Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did the no kings protests in the USA compare to other anti-monarchy movements globally?
Executive summary
The U.S. “No Kings” protests on October 18, 2025 were mass, largely peaceful demonstrations against President Trump framed as resistance to authoritarianism, with organizers claiming thousands of sites and media reporting large turnouts in major cities (organizers: ~2,600–2,700 sites; New York turnout >100,000) [1] [2]. International anti‑monarchy movements, by contrast, are often long‑running, institutional campaigns (e.g., Republic in the UK, Alliance of European Republican Movements) that pursue abolition or constitutional change rather than a single‑day mass mobilization [3] [4].
1. A one‑day mass eruption vs. sustained republican campaigns
“No Kings” Day was designed as a coordinated national day of protest — a concentrated, tactical mobilization across thousands of U.S. locations intended to make a loud, immediate political statement about one leader’s perceived authoritarian drift (organizers planned ~2,600–2,700 protests) [1] [5]. By contrast, groups like Republic in the UK or the Alliance of European Republican Movements operate as ongoing campaigns focused on constitutional change, public education and referenda over years or decades — not a single nationwide flashpoint [3] [4].
2. Grievance framing: “no kings” vs. anti‑monarchy’s structural critique
No Kings framed its grievance as defending democratic norms against a leader described as acting like a monarch; messaging focused on immediate political behavior and civil liberties [2] [6]. Classical anti‑monarchy movements argue against hereditary rule and institutional privilege — a structural critique of monarchy itself and an argument for elected heads of state — rather than a protest against one officeholder’s conduct [7] [3].
3. Scale, tempo and tactics: street parties, boycotts, and campaigns
Media described No Kings as a mixture of street‑party atmosphere and serious civic protest with inflatable costumes, banners and celebrity or elected‑official appearances; organizers signaled follow‑on tactics (boycotts, local organizing) [8] [6]. Anti‑monarchy movements typically mix protests at ceremonial events (e.g., Trooping the Colour), legal and political lobbying, and long‑term public‑opinion campaigns; some coordinate annual “Republic Days” or conferences to build sustained momentum [9] [10].
4. Political context and targets differ sharply
No Kings targeted a sitting president and his policies during an ongoing political crisis; its immediate goal was to mobilize voters and pressure institutions in the short term [2] [11]. Anti‑monarchy groups target an inherited constitutional office; their battles are frequently framed as reforms of the constitution or national identity and tend to play out in parliamentary politics, referenda, or slower cultural debate [7] [12].
5. Varied success metrics: turnout vs. constitutional change
Success for No Kings was measured in turnout, media visibility, and whether it translated into electoral or policy pressure — reporters and organizers highlighted millions or hundreds of thousands in several cities as evidence of impact [5] [2]. Success for anti‑monarchy movements is measured differently: winning referenda, changing party platforms, or shifting public opinion over years (e.g., Barbados becoming a republic, campaigns in Jamaica and others) [7] [13].
6. Political polarization and narratives around authenticity
Coverage shows No Kings was politically polarizing in the U.S.: supporters and civil‑liberties groups hailed it as civic participation while opponents denounced it as partisan or anti‑American; conservative outlets mocked turnout or motives [6] [14]. Anti‑monarchy campaigns also face polarized narratives — defenders argue monarchy is tradition and stability, critics frame it as undemocratic — but those debates often involve institutions and national identity rather than the immediate tenor of contemporary partisan conflict [15] [16].
7. International resonance and differences in political culture
Some No Kings organizers reported events “worldwide,” but the movement’s focus and energy were rooted in U.S. partisan and constitutional dynamics [5]. International anti‑monarchy activism is concentrated where monarchies exist and is shaped by histories of empire, decolonization, and national constitutional arrangements — factors that make those movements structurally distinct from an American protest against one elected leader [7] [17].
Conclusion — what the comparison reveals
Comparing No Kings to established anti‑monarchy movements shows a key distinction: No Kings was a tactical, high‑visibility eruption aimed at a sitting leader and immediate political objectives, while anti‑monarchy movements pursue systemic, long‑term constitutional change and public persuasion. Both deploy protest and public messaging, but their targets, time horizons and measures of success are fundamentally different [1] [3]. Available sources do not mention an organized transnational linkage that treats No Kings as part of classical anti‑monarchy campaigns (not found in current reporting).