No Kings movement plans largest anti-authoritarian protests across United States and 15 countries, mobilizing activists against perceived threats to democracy worldwide
TOI GLOBAL DESK | TOI GLOBAL | Mar 27, 2026, 23:02 IST
'No Kings' Protest: Millions show up against Trump's policies across US
This Saturday, the No Kings movement is gearing up for what promises to be a monumental protest. With thousands of gatherings planned both in the U.S. and around the globe, this grassroots initiative is rallying millions in solidarity against authoritarian regimes. Since its inception in June, the movement has exponentially expanded, emphasizing the necessity of grassroots empowerment.
The No Kings movement, a decentralized anti-authoritarian protest initiative launched in June to counter Trump administration policies, is scheduled to hold its largest demonstration yet on Saturday, with over 3,100 events planned across the US and 15 other countries. This movement, which has grown rapidly since its inception, aims to unite millions under a broad banner of opposition to authoritarianism, intentionally eschewing specific leaders or policy demands to maximize inclusivity and collective outrage. Organizers believe this approach is by design to build power from the ground up, contrasting with a "cult of personality."
The third No Kings protest is expected to draw millions, potentially becoming the biggest protest in American history. The movement formally launched in June and its second mass protest in October drew an estimated 7 million participants. Organizers anticipate Saturday's events will surpass this number.
The No Kings movement was conceived as a "container" to hold the collective outrage of people with various grievances. Leah Greenberg, a co-founder of Indivisible, explained that the movement was intentionally designed to be more about uniting a massive cross-movement push against authoritarianism, rather than focusing on a single issue. This approach aims to reach people wherever they are.
"You want to have as many doors open as possible because you have to reach people wherever they are," said Hahrie Han, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University. She also raised the challenge of keeping participants engaged and channeling that engagement collectively.
Organizers acknowledge these critiques, stating that the movement's structure is intentional. Hunter Dunn, an organizer with the 50501 movement, one of the groups behind No Kings, stated that the name itself is a demand.
"The name No Kings is, in and of itself, a demand. It is a direct repudiation of this administration, of this regime, of its unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and frankly profane actions," Dunn said. "It’s a declaration of intent that we are going to return power back to the people."
The movement emerged from a context of what Greenberg described as "elite collapse," where institutions like law firms, universities, and media companies appeared to capitulate to the Trump administration. No Kings was intended as a mass demonstration to show that ordinary Americans had not agreed to such terms.
Demonstrators have embraced the movement's amorphous nature over the past year. Initial unofficial organizing under the No Kings banner occurred in February as a reaction to the mass firing of federal workers. Subsequent protests in June and October responded to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in various cities. Saturday's protests continue to address frustrations with ICE, alongside concerns about environmental protections, election security, and the Trump administration's actions in Iran.
"Every No Kings is going to be inherently in dialogue with what is the biggest set of issues that are driving people and that are angering people right now," Greenberg said.
The decision to forgo a leadership hierarchy was a deliberate choice by the prominent progressive organizations that spearheaded No Kings, including Indivisible, 50501, and MoveOn. They intentionally designed a decentralized movement to involve local organizations. The coalition comprises hundreds of labor unions, religious groups, immigrant rights groups, civil rights organizations, and other grassroots, human rights, and non-profit groups.
Dunn commented on the lack of a central leader, stating, "You can’t beat a cult of personality with another larger cult of personality."
"What you need to do is organize people from the ground up, building power by and for and of the people," he added.
Some observers question the strategic implications of a leaderless framework for resistance movements. Han suggested that while charismatic figureheads are not necessary, mechanisms for collective decision-making are.
"The bigger challenge is, once they’re there, how do you keep them there, and then how do you channel that engagement in collective ways?" Han asked.
Han referenced the Montgomery bus boycott as an example of successful top-down and bottom-up governance, where leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. could credibly represent the people in negotiations. Critics argue that movements like Occupy Wall Street dissolved partly due to the absence of negotiators. Black Lives Matter saw victories by building local leadership to influence policy changes.
"Scale is often a proxy for power," Han noted. "But it is not power itself. And what the research shows is that just because you pull a lot of people into action doesn’t mean that action turns into the kind of influence for change that you want, unless you scaffold that through a larger strategy."
Organizers view No Kings as part of a larger resistance effort. Dunn described the anti-Trump resistance as a relay race, involving mass mobilizations, local organizing, direct action, election defense, voter registration, and mutual aid.
