5% rule spurred social media discussion. Chenoweth, a Harvard professor and Stephan, a political scientist who covers nonviolent movements, studied 323 revolutionary campaigns around the world that took place from 1900 to 2006. They found that all nonviolent movements that had the support of at least 3.5% of a population always succeeded in triggering change. No Kings, with its massive turnout, could be seen as a turning point. There are caveats to this rule, which was published in the team's 2011 book Why Civil Resistance Works. 'The 3.5% rule is descriptive, not prescriptive – and has been revised significantly since being originally published to allow for exceptions,' Morris wrote. 'Chenoweth now is clear that hitting 3.5% does not guarantee success, especially in political regimes where change is harder, and that movements can accomplish their goals with much smaller mobilization, through things like media coverage and alliances with elites.' Organizers and attenders of No Kings feel invigorated enough to continue the demonstrations, with another round of coordinated protests to fall on 17 July, the fifth anniversary of the death of John Lewis, the congressman and civil rights leader. But they admit there are limits to these events. 'We're not going to win if a lot of people show up at a protest one day,' Levin said. 'We need people actually taking democracy seriously, and that's not going to be done through a top-down action. It has to be done from the bottom-up. When pro-democracy movements succeed, it's because of a broad-based, ideological, diverse, geographically-dispersed, grassroots organizing – not just mobilizing.' • This article was amended on 19 June 2025 to clarify that G Elliott Morris used the median, not the medium, to approximate nationwide protest numbers.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Outrage as DHS moves to restrict lawmaker visits to detention centers
The US Department of Homeland Security is now requiring lawmakers to provide 72 hours of notice before visiting detention centers, according to new guidance. The guidance comes after a slew of tense visits from Democratic lawmakers to detention centers amid Donald Trump's crackdowns in immigrant communities across the country. Many Democratic lawmakers in recent weeks have either been turned away, arrested or manhandled by law enforcement officers at the facilities, leading to public condemnation towards Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (Ice) handling of such visits. Lawmakers are allowed to access DHS facilities 'used to detain or otherwise house aliens' for inspections and are not required 'to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility', according to the 2024 Federal Appropriations Act. Previous language surrounding lawmaker visits to such facilities said that 'Ice will comply with the law and accommodate members seeking to visit/tour an Ice detention facility for the purpose of conducting oversight,' CNN reported. However, in the new guidance, the DHS updated the language to say that Ice 'will make every effort to comply with the law' but 'exigent circumstances (eg operational conditions, security posture, etc) may impact the time of entry into the facility'. The new guidance also attempts to distinguish Ice field offices from Ice detention facilities, noting that since 'Ice field offices are not detention facilities' they do not fall under the visitation requirements laid out in the Appropriations Act. The Guardian has contacted Ice for comment. Related: New York mayoral candidate arrested by Ice: 'Trump is looking to stoke conflict, weaponize fear' In response to the updated guidance, Mississippi's Democratic representative and the ranking member of the House committee on homeland security, Bennie Thompson, condemned what he called the attempt by the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, to 'block oversight on Ice'. 'Kristi Noem's new policy to block congressional oversight of Ice facilities is not only unprecedented, it is an affront to the constitution and federal law. Noem is now not only attempting to restrict when members can visit, but completely blocking access to Ice field offices – even if members schedule visits in advance,' Thompson said. 'This unlawful policy is a smokescreen to deny member visits to Ice offices across the country, which are holding migrants – and sometimes even US citizens – for days at a time. They are therefore detention facilities and are subject to oversight and inspection at any time. DHS pretending otherwise is simply their latest lie.' Last month, the New Jersey representative LaMonica McIver was charged with assaulting federal agents during a visit to a detention facility in Newark alongside two Democratic members of the state's congressional delegation. McIver called the charges against her 'purely political … and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight'. New Jersey's governor, Phil Murphy, also condemned the charges, saying it was 'outrageous for a congresswoman to be criminally charged for exercising her lawful duty to visit a detention site in her own district'. On the day of McIver's visit, law enforcement also arrested the mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, who they charged with trespassing as he attempted to join McIver's delegation visit. The charges against Baraka were later dropped and Baraka has since filed a lawsuit against the state's top federal prosecutor over his arrest. Bonnie Watson Coleman, another New Jersey representative who was part of McIver's visit, rejected the DHS's claims that the lawmakers assaulted law enforcement officers. 'The idea that I could 'body-slam' anyone, let alone an Ice agent, is absurd,' the 80-year-old representative said on X last month, adding: 'We have an obligation to perform oversight at facilities paid for with taxpayer dollars.' Earlier this month, law enforcement officers forced the California senator Alex Padilla on to the ground as he attempted to ask a question to Noem during a press conference in Los Angeles. Despite repeatedly identifying himself, Padilla was handcuffed and forced into the hallway before law enforcement officers shoved the two-term US senator chest-first on to the floor. Following the incident, which triggered widespread outrage across both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, Noem said she did not recognize the two-term senator and claimed that he did not request a meeting with her. The two then reportedly met for 15 minutes after the incident. On Tuesday, the Illinois representatives Raja Krishnamoorthi and Jonathan Jackson were denied entry during their attempted visit to an Ice facility in Chicago. That same day, the New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate, Brad Lander, was forcibly arrested by multiple federal agents and detained for hours as he tried to accompany a Spanish-speaking immigrant out of a courtroom. The DHS claimed Lander 'was arrested for assaulting law enforcement and impeding a federal officer', an accusation Lander denies. Following his release, New York's governor, Kathy Hochul, called his arrest 'bullshit' and said that the charges against Lander had been dropped. A day later, the New York representatives Dan Goldman and Jerry Nadler were refused entry into Ice detention facilities in Manhattan's 26 Federal Plaza, despite requesting a visit in advance via letter, the City reports.
