One of the surest ways you know that the left’s lame “No Kings” propaganda movement is inorganic is how much time, effort, and money must be concentrated every so many months just to get people to leave their homes for a narrow window in time on a single, slow-news Saturday.
If the movement were truly grassroots and organic, you would be able to whip up a crowd in a day or so, especially if the movement were as nationwide as organizers want you to believe. If the movement were as real and as big as the organizers want you to believe, participants would be so “local” that the only logistics involved would be where the boomers want to place their folding chairs and hold their signs.
There are two kinds of protests. The first is the spontaneous, grassroots, organic kind. When people and the media see protests, they almost always assume protests are of this kind. But there’s a second kind of protest that is far more common these days on the left, and conservatives are the only ones talking about it — the manufactured protest. Intelligence agencies are very good at the process of creating these sorts of contrived protests.
It takes an unbelievable amount of work and time to gin up a protest that’s not driven by populism.
According to The Guardian, the March “No Kings” events were planned for 3,000 locations nationwide, with the one in St. Paul, Minn., serving as the “flagship” event. We all know why. While the orchestrated protests were not limited to anti-ICE protestors, that’s the lightening rod for this one. The left used the anti-ICE theme to try to galvanize its hodge-podge of disparate causes and movements, which all share a hatred for America as their true common bond.
The lead organization behind “No Kings” is a group called the Indivisible Project. Leah Greenberg, who is one of the group’s founders, said there is no singular focus in the protests. “Every No Kings is going to be about the issues that are driving people most at that moment,” Greenberg told The Guardian, “and it’s also going to be about the collective ways in which they begin to harm our democracy.”
In other words, “We have all this money, and we need relevancy, so this is the best we've got.”
Several news organizations have tried to get to the root of who’s funding Indivisible and who’s driving it but have come up empty, and many of them were essentially leftist organizations. KQED, the San Francisco public broadcasting station, wrote:
Sarah Bryner, research director for the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit that tracks money in politics, said Indivisible has no legal obligation to disclose its donors if it doesn’t run election ads supporting or opposing a particular candidate. Indivisible hasn’t done that yet, but it is set up as a 501(c)(4), a designation that allows the organization to engage in political activity, so long as that is not its primary activity.
If they’re trying to influence election outcomes, we feel like people should know about who’s funding those efforts,” said Bryner. “But there’s also the question of privacy for donors, and if they’re not spending money in such a way that they would be influencing those election outcomes, then generally people defer towards protecting that privacy.
The Washington Times cited Fox Digital News when it reported, “The funding and influence behind the protests include a network of about 500 groups with an estimated $3 billion in combined annual revenue.”
The Times said that the Indivisible Project is at least in part funded by “billionaire philanthropist George Soros — a narrative pushed by GOP Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee.”
And the Times credited Fox News Digital for identifying “socialist and communist organizations funded by Neville Roy Singham, an American businessman with Communist China ties,” as being integral to the “No Kings” turnout.
It’s difficult to know specifically how much of the “No Kings” funding could be from foreign sources and fragmented into a cohesive collection of individual donations from “individual” donors. It’s equally difficult to assess how much NGO money has found its way – once, twice or three times removed – into the coffers of organizations involved with the events.
Still, you have to know that all of the organizations involved have staffers to pay, and most of them are not volunteering their time to wage a propaganda war against the Trump administration.
I’ve learned in my own experience that celebrity participation in anything is almost never free and almost never cheap. To get an A-lister to attend a cocktail party for a charity event, where the celebrity doesn’t even have to give remarks, can cost upwards of $50,000-$100,000 as an honorarium. Don’t assume “No Kings” is so special that all of those celebrities involved traveled to hang out for free with the proletariat on their own nickel.
Think of how much it must have cost to rent those buses, pay for the gas, and transport all those boomers to where the organizers want them for maximum effect. Not to mention food and, in some cases, lodging for traveling groups. Again, it’s a safe bet it cost a lot.
The one nagging issue that observers on all sides have to ponder, however, is the answer to one question: “How many of those people actually were there without compensation and of their own accord, purely because of their animosity towards Trump and the way things are going?"
The best measure I can think of is to imagine if those same organizations could get those same people to step back out today, with no warning, and see if they would drop their plans and protest Trump instead. Could they sustain whatever energy this is for longer than what amounts to an excuse to get out of the house for the afternoon? How many of the supposed “millions” who came out would do it again without much recruiting or incentives?
There are other ways to look at this. If the Yankees won the World Series, the streets of New York would be filled with happy baseball fans within minutes after the final pitch, all with no planning, funding, or incentives. If the Trump administration decided to hold rallies in advance of the midterms, it wouldn’t take months of planning to fill every single arena he’d travel to, even if the host town were given less than two days’ notice to prepare.
Trump aside, you could pretty much mobilize millions of Second Amendment proponents to take part in peaceful protests across the country with very little notice and almost zero operational budget, so long as the focal point of the protests and their timing are properly communicated, along with a sense of urgency and a call to action.
The groups behind “No Kings” have none of that. They’re not focused; they’re not really asking their base to do anything other than show up; and very few attendees can even articulate why they are there. It’s almost like, as “No Kings” tries to be about everything as a way to pull more people into its tent, in the end it’s all about nothing.
https://pjmedia.com/tim-o-brien/2026/03/29/hey-leftists-no-kings-was-something-bet-you-cant-repeat-that-today-n4951196?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm
