đźš« đź‘‘ The Case for Why “No Kings Day”
The Revolutionary Infrastructure Behind America’s Largest Coordinated Protests
A Critical Analysis of the No Kings Movement, Its Corporate Targets, and the Radical Network Funding the Resistance
March 2026
Key Highlights
- The “No Kings” movement mobilized an estimated five million participants across more than 2,100 cities on June 14, 2025. A seventh-million-participant iteration followed in October 2025. A third National Day of Action is scheduled for March 29, 2026.
- The movement’s seven primary boycott targets, Amazon, Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Nestle, General Mills, and McDonald’s, collectively employ approximately 4.9 million people worldwide and 4.2 million in the United States.
- A Fox News Digital investigation traced $278 million in documented funding to a single source: Neville Roy Singham, an American-born tech tycoon residing in Shanghai, with publicly declared alignment with President Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party.
- That funding flows through a five-layer transnational network of approximately 2,000 organizations. U.S. intelligence analysts have characterized the operation as “cognitive warfare”, the systematic manipulation of political perception through coordinated disinformation and manufactured grievance.
- The movement’s organizational and financial infrastructure is under active investigation by officials from the U.S. Departments of Justice, State, and Treasury.
- Forensic analysis of the movement’s financing, organizational lineage, and ideological genealogy reveals documented ties to Marxist-Leninist philosophy, CCP-aligned funding channels, and a strategy modeled on Maoist “People’s War” doctrine, exploiting domestic political contradictions to weaken American democratic institutions.
Let’s be precise about what the “No Kings” movement is. It is not a hashtag. It is not a spontaneous outpouring. It is one of the most organizationally sophisticated domestic mobilization campaigns in modern American history.
The June 14, 2025 protest drew an estimated five million participants. The October 18 iteration reportedly drew seven million across more than 2,500 events. A third national day of action is scheduled for March 29, 2026. Over 200 partner organizations are formally involved, including the ACLU, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Communications Workers of America.
The organizational spine is Indivisible, co-founded in 2016 by Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin in direct response to President Trump’s first election. It now operates through three legal entities: a 501(c)(4), a nonprofit, and a political action committee, with thousands of local chapters across every state.
I am not arguing the movement lacks genuine popular support. Seven million people is not a fiction. I am arguing that popular support and coordinated infrastructure are two different things — and that the infrastructure deserves scrutiny the coverage has not provided.
Follow the Money. Then Follow It Again.
In March 2026, Fox News Digital published an investigative series by senior editor Asra Q. Nomani tracing $278 million in documented funding to a single source: Neville Roy Singham, an American-born technology tycoon who founded the consultancy Thoughtworks, sold it for substantial profit, and now resides in Shanghai.
Singham and his wife, Jodie Evans, co-founder of CodePink Women for Peace, have built what investigators describe as a “Revolutionary Base”: a transnational network of approximately 2,000 organizations. The money flows through a five-layer structure: shell entities and a Goldman Sachs donor-advised fund (terminated February 2024) into six core nonprofits, then into 52 distribution organizations, then into regional networks spanning Sub-Saharan Africa and beyond.
In November 2025, Singham appeared at the Global South Academic Forum in Shanghai, co-sponsored by East China Normal University, an institution administered by the Communist Party of China. On video obtained by Fox News Digital, he openly declared alignment with “President Xi and CPC,” challenged Western accounts of World War II, and invoked the writings of Mao Zedong. The session closed with attendees standing at attention as “The Internationale” played.
Goldman Sachs terminated his fund. Three federal departments — Justice, State, and Treasury — are now investigating the network.
This is the man whose money is organizing the marches.
I. The Scale of the Movement: By the Numbers
The No Kings protests have evolved from a single-day event into what organizers describe as a ‘sustained national resistance.’ The quantitative scope is not in dispute.
The June 14, 2025 protest was timed deliberately to coincide with President Trump’s 79th birthday and the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary military parade. Organizers claimed over five million participants across more than 2,100 cities and towns in all 50 states. International solidarity demonstrations occurred concurrently in Germany, Portugal, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Czech Republic. The October 18, 2025 iteration, ‘No Kings 2’, reportedly drew seven million participants across more than 2,500 events, coinciding with a federal government shutdown and intensified immigration enforcement operations. A third iteration, ‘No Kings 3,’ is scheduled for March 29, 2026.
