Kai Cruz

May 8, 2026

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, free press, the right to freely protest, and to assemble peacefully. Throughout every era of progressives, the number of protesters it would take for peaceful assembly to affect policy has been debated by political scholars, elected officials, and protesters alike. American political scientist and professor Erica Chenoweth was the first to conclude that a number around 3.5% of Americans, if mobilized around the country, could lead to a successful movement overall. Since Donald Trump’s re-election in 2024, there has been a significant increase in protests across the nation, and the nation is beginning to wonder if this is the start of a new era—an era of change. The “No Kings” protests that have been continuing throughout the past year have been some of the largest protests in history—June 14th of 2025 had from 2 million to 4.8 million people attending protests nationwide—which raises the question of if we have reached the 3.5% threshold [1]. The recent start of a war in Iran has sparked some protests nationwide, including one here in Pittsburgh. Although recent examples of mass mobilization and possible achievement of the 3.5% threshold could lead to progress, it is more likely that the current systems of legal and non-violent protest cannot effectively change the agenda of the current administration.

The 3.5% concept was first introduced by Dr. Erica Chenoweth in her research on “nonviolent civil resistance.” [2]. Dr. Chenoweth’s research first began with 20th century protests across the world, mostly class warfare, which have led to significant progress in the rights of workers and the validity of strikes and unions. Protest and assembly has always been protected under the First Amendment, but more recently, there has been a surplus of marches and demonstrations against President Donald Trump and his handling of both domestic and international affairs. These non-violent protests have attracted millions of protesters to join, which Chenoweth argues could be successful, although factors such as “momentum, organization, strategic leadership, and sustainability” are better determinants of a movement’s overall success beyond just demonstration. Demonstrations and marches may be the least effective overall; some might describe that form of protest as “performative activism.” Boycotts and strikes, which are the focus of Chenoweth’s research, have proven to be more effective overall, because capitalist societies are more likely to notice when their profits being hurt than when 20,000 people march down a street with chants and signs. Mass mobilization with “No Kings” has largely been demonstrations and marches, while many of the protests related to Middle Eastern conflict or the war with Iran have led to boycotts, although the number of people who consistently boycott is significantly smaller than the millions of people showing up to march [3]. 

The American Civil Liberties Union has made it a main priority to outline the rights of protesters through their website and trainings, given the recent uptick in protests being organized across the nation. On their website, it currently has guidelines for organizing, attending, photographing or videoing, and posting on social media about protests [4]. “Traditional public forums” like parks, streets, and sidewalks tend to be the locations most utilized for protests because they are protected the strongest under the First Amendment. Protesters are allowed to photograph and video anything in plain view in these areas, including federal buildings and the police, if they are present [5]. This is especially useful footage to have if a protester believes their rights are violated by the police force during the protest [6]. However, when it comes to private property, vandalism, aggression towards officers, or other illegal actions, the rights of protesters are eliminated and law enforcement has the right to arrest or detain these people for their actions [7]. The question then becomes: if the right to protest is limited by the lawfulness of protesters’ actions, who is creating the laws that keep them in check? This imbalance of power keeps so-called “free” assembly legal, controlled, and kept to the status quo.

Modern protest in the United States is not simply protected by the state. Rather, it is actively managed and neutralized by it. The consequences of protest have already been shown on Pitt’s campus: Students for Justice for Palestine is an organization that has worked with the ACLU and other civil rights defense organizations in order to get their group reinstated after it was shut down in 2025 [8]. Their suspension was forced by the university after the activity of the group collaborated with other students on campus to write a letter condemning the actions of Pitt’s administration and their continued support of the war in Gaza [9]. College students are still at risk of facing legal action when protesting, and even though the university was sued and SJP was reinstated, this is a microcosm of the legality of protest [10]. When it comes to public demonstration/marches/strikes, there are certain areas a person can legally protest, whether with or without a permit. Specifically in California, a curfew was initiated to deter protests against Trump’s immigration policies back in 2025 [11]. These strategies to limit protest have been largely effective in combating true progress: although there may have been millions at “No Kings” protests throughout the past year, there have been very limited successes in the realm of counteracting Donald Trump’s agenda for his presidency.

