FEATURE STORY: One Million Signatures — When the Streets Demand the President’s Resignation

Maxime Marquette

2026-06-24 13:08:45

A Coalition Forged in the Heat of the Democratic Moment

The Impeach Trump Again campaign is not led by a single organization. It is a coalition that brings together groups with very different profiles: Free Speech For People, a legal organization specializing in constitutional advocacy; Women’s March, a mass feminist movement; the Removal Coalition; Citizens’ Impeachment; and the 50501 Movement, which has organized some of the largest days of mobilization in recent American history. These organizations have chosen to coordinate their efforts around a common goal: to get Congress to formally initiate impeachment proceedings.

This coalition successfully combined two complementary forms of action: legal pressure—through the introduction and support of formal impeachment resolutions in the House of Representatives—and grassroots pressure—through massive signature drives and the organization of street protests. It was this dual approach that made the campaign difficult for elected officials to ignore.

Well-Known Names, Amplified Legitimacy

The campaign benefited from the public support of figures such as Ralph Nader and Bruce Fein, a former Reagan-era Justice Department official—two figures who embody a bipartisan legitimacy that is difficult to dismiss out of hand. On April 8, 2026, a legal symposium co-organized by Nader, Fein, Free Speech For People, RootsAction, and Essential Information laid the legal groundwork for the campaign. This was not a routine partisan maneuver, but a solidly constructed constitutional argument.

Representative Summer Lee filed articles of impeachment specifically targeting Attorney General Pamela Bondi, with legal assistance from Free Speech For People. Representative John Larson (D-CT), for his part, introduced Resolution H.Res.1155, containing thirteen articles of impeachment against Trump himself. These formal acts transformed the popular petition into a live congressional case.

What strikes me about this coalition is its ideological diversity. It includes conservative legal scholars from the Reagan era alongside progressive feminists. This is not the left crying out in the wilderness: it is a segment of the American legal and civic establishment that has decided the line has been crossed. When lifelong Republicans join forces with Ralph Nader to call for impeachment, the message is far more powerful than any partisan leaflet.

The "140 Vote": When Congress Made History

An official vote, not just a statement

At the same time that the signatures were being submitted to the Capitol, an event of considerable significance was unfolding in the corridors of the U.S. legislature: 140 members of the House of Representatives officially voted to move forward with the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump. This vote—a formal procedure recorded in the House Clerk’s permanent register—did not result in the president’s removal from office, but it established an irrefutable documented precedent. These elected officials put their names on an official document in American political history.

To put this in context: Republicans currently control the House, and without a shift in the majority, an impeachment cannot result in removal from office. But the symbolic and political significance of the vote cannot be measured solely by its immediate outcome. It gauges the degree of internal division within the American representative system, and it fuels the momentum of citizen mobilization that led to the collection of one million signatures.

The press conference at the Capitol: a moment of visible rupture

The submission of the signatures was accompanied by a press conference in front of cameras from all major U.S. media outlets. Representatives from the coalition of organizations hammered home a simple and direct message: Trump poses a threat to American democracy, and Congress has a constitutional duty to act. The scene—citizen activists symbolically bearing the weight of a million names in front of the institution meant to represent those very citizens—left a lasting impression.

According to data reported by various media outlets, nearly one million Americans had signed petitions calling for the president’s removal from office. The organizations clarified that this figure represented the total number of signatures collected specifically as part of the “Impeach Trump Again” campaign, not including the dozens of other petitions circulating simultaneously on platforms such as Resistbot, MoveOn, and Common Cause.

I find this moment—the press conference, the boxes of signatures, the cameras trained on ordinary citizens carrying an extraordinary message—to be of a political intensity that is rarely seen. This isn’t a revolution in the traditional sense. It’s something more difficult for the establishment to handle: legal, documented, peaceful, and persistent pressure. The kind of mobilization that authoritarian regimes don’t know how to crush without revealing their own tyranny.

The No Kings Movement: The Street as a Parallel Institution

Millions in the streets, records being broken

The petition with a million signatures cannot be understood without its street-level context. The No Kings movement, born to oppose Trump’s return to power, has organized several waves of protests that have shattered historical records. The first No Kings Day in June 2025, held on Trump’s birthday, brought together more than five million protesters at approximately 2,100 locations across the United States—according to Britannica, the largest day of protests in recent American history.

