As Americans marked the nation’s 250th birthday, a very different gathering took place in Chicago, where longtime activist Bill Ayers joined a Princeton University professor for an event centered not on celebrating the country’s founding, but on what organizers described as two and a half centuries of resistance.
The event, titled “250 Years of Resistance,” was held Friday at the National Public Housing Museum, just one day before Independence Day. It featured Ayers, the former leader of the Weather Underground, alongside Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, a professor in Princeton University’s Department of African American Studies.
Ayers has remained one of the most controversial figures in American political history. During the late 1960s and 1970s, he helped lead the Weather Underground, a radical organization that split from Students for a Democratic Society after concluding the anti-war movement was not militant enough. The group later claimed responsibility for a series of bombings targeting government buildings, including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a military induction center in California, the California Attorney General’s office, and a New York City police station.
According to historical accounts, Ayers surrendered to authorities in 1980, but criminal charges were ultimately dismissed after courts found that investigators had relied on illegal federal wiretaps during the investigation.
After leaving the Weather Underground behind, Ayers pursued a career in education, eventually becoming a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago while remaining active in progressive political causes.
During Friday’s event, Ayers reflected on the nation’s founding documents, describing the Declaration of Independence as “a mixed and contradictory document.”
He also recalled the country’s bicentennial celebration in 1976, when members of the Weather Underground produced a poster reading, “200 Years Is Enough.”
“Now it’s 250 years and I feel similarly,” Ayers told attendees. “I feel like there’s nothing more appropriate than having a conversation tonight about 250 years of resistance.”
The discussion also featured comments from Taylor that quickly circulated on social media.
During a question-and-answer session, she joked, “This audience is all like, ‘F*** the USA,'” drawing laughter from those in attendance.
Taylor went on to criticize nationalism more broadly.
🚨 Bill Ayers and Princeton’s Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor Mark July 4th With No Patriotism, No Borders, and “Fuck the USA”
As you celebrate Independence Day, remember that there is an entire class of activists, including many embedded in higher education, who spend their days trying… pic.twitter.com/qQLt6E8Rvn
— Stu Smith (@thestustustudio) July 4, 2026
“We have to reject the idea of loving a nation state, right? Which is what patriotism is at the end of the day,” she said. “The nation state itself is destructive.”
She also argued that national borders cause human suffering, stating that “borders are deadly” and “borders kill people.”
The remarks prompted criticism from observers who viewed them as rejecting the principles of national sovereignty.
Manhattan Institute investigative analyst Stu Smith, who shared video clips from the event, argued that Americans should recognize that influential activists continue promoting ideas fundamentally opposed to the country’s constitutional framework.
“As you celebrate Independence Day, remember that there is an entire class of activists, including many embedded in higher education, who spend their days trying to dismantle the country,” Smith wrote.
He interpreted Taylor’s comments as advocating for a political philosophy that rejects the concept of the nation-state itself.
According to Smith, eliminating meaningful national borders would ultimately undermine American sovereignty by removing the country’s ability to control citizenship, immigration, and self-government. He further argued that the ideas expressed during the discussion reflect longstanding Marxist theories favoring international solidarity over national identity.
Supporters of Taylor’s work, however, have long argued that her scholarship critiques nationalism, structural inequality, and state power rather than calling for the abolition of democratic government. Critics counter that rhetoric dismissing patriotism and national sovereignty inevitably raises broader questions about the future of constitutional nation-states.
The timing of the event ensured that those debates unfolded against the backdrop of Independence Day itself.
