The “No Kings” movement, a series of escalating protests beginning in June 2025, presented itself as a spontaneous uprising. But beneath the surface of grassroots energy lay a meticulously constructed network, fueled by substantial financial backing and a surprisingly cohesive ideology.
Initial appearances suggested a broad coalition of over 270 organizations and countless volunteers. However, investigations revealed a far more structured operation, one with deep roots in established progressive circles and, unexpectedly, a complex web of international funding.
The movement’s origins can be traced back to “50501” – 50 protests across 50 states – spearheaded by Indivisible and a coalition of over 200 groups. These included familiar names like the ACLU, the American Federation of Teachers, and MoveOn, all united under a banner of resistance.
Indivisible, founded by former congressional aides Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin, quickly became a central force. Their organization was born from the aftermath of the 2016 election, fueled by a viral online guide detailing strategies for opposing a new administration.
The financial lifeline for Indivisible, and by extension, the burgeoning “No Kings” movement, proved to be remarkably consistent. Between 2017 and 2023, the Open Society Foundations, established by George Soros, channeled $7.61 million into the organization, including a significant $3 million grant in 2023.
The connections deepened further. Tom Perriello, who once employed Greenberg as an aide, later served as executive director of the Open Society Foundations. An Indivisible board member simultaneously held a position on the OSF board, blurring the lines between organizations.
Beyond the Soros network, substantial funding arrived from Tides Advocacy and through donors connected to Democracy Alliance, a network managed by Arabella Advisors. A staggering $6 million flowed into Indivisible in its early years, laying the groundwork for larger-scale actions.
A broader investigation revealed a network of approximately 500 groups, boasting a combined annual revenue of $3 billion, actively supporting the “No Kings” protests. Disturbingly, this network included organizations openly advocating for revolutionary change.
The October 2025 coalition read like a who’s who of progressive activism: the ACLU, Democratic Socialists of America, Planned Parenthood, and many more. A million-dollar advertising campaign, funded by a nonprofit and advised by a prominent attorney, amplified the movement’s message across the nation.
However, the most unsettling revelations centered on the involvement of Neville Roy Singham, an American tech tycoon residing in Shanghai, and his unwavering commitment to communist ideology. After selling his IT company for $785 million, Singham began directing vast sums towards activist groups.
Singham’s ties to Chinese state media were undeniable. Accounts linked to the Chinese government repeatedly amplified messages from his network, raising serious questions about foreign influence. He financed organizations like the People’s Forum, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and CodePink, often through opaque financial channels.
These groups, deeply intertwined with the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, had orchestrated over 300 protests in the past decade, including demonstrations in support of the Cuban regime. A clear pattern emerged: a rapid response to events, amplified by Singham-funded media outlets like BreakThrough News and Tricontinental.
The messaging employed by the network echoed Singham’s own rhetoric, portraying the United States as a fascist state and drawing heavily on the revolutionary doctrines of Mao Zedong. The goal wasn’t simply protest, but the radicalization of broader political struggles from within.
In the days leading up to the March 2026 protests, socialist networks openly discussed turning demonstrations into “long-term gains for the people’s movement.” Activists from the Party for Socialism and Liberation distributed signs explicitly identifying their affiliation at the state capitol.
The presence of organizations aligned with communist movements in the Philippines and the display of Soviet symbolism further underscored the ideological undercurrents driving the “No Kings” movement. It was a carefully orchestrated effort, far removed from the spontaneous uprising it claimed to be.
