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 organizations were behind organizing the No Kings protests?
Executive Summary
The No Kings protests were organized by a coalition of grassroots groups led publicly by Indivisible and allied local organizations, with organizers framing the events as nonviolent, nationwide demonstrations against perceived authoritarian actions [1] [2]. Reporting also documents that the campaign has a central web presence and contact (info@nokings.org), while at least one analysis alleges significant grant funding from the Open Society Foundations to Indivisible that supported data and communications work linked to the protests [1] [3]. Multiple sources confirm broad coalitions and competing narratives about outside funding and coordination [2] [3].
1. Who Put Their Name on the March: Indivisible and a Broad Coalition
Public-facing organizing credit for No Kings centers on Indivisible as a lead organizer and spokespersons who described the events as quintessentially American resistance against what they called authoritarian governance. Indivisible’s involvement is documented in contemporary coverage that lists it among a variety of grassroots partners and local chapters mobilizing over 2,600 events nationwide, and leaders such as Leah Greenberg were quoted framing the actions as nonviolent civic engagement [1] [2]. The coalition model emphasized decentralized local events coordinated through national messaging, indicating a mix of national strategy and local execution rather than a single hierarchical organizer [2].
2. The Campaign’s Operational Footprint: Website, Contact, and Nonviolent Principles
Organizers maintained a central online presence that provided event information and a contact email (info@nokings.org), consistent with a coordinated national campaign structure aimed at volunteer recruitment and messaging [1]. Multiple sources note the movement’s explicit commitment to nonviolent tactics and public messaging about resisting perceived executive overreach within democratic norms, suggesting organizers prioritized broad participation by groups that accept civil resistance rather than civil disobedience or violent protest [1]. This operational footprint supports claims of both national coordination and decentralized local action.
3. Claims of External Funding: Soros Foundations and the Indivisible Grants Record
One analysis reports that the Open Society Foundations awarded $7.61 million in grants to Indivisible, and interprets that funding as supporting data and communications work tied to the No Kings campaign [3]. That claim shifts the narrative from purely grassroots mobilization to one involving philanthropic support for capacity-building. The reporting does not, however, in the provided material, document line-item spending directly earmarked for No Kings events, leaving open the distinction between general organizational funding and campaign-specific financing [3]. This difference matters for interpreting motives and scale.
4. Competing Narratives: Grassroots Authenticity Versus Donor-Funded Coordination
Coverage reflects two competing narratives: organizers and leading outlets emphasize grassroots mobilization across thousands of local events and a commitment to nonviolent democratic action, while critics and some reports highlight large philanthropic grants to national groups like Indivisible as evidence of top-down funding and strategy [2] [3]. Both descriptions can be factually true simultaneously: philanthropic support can underwrite national infrastructure (research, databases, communications) even as thousands of local volunteers run individual events. Readers should judge claims of “authentic grassroots” versus “astroturf” in light of these dual realities and the specific documentation of grant use [3].
5. Which Sources Are Credible and What They Leave Unsaid
The sources provided include direct organizer statements, contemporary event counts, and investigative claims about grantmaking. Organizer-facing material and contemporaneous reporting confirm Indivisible’s leadership role and national scope of events, while grant reporting asserts substantial Open Society Foundation support without granular public links to event-level spending [1] [2] [3]. Several supplied items were non-relevant sign-in pages and do not contribute factual claims about organizers, highlighting the need to prioritize primary reporting and documented grant records when assessing funding links [4].
6. What To Watch Next: Records, Disclosures, and Local Organizers’ Accounts
To solidify understanding, the next factual steps are obtaining Indivisible’s financial disclosures, grant award documentation from Open Society Foundations, and local organizer testimony about whether national support paid for communications, materials, or venue costs versus purely local volunteer efforts. Public grants records and IRS filings, plus contemporaneous reporting dated October 2025 and March 2026, will clarify whether the $7.61 million grants directly financed the No Kings events or instead supported broader organizational capacities [3] [1]. Those documents are the most direct route to resolving the fundraising-versus-grassroots question.
7. Bottom Line: Coalition Organizers with Documented Philanthropic Links and Open Questions
The factual record shows Indivisible and a constellation of allied groups led the No Kings protests publicly and emphasized nonviolent, decentralized national action, and reporting alleges substantial grants from the Open Society Foundations to Indivisible that may have funded campaign infrastructure [1] [2] [3]. The evidence provided does not conclusively prove that grant dollars were directly spent on individual events, leaving an important factual gap. Further verification requires grant-level accounting and organizer disclosures to determine the precise relationship between philanthropic funding and on-the-ground protest operations [3] [1].