The March 2026 wave, titled “No Kings, No ICE, No War,” took place in more than 3,000 cities and, according to organizers, drew approximately eight million participants. June 14, 2026—coinciding with Trump’s 80th birthday and Flag Day—saw thousands of rallies in more than 2,100 locations, with major gatherings in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. According to observers, the No Kings movement has become a defining force in American street politics, capable of mobilizing repeatedly with remarkable consistency.

No Kings Day 2026: Coinciding with the Submission of Signatures

The timing of the petition signature submission at the Capitol and the No Kings movement’s street demonstrations is no coincidence. The two efforts—the petition drive and the protests—converge toward a single goal: to maintain maximum pressure on a divided Congress in the run-up to the November 2026 midterm elections. The organizers of the No Kings movement have explicitly linked their street protests to the petition drive, urging participants to sign the petition and amplify the message on social media.

The 50501 Movement, one of the member organizations of the Impeach Trump Again coalition, organized a series of community events—Make America Fair in Portland—on No Kings Day, June 14, combining a community fair, organizing workshops, and signature collection tables. This integration of in-person mobilization and petition-driven action illustrates the organizational sophistication of a movement that has learned from its own past experiences.

There is something that deeply troubles me about the repetition of these days of mobilization: the Trump administration has not backed down on its policies. The protests, however massive they may be, have not produced the immediate political effects their organizers had hoped for. And yet, they have built something else—a collective record of resistance, a real-time civic memory, and an organizational infrastructure that will serve us well for the midterms. Perhaps that is their true victory.

The Formal Articles of Impeachment: The Legal Framework

Thirteen Articles, a Constitutional Framework

Resolution H.Res.1155, introduced by Representative John Larson (D-CT), forms the legal backbone of the campaign. Its thirteen articles of impeachment are not limited to vague accusations of abuse of power: they document a series of specific acts attributed to President Trump, including the abuse of war powers, the endangerment of civilian populations, and, according to the text of the articles, acts described as crimes against humanity. These serious accusations have been taken up and defended by independent constitutional scholars.

At the same time, Representative Al Green had already introduced an initial impeachment resolution in 2025, paving the way for subsequent resolutions. According to experts cited in various media outlets, these parliamentary actions collectively constitute a constitutional impeachment case unprecedented in recent history: never before have so many formal articles of impeachment been filed during the first months of a second presidential term.

The New York Bar Association and Institutional Legitimacy

The most powerful institutional endorsement of the campaign came from the New York City Bar Association. In a task force report published on March 9, 2026, titled “The Crisis Deepens: Congress Must Act Now to Address Escalating Abuses of Executive Power,” the Bar Association—dominated by leading corporate lawyers, far removed from activist circles—formally recommended the immediate impeachment of Donald Trump. This recommendation from an established legal professional body significantly bolstered the credibility of the petition campaign.

Healthcare professionals also took a stand: a statement published in the Congressional Record on April 30, 2026, titled “Medical Concerns About President Donald J. Trump and His Fitness for Office,” added a medical and ethical dimension to the constitutional case. The debate over Trump’s isolation was no longer confined to the partisan arena but had expanded to the realm of institutional competence and fitness for office.

When the New York Bar Association—composed of business lawyers whose clients are often large corporations with close ties to the Republican establishment—formally recommends the removal of a Republican president, we are no longer dealing with ordinary partisan politics. We are dealing with something rarer and more dangerous for the administration in question: an institutional diagnosis of constitutional dysfunction. This kind of signal cannot be fixed with a tweet.

International Reactions: What the World Is Watching

The No Kings Movement Beyond U.S. Borders

The No Kings rallies were not limited to the United States. Protests took place in Europe, notably on May 31, 2026, organized around the movement’s successive waves. In countries with constitutional monarchies—such as the United Kingdom—protesters adapted their slogan to “No Tyrants” or “No Dictators,” highlighting the international resonance of a protest that touches on universal democratic values.

