Chuck Holton
Politics • Culture • News
Where Did All the Protesters Go?
Reflecting on the 2025 Inauguration
January 20, 2025
post photo preview

I’ll admit it—I was wrong. Heading into the 2025 presidential inauguration, I fully expected a repeat of the chaos I witnessed in 2017. Back then, during Trump’s first swearing-in, the streets of Washington, D.C., were a battleground. Thousands of protesters clashed with police, smashed windows, torched cars, and left a trail of destruction that resulted in hundreds of arrests. It was a spectacle of outrage and unrest.

Watch Chuck Get Attacked By Hammer-Wielding Antifa in 2017

But this year? Almost nothing.

Sure, there were a handful of protesters—mostly of the fringe variety, like Westboro Baptist Church-types. But the scene was eerily calm. What’s more, it didn’t seem like it had to be. Despite the presence of 27,000 police and National Guard troops, 30 miles of fencing, and a fleet of trucks blocking roads, the anticipated storm never came. Why?

1. It Was Freezing

First off, it was 20 degrees. Let’s face it, bitter cold puts a damper on almost any outdoor event, even protests. But cold alone doesn’t explain the dramatic difference between this inauguration and 2017. After all, people braved the weather to raise havoc eight years ago.

2. Follow the Money?

The Guardian offers another intriguing possibility. In 2017, protests were organized and funded by a coalition of activist groups galvanized by Trump’s election. The anger was fresh, and the resources were abundant. This time around, those same groups may not have the same motivation—or the money—to pull off a repeat performance.

Political movements, especially large-scale protests, don’t materialize out of thin air. They require organization, funding, and a spark of collective outrage. It’s possible that the organizations that helped fuel the 2017 protests have dissolved or shifted focus. Or maybe the polarization that defined the Trump era has softened, leaving fewer people feeling angry enough to take to the streets.

3. Guardrails That Worked

Another factor might be the sheer scale of security. With tens of thousands of law enforcement officers and miles of barriers, even the most committed agitators may have been discouraged. The overwhelming show of force sent a clear message: not this time.

4. A Changing Political Climate

Finally, the broader political climate might have shifted. While America is still divided, the outrage that defined much of Trump’s presidency has evolved. People may be fatigued by years of constant political conflict, or they’ve found other outlets for their grievances.

A Quiet Surprise

In the end, I was prepared for mass unrest, and I got an orderly transition of power instead. It’s a pleasant surprise, but it leaves plenty of questions. Was it the cold? The security? A lack of funding and organization? Or is America, in its own way, starting to move past the need for protests that escalate into chaos?

Only time will tell whether this peace will hold (I'd like to be optimistic), but one thing is certain—this inauguration was a reminder that predictions, like protests, don’t always materialize the way you expect.

community logo
Join the Chuck Holton Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
40
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Do American Students Know Anything?

Another powerful ad for home schooling.

00:01:30
Powerful

No one in Ukraine asked for this.

00:02:32
Merry Christmas Friends

On this holy in special day, please don’t forget about people in Warzone around the world. We are unable to celebrate as they would like.

00:00:29
Episode 622 - Field Producer Dennis Azato and Chuck Reminisce

My erstwhile field producer and cameraman Dennis Azato has accompanied me on ten years of adventures across the globe. Today he joins me in Ukraine and we spend some time remembering our many trips together.

Episode 622 - Field Producer Dennis Azato and Chuck Reminisce
Christmas Special Live Call Link

Reminder: Live Call with Chuck Tomorrow at 12PM

Join Chuck Holton and the Hot Zone crew tomorrow, December 20th at 12PM for a special live call!

We’ll be announcing the winners of the Christmas giveaway and giving you an inside look at what’s coming next for The Hot Zone.

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Three Americans Killed in Syria — and the Question Washington Doesn’t Want to Answer

Breaking news this Saturday: three Americans are dead in Syria tonight, three more are wounded, and the attack—described by U.S. Central Command as an ambush carried out by a lone ISIS gunman—has once again dragged the Syrian war back into the American consciousness for a few brief hours, which is usually all the time the public gives it before the news cycle moves on and the families are left to carry the weight alone.

 

CENTCOM says two of the dead were U.S. service members and one was an American civilian contractor, and that the attacker was engaged and killed as well, with names being withheld until next of kin are notified, which is the right thing to do; but even with those official facts in hand, I want to slow the pace down a little bit and do what I always try to do here—put this in context—because in a place like Syria, the story you get in the headline is almost never the story that explains why this happened.

I’m not interested in reporting tragedy like it’s a scoreboard, and I’m not interested in repeating a paragraph of breaking news without the background that makes it intelligible; I spent eight years in the military, and I’ve spent more than twenty years following the U.S. military across the globe—Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria included, with more than a dozen trips into Afghanistan, roughly fifteen into Iraq, and seven or so into Syria—so when Americans die in a place most people couldn’t find on a map, I feel a responsibility to show you what the map actually means.

The desert isn’t empty—ISIS hides in the “nothing”

The reported location of the attack is Palmyra—Palmira on some maps—an ancient city in central Syria that sits on the edge of a brutal expanse of desert, the kind of wide open, sun-blasted country where outsiders assume nothing lives and nothing happens, when in reality it’s exactly the kind of terrain insurgents love because “nothing” is a perfect disguise, a perfect place to move, cache weapons, blend into small villages, disappear into wadis, and wait for opportunities.