Critics have also pointed to No Kings' lack of a policy platform as a weakness. However, Marcus Board Jr., a political scientist, suggests that judging movements solely by legislative achievements reflects an outdated model of political change.
Greenberg believes the true measure of success lies in the follow-up actions after the protests.
"It’s about the day of, but it’s also about how many people get asked: ‘Hey, can you come to a follow-up meeting? We’re going to talk about our neighborhood’s fight against this warehouse for ICE,’" Greenberg said. "Those are going to be the things that help us see: are we absorbing more people? Are we trying new tactics? Are we getting more people into the fight?"
The third No Kings protest is expected to draw millions, potentially becoming the biggest protest in American history. The movement formally launched in June and its second mass protest in October drew an estimated 7 million participants. Organizers anticipate Saturday's events will surpass this number.
The No Kings movement was conceived as a "container" to hold the collective outrage of people with various grievances. Leah Greenberg, a co-founder of Indivisible, explained that the movement was intentionally designed to be more about uniting a massive cross-movement push against authoritarianism, rather than focusing on a single issue. This approach aims to reach people wherever they are.
"You want to have as many doors open as possible because you have to reach people wherever they are," said Hahrie Han, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University. She also raised the challenge of keeping participants engaged and channeling that engagement collectively.
Organizers acknowledge these critiques, stating that the movement's structure is intentional. Hunter Dunn, an organizer with the 50501 movement, one of the groups behind No Kings, stated that the name itself is a demand.
"The name No Kings is, in and of itself, a demand. It is a direct repudiation of this administration, of this regime, of its unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and frankly profane actions," Dunn said. "It’s a declaration of intent that we are going to return power back to the people."
The movement emerged from a context of what Greenberg described as "elite collapse," where institutions like law firms, universities, and media companies appeared to capitulate to the Trump administration. No Kings was intended as a mass demonstration to show that ordinary Americans had not agreed to such terms.
Demonstrators have embraced the movement's amorphous nature over the past year. Initial unofficial organizing under the No Kings banner occurred in February as a reaction to the mass firing of federal workers. Subsequent protests in June and October responded to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in various cities. Saturday's protests continue to address frustrations with ICE, alongside concerns about environmental protections, election security, and the Trump administration's actions in Iran.
"Every No Kings is going to be inherently in dialogue with what is the biggest set of issues that are driving people and that are angering people right now," Greenberg said.
The decision to forgo a leadership hierarchy was a deliberate choice by the prominent progressive organizations that spearheaded No Kings, including Indivisible, 50501, and MoveOn. They intentionally designed a decentralized movement to involve local organizations. The coalition comprises hundreds of labor unions, religious groups, immigrant rights groups, civil rights organizations, and other grassroots, human rights, and non-profit groups.
Dunn commented on the lack of a central leader, stating, "You can’t beat a cult of personality with another larger cult of personality."
"What you need to do is organize people from the ground up, building power by and for and of the people," he added.
Some observers question the strategic implications of a leaderless framework for resistance movements. Han suggested that while charismatic figureheads are not necessary, mechanisms for collective decision-making are.
"The bigger challenge is, once they’re there, how do you keep them there, and then how do you channel that engagement in collective ways?" Han asked.
Han referenced the Montgomery bus boycott as an example of successful top-down and bottom-up governance, where leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. could credibly represent the people in negotiations. Critics argue that movements like Occupy Wall Street dissolved partly due to the absence of negotiators. Black Lives Matter saw victories by building local leadership to influence policy changes.
"Scale is often a proxy for power," Han noted. "But it is not power itself. And what the research shows is that just because you pull a lot of people into action doesn’t mean that action turns into the kind of influence for change that you want, unless you scaffold that through a larger strategy."
Organizers view No Kings as part of a larger resistance effort. Dunn described the anti-Trump resistance as a relay race, involving mass mobilizations, local organizing, direct action, election defense, voter registration, and mutual aid.
Critics have also pointed to No Kings' lack of a policy platform as a weakness. However, Marcus Board Jr., a political scientist, suggests that judging movements solely by legislative achievements reflects an outdated model of political change.
Greenberg believes the true measure of success lies in the follow-up actions after the protests.
"It’s about the day of, but it’s also about how many people get asked: ‘Hey, can you come to a follow-up meeting? We’re going to talk about our neighborhood’s fight against this warehouse for ICE,’" Greenberg said. "Those are going to be the things that help us see: are we absorbing more people? Are we trying new tactics? Are we getting more people into the fight?"