The coalition is formidable in its institutional breadth. The June 2025 protests were organized by over 200 partner organizations, including the ACLU, the American Federation of Teachers, MoveOn, Indivisible, Stand Up America, and the Communications Workers of America. The movement’s organizational spine is Indivisible, co-founded by Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin in 2016. It now encompasses thousands of local chapters operating under the Indivisible Project (501c4), Indivisible Civics (nonprofit), and Indivisible Action (PAC).
II. Corporate Targets: The Boycott Architecture
The No Kings movement has not confined itself to street demonstrations. In parallel, it has prosecuted an economic campaign against specific American corporations. The primary targets, Target, Amazon, and Home Depot, were selected under the banner of ‘We Ain’t Buying It,’ a boycott coalition active from Thanksgiving 2025 through early 2026. The table below summarizes those targeted companies, their stated offenses per organizers, and approximate employee headcounts.
| Company | Stated Grievance (Per Organizers) | Global Employees | U.S. Employees |
| Amazon | Funded administration for tax relief; anti-labor practices alleged | ~1,500,000 | ~950,000 |
| Target | Rollback of DEI programs supporting Black and LGBTQ+ employees | ~400,000 | ~400,000 |
| Home Depot | Alleged cooperation with ICE during immigration enforcement | ~465,000 | ~465,000 |
| Walmart | Anti-DEI narrative; corporate consolidation concerns | ~2,100,000 | ~1,600,000 |
| Nestlé | Corporate consolidation; exploitation of working-class consumers | ~275,000 | ~38,000 |
| General Mills | Coordinated Economic Blackout campaign targeting | ~33,000 | ~20,000 |
| McDonald’s | Symbol of consolidated corporate power; low-wage practices | ~150,000 (corp.) | ~800,000 (incl. franchises) |
| COMBINED TOTAL | ~4,923,000 | ~4,273,000 |
The aggregate figures are significant. The seven primary boycott targets collectively employ approximately 4.9 million people worldwide and over 4.2 million in the United States, roughly equivalent to the combined populations of Los Angeles and Chicago. These are not the employers of a ruling oligarchy. They are the employers of cashiers, warehouse workers, delivery drivers, and line cooks. The movement’s economic logic inverts its stated purpose: a purportedly pro-worker campaign systematically targets the businesses employing the largest concentrations of working-class Americans.
III. The Revolutionary Infrastructure: Follow the Money
The movement’s populist framing is not incidental, it is engineered. In early 2026, Fox News Digital published an investigative series revealing the transnational architecture behind it. Senior editor Asra Q. Nomani traced $278 million in documented funding to a single source: Neville Roy Singham, an American-born tech tycoon residing in Shanghai, and his wife, Jodie Evans, co-founder of CodePink Women for Peace.
Singham founded the technology consultancy Thoughtworks. He has used that wealth to construct what Fox News Digital describes as a ‘Revolutionary Base’, a transnational network of approximately 2,000 organizations with documented ideological alignment with the Chinese Communist Party’s geopolitical ambitions. The network’s architecture operates across five levels:
- Level 1: Shell Infrastructure: Singham allegedly routed tax-exempt funds through two apparent shell corporations and a donor-advised fund associated with Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs confirmed it terminated Singham’s fund in February 2024.
- Level 2: Core Nonprofits: $278 million flowed into six organizations, BreakThrough BT Media, CodePink, Justice and Education Fund Inc., People’s Forum Inc., People’s Support Foundation Ltd., and Tricontinental Ltd. Jodie Evans sits on the boards of several.
- Level 3: Distribution: Those core nonprofits disbursed approximately $163 million into 52 additional organizations across multiple geographic regions.
- Level 4: Regional Networks: A further $150 million flowed through 11 organizations into four nonprofit entities and five geographic regions, including $23 million to Sub-Saharan Africa.
