Federalist Radio Hour
Episode: "The Money Behind The Left’s ‘No Kings’ Movement"
Date: March 31, 2026
Host: Matt Kittle (Senior Elections Correspondent, The Federalist)
Guest: Parker Thayer (Investigative Researcher, Capital Research Center)

Episode Overview

This episode delves into the organizational and financial underpinnings of the “No Kings” movement, a recent series of left-leaning protest actions. Host Matt Kittle and guest Parker Thayer discuss who’s funding these demonstrations, the true nature of their organization, why their crowds look the way they do, and the movement’s actual impact on politics and public perception. Together, they unpack the complex web of left-wing nonprofit funding—with a sharp focus on Indivisible and connected networks—while offering candid commentary on the effectiveness and authenticity of these protests.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Is the ‘No Kings’ Movement?

• The “No Kings” protests lack a coherent, specific goal, morphing from general anti-conservative, anti-Trump messaging into a vague anti-authoritarian (and sometimes anti-war) stance.
• Rather than a true grassroots surge, the movement is described as “political theater” dominated by older activists and organized by professional progressive networks.

Notable Quote

“No Kings has no clear goal. They don’t like Kings and they all protest about it. Except, I mean, ironically, one of the things that they protest mainly over... was the removal of Kings.” – Parker Thayer (04:04)

2. Who’s Behind the Movement?

• Indivisible operates as the central organizing affiliate for “No Kings,” with Mitch Greenberg and Ezra Levin as key figures.
• This network is part of what’s been dubbed the “protest industrial complex” or “megaphone philanthropy,” meaning professional activism funded by nonprofit structures.
• Hundreds of allied nonprofits, PACS, for-profit outfits, and donor-advised funds participate, making tracing exact financial sources complex.
• Crowd demographics: Predominantly Baby Boomers—few young activists, unlike 2020, and often lacking visible enthusiasm.

Notable Quote

“No Kings is kind of an amalgamation of all the left-leaning activism groups in the country, kind of all screaming in rage all at the same time... I think the most clear group behind it is a group called Indivisible.” – Parker Thayer (06:15)

3. Astroturf vs. Genuine Grassroots

• Many protesters are paid organizers, but a significant portion are simply older activists with “nothing better to do”—not a genuine mass movement.
• The majority of current protests are non-violent, with little traction among young people, and minimal public resonance.
• These actions are described as “Astroturf,” meaning highly manufactured rather than spontaneous or widespread.

Memorable Moment

“For them, protesting is a free source of entertainment... This is essentially just a retirement home outing.” – Parker Thayer (27:20)

4. Money Flows and Donor Networks

• Funding is routed through donor-advised funds (DAFs), making exact origins difficult to trace.
• A broad spectrum of progressive megadonors (“many Soroses”) participate, including: Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, Sandler Foundation, Schmidt Family Foundation (Google’s Eric Schmidt), Merle Chambers Fund, Tides Foundation, and Barbara Picower’s organizations, among others.
• These systems allow for anonymity and delayed disclosure, often years after the money has been disbursed.

Notable Quote

“The left has many Soroses. They have many people who are funding all the same stuff as him, who have just as much money as him, probably more, who are also funding these things.” – Parker Thayer (16:21)

• Funding often isn’t solely for “No Kings,” but for a network of allied activist projects, making attribution difficult.

5. Protest as Data Collection and GOTV (Get Out the Vote) Engine

• Core function of many such events is to funnel protesters’ data (phone numbers, emails, addresses) into voter registration and turnout pipelines—a major factor in Democratic campaign strategies.
• Events double as list-building and mobilization activities, especially for lower-propensity voters (though “No Kings” is skewing older than intended).