Palmyra also sits inside territory controlled by Syria’s new administration under Ahmed al-Sharaa, and if that name makes you pause, it should, because this is where Syrian politics gets complicated in the way only Syria can do: al-Sharaa rose through jihadist ranks, he has a history tied to insurgent warfare against Americans in Iraq, he was captured and held for years, and he later returned to Syria and consolidated power with strong Turkish backing—so when you hear phrases like “new Syrian administration” or “transitional government,” don’t imagine a Western-style democracy that suddenly appeared out of the sand; imagine a patchwork of militias, alliances of convenience, old enemies wearing new uniforms, and a leadership class that wants international legitimacy while carrying a past that cannot be scrubbed clean with a new suit and a new flag.

Now layer on top of that the reality that ISIS is not gone from Syria, not even close.

U.S. estimates have long suggested there are still roughly 2,000 to 3,000 ISIS fighters operating in and around the central Syrian desert, and there are far more than that if you include facilitators, family networks, financiers, and the enormous number of ISIS-linked detainees and relatives held in camps and makeshift prisons; and while that fight has mostly slipped out of the American public’s view, it continues quietly, relentlessly, week after week, because the moment pressure is relieved in a place like this, the violence doesn’t fade—it regroups.

Why American troops are still there—despite everything

The United States currently has about 900 troops in Syria, a number that matters because it tells you how thin the margin is between “containment” and “collapse,” especially when the enemy has deep local roots and decades of practice living off the land and off the grievances of the people around them; and those American troops are there for one primary purpose: to keep a lid on ISIS so we don’t wake up one day to another wave of mass executions, terror-state governance, and regional destabilization that forces the world back into a far more expensive war.

That’s the mission, and it’s not abstract; when ISIS surged the last time, the human cost was staggering, and it wasn’t paid by politicians or pundits—it was paid by Iraqi soldiers, Kurdish fighters, civilians, and yes, Americans too—and the reason our presence in Syria still functions as a deterrent is that in a powder keg region, a small, capable American footprint has a way of discouraging ambitious actors from taking the final step that turns instability into open war.

But here is the part that doesn’t get said out loud very often: the mission in Syria is increasingly tangled up in partnerships that are, at best, uneasy and, at worst, morally and strategically risky.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
The Dark Fleet Is Fueling the World’s Dictators — And the U.S. Might Finally Be Ready to Do Something About It

I’m coming to you today from Panama, where I’ve been digging into a story that’s far bigger than most people realize. It involves a shadowy network of ships—1,423 of them at last count—that roam the world’s oceans moving sanctioned oil for regimes like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Some call it the dark fleet, others the ghost fleet, but whatever the name, it’s become a lifeline for the world’s worst dictators.

Out of those 1,423 vessels, roughly 920 are sanctioned themselves. These aren’t just ships doing business in a gray area—they are part of a global ecosystem of deception, fraud, and corruption that props up authoritarian governments and undermines the international rules that keep maritime trade safe. They spoof GPS signals, turn off their transponders, swap oil with “cleaner” tankers in the dead of night, operate under shell-company ownership, and sail uninsured—floating environmental disasters just waiting to happen.

And for years, not much was done about it. But that may be changing.

Just days ago, the United States seized a massive VLCC tanker—the Skipper—carrying 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan crude bound for Cuba. It’s a move that seems small on its own, but it hints at something larger: Washington may finally be realizing that targeting the dark fleet isn’t just desirable—it’s strategically powerful.

That raises a fascinating question: What would happen if the U.S. and its allies cracked down hard on these ghost ships—everywhere, all at once? Could it reshape global power? Could it even topple Maduro?

Let’s dig into that.

 

A Sanctions Loophole Big Enough to Sail a Tanker Through

These ghost ships function by exploiting cracks in the global maritime system. They manipulate AIS beacons, swap oil mid-ocean, hide ownership behind layers of shell companies, fly false flags, and operate without legitimate insurance. The UN’s maritime regulator has warned that these rusted, poorly maintained hulks are ticking time bombs—and we’ve already seen “Ukrainian sanctions” in action when Ukrainian sea drones blew up several shadow-fleet tankers in the Black Sea.

Imagine what happens if one of these decrepit tankers explodes in a global choke point like the Strait of Hormuz. You’d see a shock to oil markets overnight.

And yet, that’s the system that keeps Venezuela, Iran, and Russia afloat.

 

The U.S. Begins to Apply Pressure

The seizure of the Skipper wasn’t random. It’s part of a broader pressure campaign—one that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has openly supported. He said plainly that going after these vessels is a direct way to choke off the revenue Maduro depends on to stay in power.

Pompeo also noted something key: Maduro’s regime probably has “weeks, not months” of financial runway without this illicit revenue stream. And Cuba—already experiencing rolling blackouts—relies on Venezuela for about a quarter of its total energy supply. This single tanker seizure hurts Havana even more than Caracas.

But perhaps the most important variable is geography. Satellite data reveals dozens of sanctioned tankers parked just off Venezuela’s northern coast. In theory, if the U.S. waits for them to exit Venezuela’s 200-mile EEZ, it could legally seize many of them—especially the stateless ones.

Imagine the U.S. grabbing one tanker per day.

The ripple effects would be enormous.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals