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.
Fact check: What role did Thomas Paine play in shaping the No Kings movement's ideology?
Executive Summary
Thomas Paine’s writings—especially his critiques of monarchy and his sympathy for natural rights—are repeatedly cited in the materials as intellectually adjacent to the No Kings movement, but the available sources show no direct documentary link tying Paine to the movement’s organizers or messaging. Contemporary reporting on No Kings centers on anti-authoritarian protests; Paine’s influence is presented mainly as a useful historical analogy rather than documented inspiration [1] [2] [3].
1. What advocates and reporters actually claim about Paine and “No Kings”
The collected analyses repeatedly present the claim that Thomas Paine’s republican and antipolitical ideas could inform the No Kings movement, but they stop short of asserting a concrete causal connection. Several pieces note Paine’s antipathy to monarchy and his emphasis on natural rights and abolitionism as themes resonant with modern anti-authoritarian activists, framing Paine as an intellectual antecedent rather than a cited strategist. The reporting therefore advances a contextual influence thesis: Paine’s ideas are compatible with No Kings rhetoric, but there is no evidence that organizers explicitly trace their ideology to him [1].
2. Where Paine’s writings line up with No Kings rhetoric
Paine’s Common Sense and other pamphlets emphasized rejecting inherited authority and asserting popular sovereignty; the sources identify these arguments as philosophically consonant with No Kings’ rejection of perceived authoritarian rule and corruption. The materials highlight Paine’s radical antipolitical stance—a skepticism toward professionalized power structures—and his ethical commitments, such as abolitionism, which map onto No Kings’ broad themes of accountability and rights. This alignment is framed as conceptual affinity rather than documentary influence [1] [4].
3. The absence of direct sourcing from No Kings organizers
News coverage of contemporary No Kings protests documents organizers’ grievances and constitutional rhetoric but does not record organizers invoking Paine by name or citing his texts as foundational. Local reporting on mobilizations and protest logistics centers on current political triggers—alleged authoritarianism and corruption—without archival references to Paine. This lacuna matters: without explicit citations, historians and journalists must treat Paine’s role as suggestive background instead of demonstrable origin [2] [3].
4. Conflicting or limited scholarly framing in available pieces
The provided analyses present mixed emphases: one thread underscores Paine’s theory of “natural society” and antipolitical radicalism as historically significant, while other pieces emphasize immediate political factors motivating No Kings protests. This produces a tension in interpretation: Paine is both a credible intellectual predecessor and a largely absent actor in contemporary accounts. The discrepancy reflects differing journalistic aims—historical exegesis versus event coverage—and highlights the limitation of relying on event-focused reporting to map ideological genealogies [1] [5].
5. Source dates matter: historical essays versus event coverage
The timeline of sources spans September 2025 through January 2026, with the oldest pieces offering historical interpretation of Paine (September 9, 2025) and later items documenting protests (November–December 2025, and a January 2026 Paine essay republication). The chronological pattern shows historical analysis preceding and running parallel to protest coverage, which may encourage journalists to draw historical parallels while still lacking contemporaneous sourcing connecting Paine to organizers. The most recent source republishes Paine’s abolitionist writing, reinforcing thematic resonance but not authorial linkage [1] [3] [4].
6. Alternative explanations for No Kings ideology in the sources
The available reporting points to immediate institutional grievances—perceived authoritarianism and corruption under current political figures—as primary drivers of No Kings. That suggests the movement’s ideology may be shaped more by contemporary political dynamics and constitutionalist language than by eighteenth-century pamphleteering. Paine’s inclusion in narratives therefore functions as a rhetorical device that frames modern protest within a venerable tradition of anti-monarchical thought rather than as a primary intellectual source for organizers [2].
7. Potential agendas and what’s omitted from the record
Journalistic use of Paine can serve multiple agendas: historicizing protest to grant legitimacy, invoking revolutionary symbolism to energize supporters, or neutral contextualization by scholars. The sources do not show organizers’ manifestos or internal documents referencing Paine, leaving open the possibility that writers selectively deploy Paine to craft narratives attractive to certain audiences. This omission underscores the need for primary-source verification—organizer statements, manifestos, or social-media citations—before asserting Paine’s direct role [1] [2] [3].
8. Bottom line: measured assessment and what to watch next
Based on the provided materials, Thomas Paine functions as a useful historical analogue for the No Kings movement’s themes of anti-authoritarianism and natural rights, but there is currently no documentary evidence in these sources showing Paine shaped the movement’s ideology in practice. Future confirmation would require organizers’ explicit citations or archival traces linking their language to Paine; absent those, treating Paine as influence by analogy is the most defensible reading of the available record [1] [4] [3].