Notable Quote

“The no Kings movement seems heavily focused on, shall we say, data collection. When you sign up for your no Kings protests, you hand in your phone number and you tell them you know, your address and, etc... to make sure that you’re registered to vote. And if you’re not, they’re going to harass you until you do.” – Parker Thayer (31:08)

6. Impact, Effectiveness, and Media Portrayal

• Actual crowd size and enthusiasm are often exaggerated by friendly media, and sometimes boosted by “AI manipulation.”
• The movement is described as predominately about optics and PR (rather than effective, galvanizing activism).
• As the 2026 midterms approach, hosts expect the left’s tactics to become even more theatrical, but doubt their authenticity and impact.

Notable Quotes

“No Kings ends up being basically a PR operation. And this is why they’re so insistent on the size of the crowds. They’re so insistent that this is the biggest protest ever to happen, even though it’s just... a whole bunch of very small protests happening at a thousand different locations.” – Parker Thayer (33:27)

“My guess is they get more shrill. They get more, more obviously astroturf. They get more obviously artificial.” – Parker Thayer (35:10)

7. Predictions and Satire

• Hosts banter about the likelihood of ever-more desperate or absurd tactics from the left as public enthusiasm wanes.
• Questioning whether the movement might soon “jump the shark,” referencing pop culture.
• Satirical speculation about “No Kings” being a boon to the Cat Sitters Union due to the average protester profile.
  “Maybe that’s what this is. Maybe no Kings is just an operation by the Cat Sitters Union of America to try to beef up their own business.” (35:24)

Important Timestamps

• [03:51] – What the “No Kings” protests are and who is behind them.
• [06:15] – Indivisible’s role and how the protest network operates.
• [08:45] – Breakdown of protest demographics (mostly older participants).
• [10:19] – Comparison to the 2020 “Summer of Love” and differences in activism.
• [15:23] – On media coverage, actual crowd sizes, and the use of technology to exaggerate support.
• [16:09, 20:13, 22:08] – Details on key donors, including Soros, Schmidt, Sandler, and others.
• [25:39] – Pay-for-protest industry and the dynamics of professional organizing.
• [29:36] – Parallels to earlier Democratic organizing (e.g., Barack Obama as a community organizer).
• [31:08] – The movement’s main purpose as a voter data-gathering and turnout machine.
• [33:27] – The PR nature of the movement and diminishing returns.
• [37:40] – The prediction of increasingly desperate and theatrical tactics leading to the 2026 midterms.
• [41:06] – Satirical “consulting” on leftist protest strategies.

Tone and Commentary

Both Kittle and Thayer are sharply critical, often sarcastic, toward left-wing activism. Their commentary is openly skeptical about the grassroots nature of “No Kings,” painting it as a top-down PR operation by professional activists and big donors. The language is direct, occasionally humorous, and frequently alludes to pop culture and political history.

Selected Notable Quotes

• On the Movement’s Identity:
  “It is very much Astroturf. And they’re relying upon essentially people who don’t have anything better to do.” – Parker Thayer (11:34)

• On Soros and Anonymous Donors:
  “Everyone is funding no Kings in some way or another, which makes it very hard to trace what actually is being spent on this protest.” – Parker Thayer (18:45)

• On Protest as Entertainment:
  “For them, it’s—this is free bowling night. Except instead of bowling, you go and you stand around and wave signs at things.” – Parker Thayer (27:50)

• On Astroturf vs. Grassroots:
  “It’s not quite that... it’s also not anything near what the media insisted is that this is all some organic protest movement that just emerged from the ashes of people’s tears and spoiled hopes because, you know, Trump is so evil.” – Parker Thayer (28:13)

Conclusion:

The episode offers a critical, at times sardonic, look at how the “No Kings” movement is built and funded—not as a spontaneous uprising, but as a professional, top-down campaign marshalling institutional money and organizers. Thayer emphasizes the chronic lack of genuine enthusiasm, the difficulty in tracking donor flows due to nonprofit opacity, and the likely diminishing impact of such efforts as the left seeks to recapture momentum for the 2026 midterms. The hosts close with predictions that these tactics will only become more theatrical and artificial, while poking fun at the movement’s lack of authenticity and originality.