Indivisible organizers on a March planning call said the group is committed to non-violence for now, but that stance might change, and they are gearing up beyond rallies for wider action around the March 28 No Kings protests.
On a March 6 virtual planning session labeled a “No Kings Best Practices Share-Out,” a lead organizer, Kara Kelly, framed the group’s immediate posture as one of restraint while hinting at flexibility down the road. “Back up and think about what your objectives are for these rallies, and I thought of ‘non-violence first,” Kara Kelly told a “No Kings Best Practices Share-Out” virtual call on March 6. Her phrasing left open the possibility that tactics could shift depending on circumstances.
That comment came as Indivisible and allied groups prepare a third No Kings day of demonstrations set for March 28. Organizers framed the rallies as recruitment and mobilization tools, not an end in themselves, and they described follow-up activities they intend to build into local infrastructure. The group’s strategy, as discussed on the call, treats visible public events as entry points for deeper organizing.
Near the first embed, Kelly emphasized non-violence as a starting point but warned that perseverance might lead to escalations later. The exchange is striking because it contrasts with Indivisible’s public commitment to peaceful tactics and shows internal planning that prioritizes growth and readiness more than a strict, unchanging pledge to non-violence.
Indivisible’s public materials still state clear principles about protests. “We are firmly committed to non-violence. That’s not just a moral stance—it’s how we build durable power. We reject political violence and intimidation in all forms. Our resistance is strategic, principled, and grounded in the knowledge that peaceful movements win,” the Indivisible website reads. That formal message sits beside private discussion that allowed for ambiguity if conditions worsen.
Cecelia English, identified on the call as a board member for Indivisible Illinois and the lead organizer for its eastern Illinois chapter, helped guide the training without challenging the more open-ended guidance on tactics. The lack of pushback on the line about “maybe later” speaks to tolerance for tactical uncertainty among some organizers. For critics, that tolerance raises questions about what “maybe later” would look like and who decides the switch.
Kelly returned to the practical logic of the rallies, framing them as a way to expand the pool of people who can be activated for other campaigns and actions. “Rallies are great, we need to be growing, the nationwide No Kings is super important, we get, and we grow more people, but we are not going to win our country back with just rallies. We’re pulling them in to do other things, so it’s very important to be handing out things, connecting with them, getting them more involved,” she said. That language stresses conversion and retention over mere spectacle.
After that point the call outlined specific capacities organizers want to build: economic pressure through boycotts, rapid response teams to react to events, and systems to confront federal enforcement actions in local jurisdictions. “We’re building the infrastructure to be able to do boycotts, to be able to do rapid response, to be able to deal with ICE when they come to our cities. Think of it in that way. We’re really building that infrastructure and those coalitions, those people to be able to really fight this,” she said. Those plans suggest long-term commitment to organized campaigns beyond one-off demonstrations.
It’s worth noting how the group framed its political target. The organizers repeatedly tied their efforts to opposition to the current president and his agenda, treating No Kings as a way to recruit and train sustained local networks. “This,” of course, refers to President Trump and his agenda. From a Republican perspective, any talk of escalating tactics after initial restraint is unnerving and calls for careful scrutiny of how protest movements transition into other forms of pressure.
The private tone of the planning call and the public tone of the official pledge to non-violence present a contrast that readers should register. Organizers can and do distinguish between tactics they announce for public consumption and the capabilities they quietly develop to pursue longer-term objectives. That gap is where accountability and oversight matter most, because public promises about peaceful protest may coexist with contingency plans that are less specific and potentially more confrontational.
As March 28 approaches, the mix of visible rallies and behind-the-scenes capacity building will likely tell us more about the movement’s direction than any single statement. Voters, local authorities, and the media will see rallies in public and will need to ask what happens next, who is organizing the next steps, and how those next steps align with the commitments organizers make aloud. The stakes include public safety, the integrity of protest traditions, and the line between lawful dissent and tactics that threaten stability.