The international perspective is doubly significant: it documents the global reputation of the United States under the Trump administration, and it fuels diffuse diplomatic pressure on Washington’s Western allies. The domestic mobilization in the United States is being closely monitored by European foreign ministries, which must navigate relations with an allied power whose institutional stability is, for the first time in several decades, an uncertain factor.

The West Confronts Itself

The question of the strength of American democratic institutions is not an abstract one for the European Union or for NATO members. Street protests, the petition with a million signatures, and parliamentary votes highlighting internal divisions—all of this is unfolding against a backdrop in which the United States is militarily engaged in the Middle East, where its relations with Ukraine determine the level of aid to the resistance against Russian aggression, and where its stance on the Iranian issue affects the security of the entire eastern flank of the Atlantic Alliance. The American public is sending a signal to its partners: American democracy is not dead; it is holding its ground.

This signal matters. When millions of Americans take to the streets chanting “No Kings,” they remind the world that the democratic West cannot be reduced to its current leaders. Civil society exists; it is organizing itself; it is documenting its actions. And it is sending a message of considerable symbolic power to Zelensky, to Ukrainian democrats, to exiled Russian dissidents, and to all those fighting for freedom under far harsher conditions: the fight for democracy is also being waged at the heart of the world’s leading power.

I want to say something that is close to my heart: the West cannot defend democracy in Ukraine or criticize Russian or Chinese authoritarianism while pretending that what is happening in the United States is merely an ordinary political squabble. Consistency demands that we view America with the same rigor we apply to others. And what that rigor reveals is deeply uncomfortable.

Trump Facing the Mirror of Institutions

The Expungement Maneuver: A Disguised Admission

As civic mobilization reached its peak, the Trump administration chose a response that speaks volumes about its relationship with history. According to a Wall Street Journal report confirmed by the White House on June 11, 2026, Trump and his allies in Congress sought to pass a resolution aimed at symbolically overturning his two impeachments from his first term. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-Calif.) formally introduced this resolution, which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Constitutional experts interviewed by The Guardian and U.S. News & World Report are unanimous: such a resolution would have no legal effect, as the U.S. Constitution provides no mechanism for overturning an impeachment that has already been voted on. It would primarily constitute a symbolic political statement. But this very decision—to try to erase from history what history has already recorded—reveals an administration haunted by its own constitutional legacy.

The Trump Paradox: Strong Yet Under Siege

The political reality of June 2026 presents a paradoxical situation: Donald Trump presides over a Republican-majority House, with no immediate prospect of formal impeachment, yet he governs under civic, legal, and international pressure unprecedented in the recent history of the U.S. presidency. The poll commissioned by Free Speech For People and conducted by Lake Research Partners indicates that a majority of voters likely to turn out for the midterms support impeachment—a devastating sign eight months before an election that could flip the majority in the House.

Several analysts, including Ralph Nader in his article published by CounterPunch, have drawn parallels with Richard Nixon in 1974. Nixon did not wait for the Senate vote: pressure from mounting evidence, the erosion of support within his own party, and shifting public opinion led him to resign before the final verdict. History does not repeat itself mechanically, but it does provide instructive precedents.

As I write these lines, Trump remains president of the United States. He is strong; he controls key institutions; he commands the world’s most powerful armed forces. But democracy is not just a matter of the instantaneous balance of power: it is also a long, organic process that generates its own momentum. And what I see in this mobilization—the million signatures, the 140 votes, the healthcare professionals in the Congressional Record—resembles that process at work.

The Architects of Peaceful Resistance

Free Speech For People: The Legal Arm of the Movement

Free Speech For People is not your typical activist organization. Founded to defend the First Amendment and representative democracy, it has, since 2026, developed a dual capacity: producing high-level legal analyses while organizing mass campaigns. Its executive director, who comes from the By the People movement—a large-scale impeachment campaign against Trump’s first term—brings directly applicable organizational experience.

Notably, in March 2026, the organization funded and published a full-page ad in The New York Times calling on Congress to impeach Trump—a costly advertising investment that signals a desire to reach an audience beyond already-convinced circles. This strategy of normalizing the impeachment debate in the mainstream media—the New York Times itself having published an article by Annie Karni on April 11, 2026, titled “Democrats Warm to Idea of Removing the President”—has helped shift the issue away from its perceived marginality.

