The Governor and the Crown - How Greg Abbott Turns Protest into a Threat

Austin is facing a weekend that says more about American democracy than any speech in the Capitol. The nationwide "No Kings" demonstration is scheduled for Saturday - a symbolic protest against abuse of power, authoritarian language, and the political self-deification that has taken hold in Washington. But instead of choosing dialogue or de-escalation, Texas Governor Greg Abbott responds with a military gesture: he is sending in soldiers. Abbott just announced that units of the Texas National Guard and officers from the Department of Public Safety will be deployed to the capital, Austin, to keep the protests "under control." His reasoning sounded like something from a law-and-order manual: Texas will "deter criminal behavior and arrest anyone engaging in acts of violence or property damage." But in a country where protest is part of the Constitution, this language sounds like a warning - and like a reflection of the new political climate in which criticism of power itself is treated as a security threat.

Abbott has long governed with a heavy hand. In June, he deployed more than 5,000 National Guard members across the state to monitor demonstrations against President Donald Trump and the mass deportations carried out by ICE. Soldiers in camouflage stood at city limits and bus stops as if an invasion were underway. The governor called it "protection," but many Texans saw the mobilization as a political signal - an image of strength for the cameras, a pledge of allegiance to Trump's line. That Abbott has now even sent troops to Illinois to support Trump's immigration raids shows how far his understanding of "public order" extends. About 400 soldiers of the Texas National Guard were sent to Chicago two weeks ago - a move not foreseen in any constitution, but consistent with the logic of this new state-level nationalism. Abbott no longer acts merely as the governor of a state but as the viceroy of a larger project: to blur federal separation of powers and mark state loyalty through military presence.

That the "No Kings" movement could emerge in such a climate is no coincidence. It represents those who refuse to confuse authority with truth - and those who understand that democracy is more than obedience. The name itself is a provocation against the new monarchy of power, against the principle of the untouchable leader. Abbott's reaction shows that he apparently takes the phrase "No Kings" personally. In Texas history, Austin has always been seen as the free heart of the state - a place where art, music, and political debate kept the myth of the "Lone Star" alive. Today, that city risks becoming besieged - not by demonstrators, but by its own government. When Abbott sends soldiers into the streets to "protect" citizens, the question arises: from whom, exactly?

The governor has learned from Washington's lessons: control begins with defining what is dangerous. In Trump's America, it is no longer the person who carries a weapon, but the one who carries a sign. And so the public space becomes the stage for a political experiment - a democracy that watches its own population with suspicion. Perhaps that is the real danger: that Texas sees itself reflected and no longer recognizes the loss of its freedom in the image of the strong man. While Abbott sends armored vehicles and batons to "monitor" the protest, he proves only how much he needs it - as an adversary, as a scapegoat, as a justification for power.

Because when a governor sends soldiers against words, it is no longer about safety. It is about control. And about the crown that no one should wear - except those who declare themselves kings.