In October 2025, I got my first real taste of political organizing. As a freshman living on Harvard’s campus, I was excited to involve myself in activism and finally have my voice heard. With a few friends, I took the Red Line to Boston Common and raised my “Liberty and Justice for All!” sign, marching alongside 100,000 others at the second “No Kings” protest. At the time, it felt invigorating, but looking back, did my sign and my presence really matter? Did any of our 100,000 voices gathered in the Common matter? Did any one of the 8,000,000 protestors across the United States actually engender meaningful change?
The No Kings movement was founded in June 2025 in response to President Trump’s military parade celebrating the 250th Anniversary of the United States’ Army on June 14th. In their first widespread day of action, the organization proudly claims to have hosted protests in “every state and across the globe.” Their efforts culminated in the Oct. 18 protest, where nearly 7,000,000 attendees participated in approximately 2,700 protests across all 50 states.
Despite widespread support, the self-proclaimed largest single-day protest in United States history failed to penetrate the walls of Congress. The No Kings Act, a proposal by Senate Democrats to curtail executive overreach in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, never received a Senate floor vote. Nor was Trump himself deterred from continuing to haphazardly wield executive power — his illegal withholding of Congress-approved funding for FY2025 one egregious example among many.
For such a large protest, why is it that No Kings accomplished so little? Now, after the third round of No Kings Protests on March 28th, the protests have gotten smaller and so have their results. Perhaps it’s because protestors lacked the courage to toe the line of civil disobedience and because the No Kings movement itself lacked a specific goal.
When examining protests that drove Congress to pass groundbreaking legislation, one common denominator is the intense measures that protesters took to make their point clear. In March 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) — a monumental piece of legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disabilities — was marred by procedural difficulties and stalled in the House of Representatives. In response, 500 protesters affiliated with American Disabled For Access Public Transit (ADAPT) took to the steps of the Capitol: once there, protesters holding copies of the Declaration of Independence left behind their mobility devices and physically crawled up the steps of the Capitol. Following this, protestors participated in a Capitol sit-in that led to arrests. These actions constituted civil disobedience, yet they brought about concrete change: just months later, the ADA was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” further outlines the successes that can result from non-violent civil disobedience. “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” is one of the most famous quotes from his letter, wherein King argues that the public itself must demand civil rights. The way to do this is through civil disobedience, in which protestors are meant to act in opposition to unjust laws, but in a peaceful way. The letter, published in major news outlets like the New York Post, was released in April 1963: four months later, the March on Washington saw over 260,000 protesters gather near the Lincoln Memorial. More importantly, however, proponents for the Civil Rights Act participated in sit-ins, in which segregation laws were broken, and protesters were arrested. This civil disobedience is what directly led to the Civil Rights Act’s successful passage the following year.
The Civil Rights and ADAPT protests approached activism more seriously than No Kings. Where the historical movements used civil disobedience and coordinated public demonstrations to advance their goals, No Kings seems comparatively unfocused: NPR described the movement as a “funhouse,” with protestors donning inflatable animal costumes and witty signs. Trump candidly told reporters, “I think it’s a joke,” and his sentiment may have some merit. Where some may argue that No Kings’ comedic streak helps the protestors seem less threatening — rebutting Trump’s claims of criminal activity from protestors — it undermines their credibility and discredits the gravity of the moment.
Historically, successful activist movements have shared another common feature: persistent focus on a specific goal. Beyond the aforementioned movements, the 1970 Earth Day celebration — the first of its kind — saw nearly 20 million attendees and helped advance the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970 later that year, which increased regulations on air pollution in the United States. Consistent with the trend, protestors expressed the need for a specific objective — environmental protections — which resulted in legislative action.
Where historical protests advanced specific legislative goals, No Kings had no greater aim than to simply express the discontent in the American populace towards the “authoritarian” measures of the Trump Administration. By targeting the state of the country as a whole, rather than a specific issue, the movement built momentum that led nowhere.
While No Kings harnessed genuine discontent, it is also clear that the American people want concrete change. History proves that focus, intentionality, and a willingness to break the law — and suffer the consequences — are necessary to engender such change.
Rather than attending a No Kings protest, attend protests advancing the specific issues that are at stake: 100 dedicated protestors in support of a specific cause may achieve more than the 7,000,000 who express nothing more than anger. Protest ICE’s actions, the attacks on Iran, or Trump’s tariff policies. Alternatively, seek out pre-existing legislation stalled in Congress and work to express popular support. Grassroots movements are powerful drivers of change — but only those invigorated with true vision and advanced with relentless focus and dedication.
