News
So you went to a No Kings protest. Now what?
More than 8 million people showed up across 3,300 No Kings protests on Saturday, calling for an end to the war in Iran, immigration agents in their communities and what they see as Trump’s creeping authoritarianism. Organizers say it’s the greatest number of protests in a single day in US history.
But movement scholars say social change doesn’t begin and end with one protest. It takes activism at the local and national level, and in a variety of forms, to bring about change.
“No Kings was conceived to unite a cross-movement push against authoritarianism. And there is not one way to fight it,” said Leah Greenberg, a co-executive director of the Indivisible Project, which founded the No Kings movement. “We see No Kings as part of a tapestry of defiance that is going on.”
In the past year, Americans have demanded change through a variety of actions. When Donald Trump sent federal agents into Los Angeles and Chicago, people rallied in the streets and called for “ICE Out!” When consumers wanted to express disapproval of corporations’ ties to Trump, they initiated boycotts of Target, Tesla and Amazon. When students were upset at the presence of ICE agents in their schools and communities, they organized walkouts.
“Protests build power by garnering attention and pulling people off the sidelines into action,” said Hahrie Han, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University and the author of Prisms of the People: Power and Organizing in Twenty-First-Century America. “And if we look historically and across different movements, change is often a combination of people taking action through a variety of means and then leaders negotiating for power given the actions that people have taken.”
Han pointed to activists in Minnesota who were able to pass a raft of progressive and pro-labor laws in 2023 – paid family and medical leave and driver’s licenses for undocumented residents, among others – as an example of successful movement building by organizing with multiracial coalitions, strategizing with legislators and negotiating proposed legislation.
“It’s one of the most generous social safety nets in the country, and organizers were able to put grassroots energy together with institutional politics,” said Han.
No Kings’ success, organizers say, will be defined by whether attendees have signed up to organize in their communities and follow through on other actions, like know-your-rights trainings and mutual aid.
“What we think is actually important are the ways in which these large-scale gatherings fuel ongoing organizing that might look like economic non-cooperation, local mutual aid organizing or legislative advocacy at the state or local level,” said Greenberg. “It’s all connected if we do it right.”
Here’s a look at how these efforts have worked over time.
Protest
Some of the earliest protests in America include covert and overt acts that enslaved people took to object to bondage, including working slowly in the fields, breaking or misplacing tools, setting fires or running away. Enslaved people also attempted to free themselves by organizing armed rebellions and revolts.
Occupation has historically been another effective form of protest. Throughout the 1900s, Indigenous Americans protested US treaty violations by occupying Alcatraz Island, Mount Rushmore and the bureau of Indian affairs building to demand land back.
But probably the most recognizable form of protest is the one in the streets, immortalized in the marches, freedom rides and sit-ins of the civil rights movement for social justice and equal rights in the 1950s and 1960s.
Over the past 10 years, numerous mass protests have swept through the country, including March for Our Lives in 2018 to demand stricter gun control measures, the Black Lives Matter protests, triggered by the police killing of George Floyd in 2020, and the No Kings protests against the Trump administration last October. In 2025, the first year of Trump’s second term, more people protested in the streets than in 2017, the first year of his first term, according to data from the open-source project Crowd Counting Consortium
“The amount of people protesting is record-breaking,” said Hunter Dunn, an organizer with the grassroots organization 50501, which co-founded No Kings. “There’s also enthusiasm for using protests as a launchpad to get people involved in local organizing – whether it’s election defense with the midterms coming up, or immigrants’ rights organizing or organizing against AI data centers.”
Rally, march and parade
During rallies, people often gather at parks, on streets and other public locations to bring attention to a cause. A street protest or march can also culminate in a rally, where participants take turns speaking, performing music or leafleting attendees to share goals and literature about the cause.
Much like “rally”, “march” and “parade” are also terms used interchangeably with “protest”. In 1913, suffragists held the Women’s Suffrage Parade to draw attention to how women could vote in only nine states.
In 2017, activists held the first Women’s March the day after Trump’s first inauguration, protesting his rhetoric and platform as misogynistic and an overall threat to women. Activists and scholars have credited the march with driving the #MeToo movement and a record number of women to participate in the 2018 midterm elections.
“There was something special and different when people said #MeToo,” Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, told the Guardian. “We had worked on issues related to harassment and gender-based violence over many decades. But the #MeToo movement really gave people a framework to speak out and name their experiences.”
General strike
Labor unions have a rich history of protest in the US, particularly in the form of a strike or a work stoppage in which workers demand better conditions, including healthcare benefits, on-the-job safety protections and higher wages.
A general strike is much larger; it’s when a sizable portion of the workforce in a certain town or region stops working to bring about economic or social change.
The first general strike in North America was in 1835 in Philadelphia, where 20,000 workers across 40 sectors demanded a 10-hour workday and fairer wages. In the end, they won – incorporating rallies, parades and newspaper campaigns to secure 10-hour workdays for skilled and unskilled workers in the city – and became the catalyst of labor organizing in the US.
After federal immigration agents killed Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti this January, organizers called for a national general strike of “no school, no work, and no shopping” to protest the presence and brutality of federal agents in the city. Thousands in Minnesota participated in protests, hundreds of businesses closed and work stoppages occurred across a variety of sectors, backed by labor unions.
“Those of us in the trade union movement understand the leverage and power that our labor has, and we are going to try and use that, because really there’s nothing else left,” Kieran Knutson, the president of Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 7250 in Minneapolis, told the Guardian in January.