- Level 5: The Broader Web: The 67 core groups partner with hundreds of organizations worldwide, creating a total network of approximately 2,000 entities, characterized by investigators as an ‘asymmetric propaganda machine.’
In November 2025, Singham appeared publicly at the Global South Academic Forum in Shanghai, co-sponsored by East China Normal University, an institution administered by the Communist Party of China. Video footage shows Singham expressing alignment with ‘President Xi and CPC,’ challenging the Western narrative of World War II, and invoking the writings of Mao Zedong. The session concluded with attendees standing at attention as ‘The Internationale’ played, fists raised. This is not the conduct of a disinterested philanthropist. It is the conduct of a committed ideologue with a $278 million deployment capacity.
IV. Mao’s Blueprint in Contemporary Disguise
To understand the No Kings movement’s strategic architecture, one must understand the Maoist doctrine of the ‘People’s War’, a framework Singham and Evans have not obscured but openly invoked. Mao’s doctrine emphasized long-term struggle through decentralized networks, ideological penetration of civilian institutions, and mass mobilization against a defined enemy class. Historically, that class was landowners and capitalists. In the contemporary American application, the targets are corporations, immigration enforcement, and ‘authoritarian’ political figures.
Xi Van Fleet, a Chinese American survivor of Mao’s Cultural Revolution and author of Made in America: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Enabled Communist China and Created Our Greatest Threat, offered a direct assessment to Fox News Digital: Singham and Evans are transporting ‘Mao’s dream for a People’s War’ into the 21st century, with the objective of undermining the United States and elevating China’s competitive position.
The structural alignment is not merely rhetorical. The No Kings movement exhibits the defining features of a People’s War apparatus: a centralized ideological command (Indivisible, People’s Forum), a dedicated propaganda wing (BreakThrough BT News), a mass mobilization network (2,000+ partner organizations), economic disruption campaigns (corporate boycotts), and a street-level cadre in all 50 states. The movement’s deliberate avoidance of Washington, D.C. during the June 14 parade, described by Indivisible co-director Leah Greenberg as a strategy ‘to create contrast, not conflict’, mirrors the Maoist principle of avoiding direct confrontation with concentrated state power while maximizing the spectacle of distributed civilian resistance.
V. The Gaslighting of the American Left
Well-meaning Americans who attend these protests deserve a candid assessment: they are, with genuine democratic intent, functioning as the ground-level operatives of a network whose architects hold their democratic values in contempt.
Consider the sincere participant. A retired schoolteacher in Arizona who protested in extreme heat because she believes in constitutional limits on executive power. A working parent in Philadelphia who marched because she is alarmed by immigration enforcement affecting her neighbors. These are not radicalized actors. They are citizens exercising what they understand to be their constitutional inheritance.
The apparatus mobilizing them, however, is not a civic institution in any conventional sense. According to a federal investigation now involving the Departments of Justice, State, and Treasury, it is a network engaged in what national security experts characterize as ‘cognitive warfare’, the systematic manipulation of political perceptions through coordinated disinformation, emotional appeals, and manufactured grievance. The deception operates across several dimensions:
- Narrative framing: Participants are told they defend democracy against a king. The organizations leading this mobilization have demonstrated contempt for American democratic institutions and alignment with authoritarian states, China, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Russia, none of which maintains a functioning democracy.
- Corporate misdirection: Participants are directed to boycott Amazon, Target, and Home Depot, the primary employers of the working class they claim to champion, while the movement’s billionaire financier sits in Shanghai expressing solidarity with the CCP.
- Historical manipulation: Singham’s published writings, distributed at CCP-sponsored conferences, diminish the sacrifice of American and British servicemen in World War II while elevating Soviet and Chinese contributions. This is a calculated inversion of the historical record, designed to erode American national identity.
- Institutional opacity: When approached for comment, People’s Forum executives characterized Fox News Digital reporters as ‘witch hunters’ and ‘terrorists.’ The organizations have not disputed the $278 million figure or the documented CCP connections. Their response has been silence, deflection, and accusations of McCarthyism.
A movement invoking democracy, constitutional fidelity, and anti-authoritarianism is being orchestrated by actors whose ideological framework has produced some of the most brutal anti-democratic governance in recorded history.
