Nationwide 'No Kings' Protests Set for October 18 Amid Rising GOP Concerns Over Radical Leftwing Violence
On Saturday, October 18, 2025, a series of “No Kings” protests are scheduled across the United States, with organizers projecting participation in the millions. The movement claims to oppose what its participants describe as authoritarian tendencies within the administration. However, Republican leaders have sharply criticized the movement, calling it a “hate-America rally” and alleging it is being exploited by Democrats for political purposes and by radical left-wing elements seeking to foment violence.
The “No Kings” movement, which first gained national attention in June 2025, has now organized over 2,500 events nationwide, including major gatherings in Houston, Cleveland, and Salt Lake City. Participants have said they will voice opposition to issues such as immigration enforcement policies, alleged overreach by federal agencies, and perceived erosion of civil liberties. In Houston, the main march is slated to begin at 2 p.m. from City Hall, with satellite events in surrounding areas like Conroe and The Woodlands (Houston Chronicle).
Republican leaders have responded with strong rhetoric. Senator Ted Cruz has alleged that the protests are financially backed by left-wing donors, including George Soros, and has introduced legislation to apply the RICO Act to prosecute organizers or funders (Chron). Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called the protests “the most unhinged in the Democratic Party,” while House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested that participants could include pro-Hamas supporters and Antifa members (The New Republic).
Organizers, for their part, insist the protests will remain peaceful and represent a legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. They argue that citizens are simply holding their government accountable and defending democratic principles. The movement has also expressed concerns about potential provocations from outside agitators or law enforcement (NOTUS).
The Backdrop of Escalating Political
The specter of violence looms large over these coordinated protests, particularly following a year marked by high-profile acts of political assassination and a concerning rise in ideologically-motivated attacks.
Political Assassinations: The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, while speaking at Utah Valley University, has been widely attributed to an individual who had expressed increasing anger over Kirk's beliefs. Tyler James Robinson, aged 22, is the individual accused of fatally shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025. He was in a romantic relationship with his transgender roommate, Lance Twiggs. According to Utah Governor Spencer Cox, Robinson's partner was transitioning from male to female at the time of the incidentRaised in Washington, Utah, Robinson was the eldest of three brothers in a family with strong conservative values. His mother, a social worker, and his father, a business owner, are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Family members have stated that Robinson had become more politically active and had expressed left-wing views in recent years, which contrasted with his family's conservative beliefs. At the time of the incident, Robinson was a third-year student in the electrical apprenticeship program at Dixie Technical College in St. George, Utah. He had previously enrolled at Utah State University but dropped out after one semester. Robinson had no known criminal record prior to the shooting.Robinson has been charged with aggravated murder (capital murder), felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and committing a violent offense in the presence of a child. Prosecutors have announced they will seek the death penalty. These are state felony charges under Utah law. The federal government and other institutions have taken actions tied to the countrywide reaction (for example, U.S. officials reportedly revoked visas for some foreigners who celebrated or mocked the killing on social media). There have also been disciplinary actions against sports and military employees who posted celebratory or threatening content online.
This murder—coming months after the June assassination of Minnesota Democratic state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband—has been cited by the White House and top advisers as evidence of a burgeoning “radical left political violence” movement that is targeting high-profile figures. The severity of these targeted attacks signals a dangerous shift in the political landscape.
School Shootings and Extremism: Recent attacks on schools and public spaces have also involved perpetrators whose online histories suggest an alignment with nihilistic or anti-social left-leaning ideologies. These individuals, often drawn to online spaces that glorify violence and chaos, may not subscribe to a coherent political party but use anti-establishment or anarchist rhetoric to justify mass destruction. Federal law enforcement is increasingly tracking this "nihilistic violent extremism" (NVE) as a threat that converges anti-social behavior with political radicalization, resulting in indiscriminate violence against the public. In the case of Robin Westman, the 23-year-old transgender woman who carried out the Annunciation Catholic School shooting in Minneapolis, reports indicate that she had expressed disillusionment with her gender identity and had a history of mental health issues. Investigators discovered a manifesto and videos revealing deep-seated hatred toward various groups, including references to mass shooters and disturbing messages on firearms.