This lack of efficiency is by design. More and more law enforcement groups have been armed with “military gear including armoured vehicles, helicopters and grenade launchers” [12]. Although police and law enforcement usually exist to defend protesters and keep the protests legal, things can very quickly shift if there is even the slightest miscommunication. The president has even encouraged the police to “dominate” protesters in the past [13]. This creates a clear power imbalance where the state can escalate force while protesters are legally constrained from doing the same. On the physical side of things, tanks, rubber bullets, tear gas, and other forms of countering peaceful protest have all been used against people during non-violent marches. The focus of law enforcement has moved from protection to control and keeping protesters in line [14]. The killings of Renée Good, Alex Pretti, and others further support this narrative, and while these stories may feel threatening to protesters, it underscores the urgency of taking action in local communities. To address this issue, federal and state governments should restrict the transfer and use of military-grade equipment by local law enforcement, particularly for civilian protests. Restricting access to armored vehicles, crowd-control weapons, and other militarized tools—alongside stricter national standards on the use of force, including limits on tear gas and rubber bullets—would reduce officers’ ability to escalate against non-violent demonstrations.

It is not just the structure of public marches and demonstrations that renders them unable to create real change in the modern day—it also has to do with advancements in technology that currently exist and have changed the landscape of mass protest. With the rise of surveillance throughout the nation, it makes protesting much more unsafe for certain demographics. The Supreme Court decision in Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo ruled that it was legal for ICE agents to stop or detain people based on factors like “apparent race or ethnicity,” language, accent, or workplace [15]. Protests are unequal in the way they are structured; a typical protest includes a demonstration or march through a public area, which usually garners the attention of police or other law enforcement. ICE’s ability to racially profile now makes it much easier for them to detain any protesters without an actual reason, which threatens the ability of minorities to participate in these types of protests [16]. Black and brown folks are marginalized in so many ways in this country, and protesting is another example of this, given that “thousands of people have been arrested and an untold number have been injured” since the George Floyd protests beginning in 2020 [17]. Protests about racial justice and racial minorities are also more at risk for police violence to occur against protesters [18]. Accessible ways of protesting for these communities may include social media or spreading word about these protests in other ways, but still limits the amount of mobilization that occurs. Social media’s impact on activism has not gone unnoticed, and has sparked debates of whether or not it is effective at truly contributing to the campaign of a protest. Posts that “raise awareness” of issues circulate and spread the word to other users, but allow those that repost or share to feel though they are helping in the only way they can. Using one’s platform as a form of protest is mostly safe, even in an era of mass surveillance, and may deter people from actually going out and mobilizing when they have the option to voice their opinion from the safety and comfort of their own homes [19]. Chenoweth’s basis for her theory is rooted in historical successes of non-violent protests—which were all accomplished without access to the Internet. 

In American history, Martin Luther King Jr. is taught more often than Malcolm X. There are more mentions of Abraham Lincoln working to free American slaves than mentions of John Brown. Each of these men were put to death for their beliefs, whether by the government killed them or they were assassinated by those who did not agree with their values. The idea that some people ought to be killed for their beliefs has clearly been a theme as long as this country has existed. Many would try to argue that there are justifications for violence, especially if a person’s community has routinely suffered at the hands of systemic violence and discrimination. Malcolm X speaks of this in “The Ballot or the Bullet”, a speech about how Black communities deserve to control their own politics and keep them in the hands of Black community members. Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton also spoke of how arming communities and preparing them to defend themselves in case they are attacked, which may be regarded as the opposite of non-violent. These examples of leaders are the kind that took action in their communities and didn’t just mobilize, but believed in a rhetoric that encouraged more than just marching along public streets. They stood for what they believed in, and ended up dying for it—a fate no one should have, but one that all true protesters must understand and be prepared for if they take more aggressive action. 

The persistence of large protests in America is not the problem—its containment is. As long as marches or demonstrations remain completely lawful and simplistic, they will continue to be seen rather than felt. The question is no longer how many people are willing to show up, but if those large numbers are willing to become disruptive and actively seek out change for the country. Without that shift, even the largest movements will remain visible and powerful in appearance, but ultimately insufficient at creating real progress.