Boycott and divestment
Boycotts of corporations have historically involved a refusal to purchase their products or engage with their services, with the hope that punitive pressure can change attitudes and behaviors. Alternatively, a “procott” involves shifting resources to entities that people want to support – such as small local businesses – as they suspend support for others.
In the 1930s, Black Americans led “Don’t Buy Where You Can’t Work” campaigns in northern cities to advocate for Black jobs at white-owned businesses in Black neighborhoods. The boycotts and picketing, in which protesters stood outside of businesses and held signs, created jobs for Black workers during the Depression.
Divestments are a related form of protest. In 1985, UC Berkeley students demanded the university divest from South Africa in protest against apartheid. Students led rallies, teach-ins and encampments to pressure the university. A year later, the University of California board of regents voted to divest $3bn from companies with ties to South Africa.
In 2025, Americans’ boycott of Target – after the company rolled back its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts – had an impact: Target acknowledged the boycott was one of the reasons sales were down last year.
“We are reclaiming our power,” LaTosha Brown, co-founder of Black Voters Matter, told the Guardian during a Black Friday boycott the group helped spearhead last year. “We are redirecting our spending. And we are resisting this rise to authoritarianism.”
Mutual aid
Under an ethos of “solidarity,” mutual aid involves a network of volunteers gathering resources – food, housing assistance and childcare – to support the needs of people in their communities.
In response to the HIV/Aids crisis of the 1980s, LGBTQ+ groups across the country developed care networks to support vulnerable community members. During the coronavirus pandemic, local organizations across the country stepped up to help low-income families, frontline workers and immunocompromised people through grocery delivery programs. One such aid program in Brooklyn, New York, supported 28,000 people with groceries between March 2020 and June 2021.
During Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis in January, in which 3,000 ICE agents killed two Minneapolis residents and arrested hundreds, mutual aid networks were vital for distributing food, money and diapers to immigrant families sheltering in place out of fear of being stopped by ICE.
Brittany Kubricky, a Minneapolis resident, told the Guardian earlier this year she was organizing donations, grocery deliveries and school pick-ups from her dining room table. “I haven’t really ever done something like this before,” she said. “This is just something I tried, and it happens to be working.”
Walkout
When students and employees walk out of schools or workplaces to express their disapproval over a certain issue, the idea is to do so in numbers – the more people who participate, the more impactful the message.
In 1968, 15,000 students walked out en masse as part of the East Los Angeles Walkouts to protest disparities in educational outcomes between white American and Mexican American students. After the walkout, students submitted demands to the Los Angeles board of education to improve the bilingual education curriculum, among other issues. Even though police arrested organizers and the board rejected their demands, the walkout was one of the largest student protests in history.
Walkouts remain a viable protest tactic for young people today, including to voice their grievances against ICE. “This was our way to make our voices heard,” Lark Jeffers told the Guardian after participating in the Free America walkout on 20 January in Silver Spring, Maryland. “Because at the end of the day, we’re 16 – what we say isn’t going to make the lawmaker listen to us.
Teach-in
This longtime form of protest is about sharing knowledge. Activists and protest leaders spend time lecturing people in the movement about their causes, often opening debate and discussion as a means of raising awareness and spurring further action.
Teach-ins were popularized during the Vietnam war when students used them to discuss the war draft and strategies to curtail the US government’s involvement abroad. The first teach-in, which included lectures, debates and films, took place at the University of Michigan in 1965 and was attended by 3,500 students and supporting faculty members. The teach-in boosted the national anti-war movement and inspired other campuses to protest and hold teach-ins of their own.
Teach-ins once again became popular on US college campuses in 2024 as Israel bombed the Gaza Strip following Hamas’ attack. The teach-ins, often in student encampments, educated participants about the long fight for Palestinian freedom and the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to isolate Israel economically, politically and culturally over its oppression of Palestinians.
Composites: Rita Liu/The Guardian/Getty Images/Wikimedia Commons
The U.S. Supreme Court
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.
The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.
The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.
The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.
Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.
But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.
What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.
Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.
This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.
The case, however, was not over.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”
So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.
The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”
The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”
Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.
U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Aftershocks detected
Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
The New York Times When quakes and aftershocks occurred
Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation. My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry.
Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components. As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country. We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.
It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.
Sec. 2. Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(c) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:
(i) expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;
(ii) establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and
(iii) facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.
(d) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.
(e) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.
(f) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.
Sec. 3. Secure Frontier Model Deployment. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:
(a) develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate. Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.
(b) design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:
(i) engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;
(ii) provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and
(iii) collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.
Sec. 4. Protection Against Criminal Actors. The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime. This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 2, 2026.
-
Los Angeles, Ca56 minutes agoCalifornia primary election results: governor and L.A. mayor races
-
Detroit, MI1 hour agoAnother bribery scandal hits Detroit. It involves the People Mover
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoWhat’s Worth More Than Cash in San Francisco Real Estate? Anthropic Stock
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoDallas weighs $500 million‑plus repair plans as City Hall’s future comes up for debate
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoMiami biotech executive was followed into his condo by man who allegedly threw him from 25th floor
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoWhat a World Cup ‘fan zone’ is and what Boston fans can expect in 2026
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoDefensive lineman Jordan Miller has a tough battle to make the Broncos’ final 53-man roster
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoVIDEO: Mayor Wilson proposes renewing, expanding Seattle Transit Measure by doubling the sales-tax percentage that funds it.