Women’s March: Mass Mobilization in Action

The Women’s March brings to the coalition what Free Speech For People cannot produce on its own: the capacity for large-scale physical mobilization, a network of local chapters in every state, and symbolic legitimacy forged since the earliest acts of resistance during Trump’s first term. The demonstration held on June 14, 2026, at Farragut Square in Washington, D.C.—titled “Dump on Trump”—was organized in conjunction with the press conference to submit the signatures, creating maximum visual and media impact.

The complementary nature of Free Speech For People and the Women’s March illustrates the sophistication of the contemporary American civic movement: on one hand, an organization capable of presenting legally sound arguments before congressional committees; on the other, an organization capable of filling public squares in dozens of cities simultaneously. This alliance is what lends credibility to the petition with a million signatures: it is not the result of a casual click, but of a real organizational infrastructure.

What these organizations have understood—and what many protest movements overlook—is that a democracy must be defended on multiple fronts at once. The law alone is not enough. The streets alone are not enough. But the law and the streets together, coordinated by organizations capable of moving from a parliamentary podium to a public square, constitute something formidable. Something that resembles what the American Founding Fathers called the sovereign people.

The Echo in the Heart of the Country

Beyond Major Cities: The Geographic Spread of the Resistance

One of the most significant aspects of this movement is its geographic reach. The No Kings protests were not exclusively an urban or coastal phenomenon. Rallies took place in cities such as Idaho Falls, Pocatello, and Driggs—rural or semi-rural towns in Idaho, a traditionally Republican state. Thousands of people protested in state capitals such as Iowa City. The first wave of No Kings protests drew participants from all 50 states, according to data reported by CNN.

This geographic spread is crucial because it demonstrates that opposition to Trump extends beyond the metropolitan bubbles typically associated with progressive movements. It signals a discontent that cuts across the traditional social and geographic divides in American politics. The petitioners aren’t all urban college graduates: they come from all professions, all regions, and all social backgrounds—people who signed their names at the bottom of an online form, saying, “Enough is enough.”

The dynamics of the midterm elections on the horizon

All this mobilization is part of a clear electoral strategy: the November 2026 midterms. According to an analysis published by Ralph Nader in CounterPunch, Republicans are putting 20 Senate seats up for grabs, compared to just 12 for the Democrats—a math that could lead to a flip of the Senate majority if the Democratic wave is strong enough. The House is also in the crosshairs.

The organizers of the No Kings movement have been explicit about this goal: during the March 2026 wave, they estimated that if just 10% of the protesters volunteered for early voting efforts, the movement would have the largest voter mobilization operation since the 2008 Obama campaign. The petition with a million signatures is therefore not just an act of expression: it is a tool for identifying a potential electorate and building a database of activists.

I must admit to feeling ambivalent: these movements are extraordinarily well-organized, but their immediate effectiveness remains limited. Trump is still in office. His policies continue. The midterms have not yet taken place as I write this. There is something tragic about the colossal amount of energy expended by these mobilizations in the face of an institutional system that can absorb them without batting an eye. And yet—and yet—I believe that this energy matters. It defines what America will be like after Trump, whenever that may be.

The Issue of Institutions: Trump and Constitutional Safeguards

A President Who Pushes Every Boundary

To understand why one million Americans have signed a petition calling for the impeachment of their own president, we must list what organizations and experts have documented as violations of America’s constitutional safeguards. The articles of impeachment in the Larson resolution cite: the abuse of war powers through the unprovoked military attack on Venezuela in January and February 2026; obstruction of Congress; the dismantling of the rule of law through political appointments to lead independent agencies; and rhetoric that legal experts have characterized as incitement to violence.

These acts are piling up against a backdrop in which Trump has explicitly stated—according to documents cited in analyses by CounterPunch and other media outlets—that he did not wish to hold elections in November. This statement, if accurately reported, represents in and of itself a direct assault on the very heart of American representative democracy. It explains why the No Kings movement has made a simple and universal slogan its guiding principle: this country has no king.

Trump: A Necessary Evil or a Definitive Break?

