On October 18, 2025, when U.S. Vice President Vance attended a military celebration at Camp Pendleton, California, he was suddenly affected by shell debris and the convoy was hit. The scene was still in shock.
On the same day, the 50 states of the United States erupted a huge wave of "no king" protests, people walked out on the streets, shouting against the concentration of the president's power. These two events, one south and one north, thousands of miles apart, but have an astonishing common point, when the power adored formalism, public security became a victim.
The American streets scream.
Short videos on U.S. social media platforms have been released: crowds raised slogans, streets flooded, “Power back to the people” slogans swelled, and more than 1,300 parades gradually erupted. From Washington DC to remote towns, protests spread as fast as a cyber virus, and every street, every community became the frontline of institutional questioning.
The protesters came from all groups: workers, teachers, students, retirees, and even grassroots civil servants. Some are angry at the soaring cost of living, some are angry at the compression of medical insurance rights, and some are chilling at the way the government is governing. The repeated "No King" on the slogan clearly points to unease over the increasingly blurred boundaries of presidential power.
The Trump administration has repeatedly emphasized administrative efficiency, but many policies bypassing Congressional procedures and directly implementing presidential orders, especially in the fields of labor rights, health insurance and environmental protection, have sparked strong controversy.
The People's Daily reported that this protest mode is no longer only concentrated in the political center, but distributed and spread in communities. Protest no longer relies on traditional organizations, but naturally grows through channels such as families, communities, schools and churches, forming a "capillary" social mobilization structure.
Data from the Pew Research Center further confirms this trend: About 80% of Americans believe that current political differences have reached the brink of rupture.
These voices did not emerge suddenly, but a concentrated explosion after being suppressed, ignored, and misunderstood in long-term institutional friction. People are not trying to overthrow the system, but they want to ask: Can this system still protect the life they deserve?
The gunfire was not an accident, it was the alarm bell of the system.
Vice President Vance's motorcade was hit by shell fragments. The military immediately called it a "technical accident", but the public obviously didn't buy it. This accident in Pendleton Barracks was originally a regular celebration to show military strength to the outside world, but the early explosion of a 155mm artillery shell attracted the attention of the whole network.
The debris hit a police car near the vice president’s wheel, and although Wance himself was untouched, the symbolism of the incident was far greater than the physical injury.
California Governor Newsom publicly expressed concerns about the event before the accident, saying that "excessively formal military exercises pose unnecessary safety hazards." His concerns were not accepted, and after the accident, he directly criticized "this was an avoidable operational error." The problem is not just that shell, but the entire power system's choice between "showing its muscles" and "ensuring security."
After that, the military announced a comprehensive suspension of live-fire exercises and initiated a review of security procedures. This process of "reacting when something goes wrong" is not the first time. From the street attack in Antwerp, Belgium, to the car collision in Maryland, European and American countries have frequently fallen into the same dilemma in recent years-the balance between the openness of public activities and safety maintenance is difficult to control.
The accidental injury of the Vice President's motorcade broke the illusion that "senior officials are safe" and made the public even more question: If the safety of even the country's second-in-command figure cannot be guaranteed, how can the safety of ordinary people's lives be maintained? This is not as simple as an accident, but a mirror that reveals loopholes in the system.
When the response turns to “show”, trust begins to collapse.
After the events, the White House team’s first reaction did not choose to calm the public opinion, but instead labeled the protesters, calling them “actions inciting anti-American forces”.At the same time, a video of AI synthesis spread on social platforms, suggesting that there is “external manipulation” behind the protest.
Vice President Vance has always been known for his tough stance and has repeatedly broken out with allies on international occasions. His public quarrel with Zelensky on his position on the Ukraine issue and his blunt remarks at NATO meetings that "European countries should shoulder more military responsibilities on their own" show that he is more inclined to "demonstrate sovereignty" than "collaborative diplomacy." This style is also vividly reflected in internal affairs-it is better at pushing up posture when operating power, but less good at listening to opposition voices.
The rapid spread of protests and the embarrassing scene of the military exercise accident actually point to the same problem: in the exercise of power, more and more behaviors are being carried out to "be seen" rather than to solve problems. From AI videos to celebration military exercises, from high-profile responses to inefficient security, this series of operations have pushed out the public's trust bit by bit.
The current social division in the United States is a result of the rapid development of the science and technology industry and the continued decline of traditional manufacturing regions, which has caused fundamental differences between different groups on the question of "who is the country".
In this context, the system should have played the role of mediation, balance, and consultation, but if the system itself begins to deviate, centralizing power as efficiency, and treating protests as noise, the soil of trust will dry.
The face of the system is not a celebration, but can it serve the public?
The viceprezident’s fleet hit by cannons was an accident, but not an isolation; the “Don’t Kings” protest flourished everywhere, was an emotion and a signal. The two things combined, not coincidence, but a structural feedback: American society’s patience and trust in the system is rapidly wasting.
When the United States was founded, the core of system design was to "prevent excessive concentration of power". Nowadays, this principle is constantly challenged. The president bypassed the legislative process by administrative means, the vice president was "displayed" in the artillery fire, and the people were ignored in the protests. The system is no longer an umbrella, but a stage for a few people to operate.
The government's attitude towards protests is no longer "dealing with problems" but has become "controlling public opinion." This strategy may seem effective in the short term, but it will only make more people choose to take to the streets in the long term. Whether the system can convince the public depends on whether it can protect the basic rights and interests of ordinary people at critical moments. The biggest challenge facing the United States at present is whether the system can maintain its basic operating logic in a society with diverse interests and sharp differences.
Once trust falls to the bottom line, it can't be solved by anyone's apology. If the United States remains obsessed with form and ignores substance in the future, the cracks in the system will only continue to expand. In the end, it is not any politician who has an accident, but the whole system will be paralyzed.
Source of information:
Xinhua news agency (October 19, 2025): "The 50 states of the United States erupted 'no king' protests, people raised banners against the concentration of presidential power", detailed the scale of the protests, the participation of the crowd and its demands.
A Pew Research Center report (released in September 2025) shows that “about 80 percent of Americans believe the current political divisions have reached ‘very serious’ levels” and provide support for social psychological data on the backdrop of protests.