VI. The Broader Strategic Context
Treating the No Kings movement solely as a domestic political phenomenon would be analytically incomplete. Its transnational dimensions, protests coordinated across Europe, Latin America, and Africa through Indivisible Abroad, reflect strategic objectives that transcend any single administration’s policies.
Mao’s On Protracted War held that sustained civilian mobilization against a dominant power requires the continuous identification and amplification of internal contradictions within the target society. In the American context, those contradictions include racial inequality, income stratification, immigration enforcement tensions, and political polarization, all of which feature prominently in the No Kings movement’s messaging.
The Chinese Communist Party has pursued a strategy of amplifying domestic fissures through what U.S. intelligence agencies characterize as ‘cognitive domain operations’, the deliberate injection of divisive content into social media ecosystems, the funding of advocacy organizations whose messaging aligns with CCP geopolitical interests, and the cultivation of influential American voices who advance narratives favorable to Beijing’s positioning. Against this backdrop, the revelation that Singham, a man who publicly proclaims alignment with Xi Jinping, dismisses the deaths of American servicemen in World War II, and has channeled $278 million into a domestic agitation network, is a primary financier of the No Kings ecosystem is not a footnote. It is the headline.
VII. A Note on Intellectual Responsibility
This analysis does not dismiss every concern raised by No Kings participants. Questions about executive overreach, the constitutional limits of presidential authority, and the civil liberties implications of immigration enforcement are legitimate subjects of democratic deliberation. Reasonable citizens across the political spectrum hold sincere and defensible views on these matters.
Nor does the presence of malevolent actors in the movement’s financial infrastructure automatically invalidate the convictions of every individual participant. History is replete with examples of genuine popular sentiment being channeled and redirected by ideological operators whose ultimate objectives diverge sharply from those of the people they mobilize.
Intellectual responsibility, however, demands that citizens who care about American democracy ask harder questions of the institutions soliciting their time, their purchasing abstentions, and their civic energy. Who funds the organization that organized this rally? What is the documented ideological orientation of its principal benefactors? Does the stated mission of this movement align with the actual strategic objectives of its architects? In the case of No Kings, the answers to those questions warrant serious pause.
Conclusion
The No Kings movement arrives at a consequential moment in American political life. Its organizational sophistication, financial resources, and mass mobilization capacity are real and merit serious attention, precisely because they are being deployed in service of objectives bearing no relationship to the democratic values its participants hold.
The movement’s primary boycott targets collectively employ nearly five million Americans, the overwhelming majority of them working-class. Its financial architecture traces to a Shanghai-based ideologue who has publicly declared support for the Chinese Communist Party and commitment to a Maoist People’s War against the United States. Its organizational spine is under active federal investigation by three departments.
When millions of Americans take to the streets on March 29, 2026, they will believe they are defending the republic. What intellectual honesty requires they be told is this: the republic they believe they are defending is not the republic their organizers are working to build. No kings, perhaps. But in their place, something far more calculated, and far more dangerous.
Sources & References
Fox News Digital, “Power Couple of Chaos: How a Tycoon and Activist Built a ‘Revolutionary Base’ at the House of Singham,” Asra Q. Nomani, March 23, 2026. | Wikipedia, “June 2025 No Kings Protests.” | Wikipedia, “Economic Blackout.” | Newsweek, “‘No Kings’ Launches Anti-ICE Thanksgiving Boycott Protest,” November 2025. | NPR, “No Kings Anti-Trump Protests Attract Millions,” June 14, 2025. | Indivisible.org, official organizational announcements. | WHYY, “Philadelphia No Kings Protest 2026.” | Axios, “No Kings Anti-Trump Protests,” June 14, 2025. | NoKings.org, official movement website.
Nicole Slavitt is the founder of the Palm Beach Financial Journal, an independent outlet. This article draws on the investigative reporting of Asra Q. Nomani (Fox News Digital, March 23, 2026), public records, and the author’s independent research.
Sources: Fox News Digital · NPR · Newsweek · Axios · Wikipedia · Indivisible.org · NoKings.org