Image Credits: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:No_Kings_Protest_Concord,_Massachusetts_October_18,_2025_a_15.jpg

Sources

[1] Delaney, Nora. 2025. “The 3.5% rule: Understanding what makes protest powerful.” Harvard Kennedy School. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/advocacy-social-movements/35-rule-understanding-what-makes-protest.

[2] Delaney, Nora. 2025. “The 3.5% rule: Understanding what makes protest powerful.” Harvard Kennedy School. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/advocacy-social-movements/35-rule-understanding-what-makes-protest.

[3] Ipsos. 2025. “Ipsos Data Drops: Americans say they’re boycotting brands.” Ipsos. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/ipsos-data-drops-americans-say-theyre-boycotting-brands.

[4] American Civil Liberties Union. 2026. “Protesters’ Rights | American Civil Liberties Union.” ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights#scenarios.

[5] American Civil Liberties Union. 2026. “Protesters’ Rights | American Civil Liberties Union.” ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights#scenarios.

[6] West, Darrell. 2025. “How technology is altering citizen protests.” Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-technology-is-altering-citizen-protests/.

[7] West, Darrell. 2025. “How technology is altering citizen protests.” Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-technology-is-altering-citizen-protests/. 

[8] American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. 2025. “ACLU of Pa. Sues Pitt on Behalf of Suspended Palestinian Rights Student Club.” ACLU of Pennsylvania. https://www.aclupa.org/press-releases/aclu-pa-sues-pitt-behalf-suspended-palestinian-rights-student-club/. 

[9] American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. 2025. “ACLU of Pa. Sues Pitt on Behalf of Suspended Palestinian Rights Student Club.” ACLU of Pennsylvania. https://www.aclupa.org/press-releases/aclu-pa-sues-pitt-behalf-suspended-palestinian-rights-student-club/. 

[10] Fadel, Leila, host. “Morning Edition.” NPR. 2025.

http://www.maximumfun.org/sawbones/sawbones-raw-water. 

[11] Kim, Min. 2025. “Los Angeles police swiftly enforce curfew as protests against Trump’s immigration crackdown continue.” PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/los-angeles-police-swiftly-enforce-curfew-as-protests-against-trumps-immigration-crackdown-continue. 

[12] Kommenda, Niko, and Ashley Kirk. 2020. “Why are some US police forces equipped like military units?” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/why-are-some-us-police-forces-equipped-like-military-units. 

[13] Kommenda, Niko, and Ashley Kirk. 2020. “Why are some US police forces equipped like military units?” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/why-are-some-us-police-forces-equipped-like-military-units. 

[14] Kommenda, Niko, and Ashley Kirk. 2020. “Why are some US police forces equipped like military units?” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/why-are-some-us-police-forces-equipped-like-military-units. 

[15] American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin. 2026. “Racial Profiling Rampant After Supreme Court Ruling.” ACLU of Wisconsin. https://www.aclu-wi.org/news/racial-profiling-rampant-after-supreme-court-ruling/. 

[16] Thompson, A.C., Gabrielle Schonder, and FRONTLINE. 2026. “Caught in the Crackdown: As Arrests at Anti-ICE Protests Piled Up, Prosecutions Crumbled.” ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/caught-in-crackdown-ice-cbp-doj-trump-arrests-convictions. 

[17] Kommenda, Niko, and Ashley Kirk. 2020. “Why are some US police forces equipped like military units?” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/why-are-some-us-police-forces-equipped-like-military-units. 

[18] Thurgood Marshall Institute. 2023. “Thurgood Marshall Institute’s Research Finds Racial Justice Protests More Likely to Have Police Violence.” Legal Defense Fund. https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/thurgood-marshall-institutes-research-finds-racial-justice-protests-more-likely-to-have-police-violence/#:~:text=Police%20were%20twice%20as%20likely,to%20non%2Dracial%20justice%20protests. 

[19] Dews, Fred. 2013. “Social Media-Driven Protests Have Large Bark but No Bite | Brookings.” Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/social-media-driven-protests-have-large-bark-but-no-bite/.