The 'No Kings' Premise: A Flawed Justification for Riot?
Republican critics argue that the very name of the movement, “No Kings,” is a nonsensical justification being used to mask a deeper, anti-American sentiment aimed at chaos.
The premise that the protests are necessary to oppose an "authoritarian King" is fundamentally undermined by the actions and statements of President Trump himself. After a February 2025 social media post where he used the phrase "LONG LIVE THE KING" in jest regarding a policy victory, the President immediately faced sharp criticism and later denounced the idea of being a monarch, explicitly stating the U.S. is "a nation of laws, not ruled by a king." By organizing a movement around a premise the President has disavowed, critics suggest organizers are either willfully misrepresenting the political reality or seeking to exploit anti-government rhetoric regardless of its factual basis, thereby encouraging actions—such as rioting and property destruction—that transcend legitimate political dissent.
Antifa and the Exploitation of Ethnic Tension
The pattern of organized left-wing escalation is further complicated by the alleged involvement of Antifa and its intersection with protests over immigration policy.
Historical Escalation: Past left-leaning demonstrations—including the 2020–2021 racial unrest, which resulted in billions of dollars in property damage, and the WUO bombings of the 1960s and 70s—demonstrate how radical elements prioritize destruction over political reform.
Antifa and Ideological Overlap: Antifa, with its core anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist worldview, provides the militant framework often seen at the point of escalation. In cities like Houston and Los Angeles, the fight against federal immigration enforcement has been alleged by authorities to be exploited by these groups. During recent Border Patrol and ICE operations, some rioters—including individuals from the Mexican-American community protesting enforcement—have adopted the confrontational, property-targeting tactics of militant anti-fascist or anarchist cells, leading to arrests for attacking federal officers with projectiles. This convergence allows organized agitators to weaponize genuine community grievances for the purpose of initiating street battles and civil disorder.
As the nation prepares for what could be one of the largest coordinated series of protests in recent history, the central debate remains how to balance free expression with public safety in an era of heightened political violence. The “No Kings” movement faces the challenge of proving its peaceful intent while simultaneously navigating the historical tendencies of its radical fringes to repeat destructive patterns.
The Threat Beyond Words.
While Steele emphasizes First Amendment rights, it is important to recognize the balance between free expression and public safety. Extremist factions within the “No Kings” movement—whether Antifa members, radical leftists, or other opportunistic actors—pose risks that extend beyond mere rhetoric. Law enforcement and public safety agencies have highlighted the potential for targeted harassment, property damage, and even attacks on political figures. Ignoring these possibilities in favor of a narrative that frames all participants as defenders of freedom is misleading and potentially dangerous.
Questionable Messaging and Historical Revisionism.
Steele’s article implies a moral equivalence between the colonists fighting British tyranny and modern protestors opposing Trump-era policies. However, such analogies oversimplify the context: the American Revolution involved organized, strategic, and largely decentralized efforts to defend tangible rights under an oppressive colonial system. In contrast, the “No Kings” protests risk being co-opted by extremist groups whose goals may not align with constitutional governance but instead with radical political change, chaos, or disruption of lawful processes.
The Missing Voices in the Debate.
Steele criticizes Republicans for not speaking up in the way former Democratic leaders have. But this framing ignores the presence of millions of Americans who support the GOP for legitimate reasons—policy, governance philosophy, economic principles—not personal loyalty to any one figure. By portraying one side as authoritarian and the other as heroic, the article minimizes the complexity of the political landscape and dismisses the real concerns over civil order, extremism, and the safety of both participants and the public.
Conclusion: Vigilance Over Rhetoric.
Civic engagement is a cornerstone of democracy, but so is prudence. Americans have a right to protest, but historical evidence and current intelligence indicate that large-scale left-wing demonstrations often carry risks beyond peaceful assembly. The “No Kings” protests, while framed as a moral stand against authoritarianism, must be examined through a lens of public safety, political coordination, and ideological extremism. To ignore these factors is to risk being blindsided by the consequences of radicalized political action.