We must name what supporters of the liberal West—mindful of the threat posed by Putin’s Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea—have long accepted as a tolerable paradox: Trump can be useful against the West’s enemies due to his unpredictable brutality and his ability to disrupt entrenched balances of power. But when that same leader attacks the institutions that are the West’s strength—the separation of powers, judicial independence, and freedom of the press—he no longer serves the cause he is supposed to defend. He undermines it from within.

This is the core message of the petition with a million signatures and the “No Kings” protests: there can be no strong West without strong institutions. Liberal democracy is not a luxury that can be set aside in order to be more effective against Putin. It is precisely what sets us apart from Putin. Defending it from within is also defending it against external threats.

This is the point on which I feel most in agreement with the protesters on the streets of the United States, even as I recognize the discomfort of this position. Trump took a hard line against China. Trump took a firm stance against Iran. These achievements are not insignificant. But we cannot support Ukrainian democracy in the face of Russian imperialism while simultaneously destroying American democracy from within. These two positions are incompatible. And it is this incompatibility that the million signatures bring to light.

Memory as a Political Tool

Documenting for History

An often-underestimated aspect of this movement is its systematic documentation efforts. The organizations behind the “Impeach Trump Again” campaign do more than just take action: they archive, publish, and file documents with the Congressional Record. The formal articles of impeachment, the polls commissioned and made public, the legal reports from the New York Bar Association, the medical statements entered into the parliamentary record—all of this constitutes a body of documentation that will remain accessible to historians, legal scholars, and citizens long after the end of Trump’s second term, whatever the outcome.

This archival dimension is a form of resistance in itself. It says: we have seen, we have borne witness, we have named. It prevents the erasure that the Trump administration is specifically seeking to achieve with its attempt to pass a resolution nullifying its own impeachments. Against institutionalized amnesia, civil society opposes documented collective memory.

The Nixon Precedent and Its Limitations

Comparisons to Nixon are a recurring theme in analyses of this crisis. Nader and other observers point out that Nixon resigned not because a Senate vote was imminent, but because a combination of public pressure, the erosion of his Republican support in Congress, and documentary revelations had made him politically untenable. The process had dragged on for more than a year after the Watergate scandal broke.

The difference with 2026 is twofold: first, the current Republican Party is structurally much more aligned with Trump than it was with Nixon—defections remain marginal, even though CNN has documented eight Republican elected officials who have publicly voted against Trump on major issues. Second, media fragmentation creates impervious information bubbles that make building a national consensus more difficult than it was in the era of the three major television networks. The Nixon analogy is instructive, but it does not translate automatically.

I am wary of overly simplistic historical comparisons. Nixon was Nixon; Trump is Trump. The media, social, and geopolitical contexts are radically different. What strikes me as relevant in the comparison, however, is the idea that institutional crises are rarely resolved by a single dramatic turn of events. They are resolved through accumulation—of evidence, of pressure, of erosion of internal support. And this accumulation is precisely what the million signatures help to fuel.

The International Dimension of the American Resistance

What the Allies Are Observing and What They Hope For

In European capitals, the American civic mobilization is being watched with a mixture of hope and concern. Hope: that the American people will demonstrate that their institutions are resilient and that American democracy is not a facade. Concern: that this resistance, however real it may be, will fail to alter the course of an administration that is calling into question the foundations of the Atlantic Alliance and the U.S. commitment to Ukraine.

Ukraine is at the heart of this equation. Ukraine’s resistance to Putin’s Russian aggression—one of the most significant battles for democracy and national sovereignty being waged in the contemporary world—depends in part on American support. When millions of Americans take to the streets to defend their own democratic institutions, they send a message to Kyiv: the American heartland has not abandoned its values. It is defending them, in its own way, from its streets and through its online petitions.

China and the Autocrats Lying in Wait

We must not delude ourselves: the enemies of the democratic West are watching this American crisis closely. China, Iran, Russia, North Korea—all the authoritarian regimes that challenge the liberal international order—see the internal divisions within Western democracies as a strategic opportunity. Every protest captured on video, every petition circulating on social media, every dissenting vote in the U.S. Congress can be exploited to demonstrate that democracy is a weak and dysfunctional system.

