Donald Trump, ‘No Kings,’ and the ‘3.5 Percent Rule’

This is your TPM evening briefing.

, and

Oct 20, 2025

The ‘No Kings’ protests this weekend drew a massive, nationwide turnout. As I’m sure many are, I found myself wondering about the impact of these demonstrations and, more broadly, about the future for our country as it continues a speedrun into full-on authoritarianism. In conversations with friends and colleagues, I came across an academic theory that, I think, offers an interesting and productive rubric for analyzing mass protest.

The “3.5 Percent Rule” refers to the idea that no government has survived a challenge against it from a nonviolent mass movement that brought together at least 3.5 percent of the population during a “peak event.” This concept is largely based on research by Harvard Professor Erica Chenoweth who, along with Dr. Maria J. Stephan — an organizer and political scientist — created a dataset analyzing civil resistance and social movements from 1900 until 2006. When looking at that century of protest, Chenoweth was struck to see some clear trends.

Firstly, they determined that nonviolent protests were twice as likely to succeed in bringing about regime change as armed conflicts. Chenoweth also identified what she saw as a key threshold.

“There weren’t any campaigns that had failed after they had achieved 3.5% participation during a peak event,” Chenoweth told the BBC in 2019.

Based on her research, Chenoweth identified a few factors driving these findings. She believes nonviolent protests are more likely to attract a broad base of support since they are open to those who are not willing or able to physically fight. And it’s large-scale movements that are most likely to sway members of law enforcement and the military — a key milestone en route to ousting an authoritarian government — since they may be reluctant to participate in crackdowns if there’s a good chance their family or friends may be in the crowds.

“Or when they’re looking at the … numbers of people involved, they may just come to the conclusion the ship has sailed, and they don’t want to go down with the ship,” Chenoweth told the BBC, referencing law enforcement and troops.

So, where do the “No Kings” protests fit in to this rubric? Well, they were clearly, to borrow a Trumpism, huge. And, as our own Josh Marshall wrote earlier today, their patriotic, colonial branding and lack of detailed demands are all optimally designed to attract a broad base of support. “No Kings” also has a staunch, stated commitment to non-violence, which is listed as a “core principle” at the base of the group’s webpage. Some more radical elements of the left have chafed at this. Over on Instagram ahead of last weekend’s demonstrations, we saw some leftist groups in New York calling for “Anti Authoritarian blocs” to join the demonstrations and refuse to be “pacified and respectful.”

In the end, as the New Republic chronicled, there was almost no violence other than a few incidents where pro-MAGA agitators apparently targeted the crowds. And, according to the organizers, over seven million people participated in “No Kings” at over 2,700 events around the country.

That scope and nonviolence puts the demonstrations on strong footing in terms of the “3.5 percent rule.” Chenoweth has previously said the 2017 Women’s March was likely the largest demonstration in U.S. history and she has estimated that the main crowd for that event had about four million participants. “No Kings” was nearly twice that size and the seven million protesters are roughly two percent of the total population.

Still, it’s not quite 3.5 percent and there are a few other caveats. After her initial research and concepts gained mass appeal, Chenoweth has subsequently collected more data. There are a handful of movements — namely efforts to oppose the kings in Bahrain and Brunei — that were not included in her initial research and that largely failed despite crossing the threshold. However, Chenoweth has chalked that up to the “rare and unique national profiles” of those countries, which are “small monarchies with access to overwhelming foreign military reinforcement.” Still, Chenoweth has stressed “viewing the rule as a ‘rule of thumb’ rather than as an iron law.” Chenoweth has also noted “momentum” including the pace and sustenance of a given movement is another crucial factor. Finally, Chenoweth has emphasized the fact her principle is best applied to movements seeking regime change rather than more amorphous reform.

“No Kings” still has a ways to go before hitting 3.5 percent. It also has not necessarily specifically called for Trump’s ouster and is instead more of a declaration against his heavy-handed style of governance. However, participants and the broader anti-Trump movement can perhaps take heart in the principles of the “3.5 percent rule.” Based on some of the most prominent research on mass movements in political science, they are on the right track and, depending on how you count it, almost halfway there.

— Hunter Walker

More Racist GOP Group Chats

The man who President Trump appointed to lead the Office of Special Counsel sent racist texts about doing away with holidays that honor Black Americans and admitted he’s had “a Nazi streak” in his past, Politico reported Monday. Paul Ingrassia — who serves as the White House liaison for the Department of Homeland Security — is expected to have his Senate confirmation hearing for the position on Thursday. Earlier this month, new reporting alleged that this summer, Ingrassia arranged for a lower-ranking female colleague to have to share a hotel room with him.

Per Politico:

“MLK Jr. was the 1960s George Floyd and his ‘holiday’ should be ended and tossed into the seventh circle of hell where it belongs,” Ingrassia wrote in January 2024, according to the chat.
“Jesus Christ,” one participant responded.
Using an Italian slur for Black people, Ingrassia wrote a month earlier in the group chat seen by POLITICO: “No moulignon holidays … From kwanza [sic] to mlk jr day to black history month to Juneteenth,” then added: “Every single one needs to be eviscerated.”

— Nicole LaFond

Supreme Court Will Gets Its Crack at National Guard Deployments

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to stay the 7th Circuit’s ruling upholding the blocking of National Guard troops from Illinois.

Chicago, on a very tight turnaround, filed its response Monday evening. It pointed out, among other things, that it would be silly for the Supreme Court “to grant certiorari to review a 14-day [temporary restraining order] that has been partially stayed and that will expire, by its own terms, in three days.”

Still, the city’s arguments that there have been no significant circuit splits on the question got harder to make minutes after the reply hit the docket, as the 9th Circuit diverged with the 7th in allowing the Guard to deploy to Portland. A different panel on the 9th Circuit had previously allowed the Guard to deploy to Los Angeles.

— Kate Riga

Grijalva Lawsuit Around the Corner

The state of Arizona may soon sue House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to force him to swear Rep.-elect Adelina Grijalva (D-AZ) into office.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes confirmed on Saturday that her office will be filing a lawsuit against Johnson early this week.

“We’re not messing around,” Mayes told NBC affiliate 12News during a Saturday press conference. “The State of Arizona, as of today, is now officially without representation in the House of Representatives. We are one representative down, and that is unacceptable for our state.”

That comes after the Arizona attorney general’s office sent a letter to Johnson last week demanding Grijalva be “immediately sworn into office.”

“Failing to seat Ms. Grijalva immediately or to otherwise provide a reasonable explanation as to when she will be seated will prompt legal action,” the letter read.

Grijalva did not get sworn in during the several pro forma sessions the House held last week. House Democrats tried to get recognized to raise the issue on several occasions on the House floor but to no avail. And the Speaker has been insisting he will not swear Grijalva in until the House is back in session — which, from the way Johnson has been playing it, may not be until the ongoing government shutdown comes to end.

Grijalva won the special election to replace her late father Rep. Raúl Grijalva’s congressional seat about a month ago, but has yet been able to take office. Democrats claim the Speaker is delaying the process as Grijalva will be the last vote needed on the discharge petition to force a floor vote on releasing the Epstein files. Johnson previously swore in two Republicans during a pro forma session earlier this year.

— Emine Yücel