theguardian.com
Smaller People's March Replaces Women's March Eight Years After Trump's First Inauguration
On Saturday, a smaller-than-expected People's March, a rebranded successor to the Women's March, took place in Washington D.C. and other US cities, eight years after Donald Trump's first inauguration, protesting his second term and focusing on a wider range of social justice issues than the 2017 march that drew over 3 million attendees.
- How did the legal and political actions of Donald Trump during his first term impact the scope and goals of the 2025 People's March?
- The reduced size of the 2025 march compared to 2017 reflects a change in the political climate and the movement's strategy. While the 2017 march was largely a reaction to Trump's election and his rhetoric against women, the 2025 march embraced a broader range of issues, including racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights, and climate change. This shift suggests a recognition that addressing systemic issues requires a more inclusive approach.
- What were the key differences between the 2017 Women's March and the 2025 People's March, and what do these differences reveal about the evolution of the movement?
- Eight years after the first Women's March protesting Donald Trump's election, a smaller People's March took place in Washington D.C. and other US cities. The 2025 march, significantly smaller than the 2017 event, focused on a broader range of social justice issues, reflecting a shift in the movement's focus and the changing political landscape. This year's turnout is estimated to be less than one-tenth the size of the 2017 march.
- What are the long-term prospects for maintaining a broad-based social justice movement like the People's March, considering the challenges of balancing diverse priorities and sustaining momentum?
- The People's March's broader focus on multiple social justice issues, rather than solely on Trump, indicates a long-term strategy for progressive organizing. This inclusive approach may be more sustainable over time, as it recognizes that the movement must address systemic problems and not just the actions of one individual. However, this broader approach may also lead to challenges in maintaining focus and unity within the movement.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the 2025 march as a smaller, less impactful event compared to 2017, primarily emphasizing the decrease in attendance. While the difference in scale is acknowledged, the framing could downplay the significance of the 2025 march and its continued advocacy efforts. The headline, if there was one, and introduction would heavily influence this framing. The focus on the reduced size could overshadow the ongoing relevance of the issues and the sustained engagement of participants.
Language Bias
The article uses relatively neutral language, though terms like "vitriol" and "white-knuckled fury" in reference to the 2017 march carry a certain emotional weight. While not inherently biased, these terms could subtly influence readers' perceptions of the event's atmosphere and tone. The article also uses the term "decisive win" to describe Trump's election, which could be interpreted as slightly loaded. More neutral alternatives might include "victory" or "win.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the Women's March and its evolution, but omits discussion of other significant social movements or protests that occurred during the same period. This omission might lead readers to believe that the Women's March was the sole or most important response to Trump's presidency and policies, neglecting other forms of resistance or activism. The article also doesn't explore potential counter-protests or opposing viewpoints in detail, limiting the scope of understanding the political climate.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of progressive organizing, suggesting a dichotomy between the highly successful 2017 march and the smaller 2025 march. While acknowledging the challenges faced by organizers, it doesn't fully explore the complexities of sustaining a large-scale social movement over time or the diverse strategies used by progressive groups. The narrative implies a decline in progressive momentum rather than a shift in tactics or focus.
Gender Bias
The article centers the narrative around women's experiences and perspectives, particularly in relation to Trump's presidency and policies. While this is appropriate given the focus on the Women's March, the language and tone do not overtly exhibit gender bias. However, it could benefit from including more explicitly diverse voices from within the movement (such as men and non-binary individuals) to provide a more holistic representation.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the continued struggle for gender equality in the US, marked by protests against a president with a history of misogyny and policies restricting reproductive rights. The overturning of Roe v Wade and the lack of progress on women's rights demonstrate a negative impact on SDG 5 (Gender Equality). The smaller turnout at the 2024 march compared to 2017 suggests that maintaining momentum for women's rights remains a challenge. The protests themselves, however, represent an ongoing effort towards achieving gender equality.