But this is precisely where American civic resistance turns the argument on its head. What is happening in the United States in June 2026 is not proof of democracy’s weakness: it is proof of its vitality. A million citizens signing a petition, taking to the streets, and pushing their elected officials to take action—that is exactly what Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran cannot tolerate among their own populations. American resistance is, paradoxically, the strongest argument for democracy around the world.

A thought sometimes crosses my mind: if tomorrow a million Russians signed a petition calling for Putin’s removal from office, how many of them would still be free the day after tomorrow? This simple question illustrates the chasm that separates liberal regimes from autocracies. And it reminds me why, despite all its glaring flaws, I remain firmly on the side of the democratic West.

Voices That Carry Weight: Editorialists and Analysts

A Shifting Intellectual Public Opinion

Beyond activist organizations, the entire American intellectual spectrum has shifted. Columnists like Heather Cox Richardson, whose daily newsletter is followed by millions of subscribers, have covered and explained the petition drive with remarkable educational rigor. Paul Krugman, a Nobel laureate in economics, has helped fuel the intellectual debate on the political and economic consequences of Trumpism. These voices are not neutral—they take sides, they are committed—but they contribute to an informed public discourse that is the lifeblood of any vibrant democracy.

The Washington Monthly published forward-looking analyses on the potential impact of the “No Kings” mobilizations on the midterms, outlining scenarios ranging up to a general strike if institutions failed to resist. Whether or not these analyses come to pass, they are part of a high-caliber public debate on the constitutional mechanisms for resisting authoritarianism. This, too, is democracy in action.

The International Press and the European Perspective

The international press, particularly in Europe, has provided extensive coverage of the major days of mobilization. The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and media outlets from Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent have all documented the successive waves of “No Kings” protests, noting that Trump’s America is being scrutinized with a level of intensity not seen since the end of the Cold War. This international coverage amplifies the message sent by the domestic protests and reinforces their symbolic significance beyond U.S. borders.

The Eastern Herald, in particular, published a detailed analysis of the striking contrast on June 14, 2026: on one hand, President Trump celebrating his 80th birthday with an MMA fight at the White House; on the other, crowds in hundreds of American cities chanting “No Kings.” These two simultaneous images encapsulate the state of a democracy in deep turmoil, torn between two incompatible visions of what constitutes the legitimacy of power.

I’ve been doing this work long enough to know that symbolic moments—the president celebrating while his citizens protest against him—don’t always have the political effects one hopes for. History is full of leaders who have survived their own symbolic disgrace. But I remain convinced that these moments accumulate in the collective consciousness, and that they eventually take their toll. The million signatures are the most tangible proof of this: accumulation carries weight.

Conclusion: One Million Names in the Archives of Democracy

What This Movement Will Leave Behind in History

Whatever Donald Trump’s fate may be in the coming months—whether he completes his second term, resigns, or is one day impeached—the civic mobilization of 2026 will have left an indelible mark. One million signatures submitted to the U.S. Congress, 140 parliamentary votes officially recorded in the House of Representatives’ records, millions of citizens taking to the streets across the country in several successive waves, a coalition of civic organizations of remarkable organizational sophistication, and a legal case documented by the nation’s leading law firm—all of this constitutes a living archive of American democratic resistance in times of crisis.

This archive has value that extends beyond the immediate context. It demonstrates that the civic mechanisms of liberal democracy—petitions, protests, parliamentary resolutions, independent legal opinions—work, even under pressure. It shows that citizens, when they coordinate intelligently, can influence the course of events. That democracy is not a static state but a process perpetually defended by those who believe in it.

The next chapter will be written in November

The true test of this mobilization will take place in November 2026, during the midterm elections. If the organizers succeed in turning a significant portion of the petition signers and “No Kings” protesters into active voters and campaign volunteers, the political outcome could be transformative. A shift in the majority in the House would theoretically allow for the formal relaunch of an impeachment proceeding. A shift in the Senate would fundamentally alter the constitutional equation.

In the meantime, the million signatures remain what they are: the collective testimony of a civil society that refuses to be silenced, that refuses to delegate its sovereignty without something in return, that refuses to accept that democracy is a spectacle to be watched rather than a practice to be exercised. This is rare enough in history to deserve to be celebrated, documented, and amplified. The America of its citizens is speaking out. It is speaking out loud and clear. And the world is listening.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist