According to most media reports, the June 14, 2025 "No Kings" demonstrations may have crossed the 3.5% mobilization threshold that predicts the possibility for major social upheaval. The explosion of millions of participants across the country would seem to have reached Erica Chenoweth's famous mobilization number. However, less well-known than the 3.5% figure is Chenoweth's more complex argument about both the lead-up to this turning point and what follows once it is reached.
Harvard's Chenoweth is one of the country's most distinguished political scientists. In books such as Why Civil Resistance Works, she argues that nonviolent civil resistance is more effective than violent efforts and that for nonviolent resistance to succeed, mass mobilization of at least 3.5% of the population is required.
Chenoweth also points out that sheer numbers in the street are only a precondition for major political change. Three additional factors are essential for accomplishing this change: first, recruitment of a significant portion of the current regime's support base (RECRUITMENT); second, adaptive and innovative tactics that, while disruptive, are mass-based and can include strikes, boycotts, and elections (MASS ACTIONS); and third, maintenance of message and organizational discipline over time and in the face of repression (DISCIPLINE).
We know that the momentum of large mass demonstrations is difficult to maintain. Anger in the streets can fade and depends on the outrage of the moment, which in turn depends on media focus. With a president like Trump, who creates acts of outrage almost daily, today's demonstration about immigration may be undercut by tomorrow's war or economic disaster.
This means that these three additional factors emphasized by Chenoweth must be taken seriously by those of us resisting Trump. Most importantly, there must be organizations that can appeal to some Trump supporters, that have the resources to mobilize large numbers of people in strikes, boycotts, or elections, and that can maintain message and organizational discipline over time and in the face of changing political events. Few organizations can provide these kinds of resources on a national basis, thus only three come to mind.
The Democratic Party
The first and most obvious organization with the potential to meet Chenoweth's criteria for effectiveness is the Democratic Party. In the area of RECRUITMENT, the Democratic Party has in the past successfully appealed to a significant number of working-class voters currently attracted to Trump. However, as it became dependent on corporate funding, the Democrats have moved away from the most obvious form of this appeal: economic populism. Far from being able to recruit members of the Trump coalition, the Democratic Party is losing working-class voters because of its fear of alienating the billionaires on whom it depends for much of its funding.
MASS ACTIONS is potentially the greatest source of strength for the Democratic Party. With its presence in nearly every city across the country and paid staff available to coordinate both local and national electoral battles, the party could play a major role in consolidating and directing the anger in the streets. But this would require overcoming its reluctance to speak economic populism to working-class voters.
DISCIPLINE in messaging and tactics is the final source of weakness for the Democrats. As Will Rogers said in the 1930s, if you are a Democrat, you are not a member of any organized political party. What was true in the 1930s is even more so today. While much of the economic foundation of the party has been captured by financial elites, its focus on identity politics has left working-class voters lost and confused about where their needs are served in debates over pronoun use.
None of these weaknesses make the Democratic Party irrelevant, but the solutions to its weakness will have to come from outside pressure. If pressure from people in the street were to create a more effective RECRUITMENT message or force greater DISCIPLINE on the party's messaging, its MASS ACTION strength could become an essential tool. In the meantime, the Democratic Party is more likely to be a product of rather than a force for effective mobilization.
Churches
The second potential source of Chenoweth's three criteria for mobilization are religious organizations. It was no accident that the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s originated in and was promoted by African American churches. Churches with their base in universalistic ideology have the potential to provide a RECRUITMENT message that could strip away support for Trump. The problem is that churches progressive enough to make this kind of appeal are too small, while those large enough are too conservative. The Unitarian church, for example, is very progressive in opposing all of Trump's attacks on vulnerable communities, but it is comparatively small. The Catholic Church is large enough to effectively spread an ideology of Christian compassion for immigrants, but it is ambivalent about Trump's attacks on abortion and LGBTQ+ communities.
Because of its size, the most obvious source for MASS ACTIONS is the Catholic Church. With churches spread throughout the country and particularly extensive presence in immigrant communities, the church could build a mass organization that could resist immigrant roundups. However, the hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church and its ideological ambivalence undermine its role in this area. Thus, it is more likely that a few priests or nuns might take up this struggle against particular raids in particular communities, but Catholic clergy as a whole are unlikely to lead broader opposition to Trump's other actions.
Religious involvement would seem to be a strong source of message and tactical DISCIPLINE. The moral clarity of religious participation could keep some of the more extreme responses under control. Replacing the sight of burning taxis on the news with shots of priests or nuns being arrested for protecting an immigrant family is a powerful antidote to tactical immaturity. The problem again is that this is most likely to be the actions of a few individual religious leaders rather than part of a nationwide organizational effort.
Organized Labor
For me, the only organization that has all the elements to effectively meet Chenoweth's criteria is the Labor Movement. The Labor Movement has the intrinsic ability to appeal to the working class that too many Democrats have abandoned to the Republicans. RECRUITMENT is one of labor's strong points when it comes to knowing how to speak to large numbers of working-class Americans currently seduced by Trump's attacks on liberal elites. Unions are currently one of the most trusted and respected institutions in the country according to polls and are especially effective in pushing back against the billionaire class and economic inequality. The Labor Movement's ability to draw focus away from "criminal" immigrants to hardworking immigrant union members who share everything with the majority of Americans except their citizenship status could be a major source of RECRUITMENT of some Trump supporters.
When it comes to MASS ACTIONS, the Labor Movement is a proven expert. Public collective actions like strikes, boycotts, and picket lines are the main source of labor's power. We even hear rumblings from some labor leaders about the possibility of calling for a "general strike" in the struggle against Trump. While the Labor Movement is skilled in the local use of these mass actions, it has been a long time since that has been true at the national level.
Labor is deeply skilled at mass action tactics, but its organizational strength at the national level has been hammered by attacks from billionaires and their supporters in the Democratic Party. This external attack on Labor has been further limited internally by business unionism that focuses narrowly on the economic needs of current union members, downplaying the need for greater efforts to organize the unorganized and fight for the common good. However, with Labor at the center of a national resistance to Trump, it can help reinvigorate its national presence while attracting a new generation of young idealistic people to its ranks. That is, by adding its expertise in mass action to the upsurge in the streets, it can put the MOVEMENT back into LABOR.
Finally, Labor's contribution to organizational and tactical DISCIPLINE is another strong point. With Labor in the lead, the message to the public is that we are struggling to protect all working people in this country. The use of strikes and boycotts led by Labor are intrinsically nonviolent and are more likely to draw support from the public. Labor staff and the broad ranks of its members are skilled in leading demonstrations and know how to effectively sideline those looking for violence. Moreover, Labor has enough money and staff resources to keep momentum from fading once a demonstration is over. While the centralization of Labor can be a disadvantage, it can also be an advantage in maintaining discipline in mobilization. There are Labor leaders like Shawn Fain who are both charismatic and at the center of organizational networks who can continually mobilize demonstrations and keep them focused in the most productive manner.
Conclusion
The irony is that with Labor in the lead, many of the weaknesses I have just identified in the Democratic Party and religious organizations can be overcome. The Labor Movement can teach the Democratic Party to again learn to speak to working-class people. With the legitimacy that the Labor Movement holds with most Americans and with the discipline it can provide tactically, more religious leaders may be willing to speak out and show up to support strikes and boycotts.
In turn, a Labor Movement at the head of popular resistance against Trump's authoritarianism can rediscover its roots in popular struggles for ALL working people. This can be the first move toward a larger organizing drive to represent workers in corporations like Amazon and Walmart. Helping to elect progressive politicians must be part of this movement if we are to end Trump's reign of terror, but there is a reciprocal obligation on politicians to support Labor as it struggles to organize the unorganized.
It was leftist organizers in the 1930s who provided the boots on the ground for the last upsurge of labor organizing. By tying itself to and helping to create a popular resistance, Labor can again attract such ideologically motivated young people. In other words, saving this country from Trump's authoritarianism may be a huge step in reinvigorating a PROGRESSIVE fighting Labor Movement.
Gregg Robinson is a long-time activist, retired Grossmont College Sociology professor, San Diego County Board of Education member, and a member of the AFT Guild, Local 1931 Retiree Chapter.