July 17 Protests: Threat Assessment of the ‘Good Trouble Lives On’ National Mobilization
Executive Summary
A coordinated national protest effort called Good Trouble Lives On is scheduled for July 17, 2025, to mark the fifth anniversary of Congressman John Lewis’s death. Closely linked to the No Kings movement, the protests aim to oppose what organizers describe as civil and human rights rollbacks under the Trump administration. Organizers stress a commitment to nonviolence, but the scope, coordination, and political context raise concerns about counter-demonstrations, opportunistic violence, and logistical disruption in urban areas. With over 280 events registered on both GoodTroubleLivesOn.org and Mobilize.us, the scale of the action warrants national attention and preparedness.
Strategic Analysis
The Good Trouble Lives On campaign represents a large-scale, ideologically-driven protest movement coordinated across the United States. Set for July 17—five years after the death of civil rights icon John Lewis—the protests are designed as nonviolent demonstrations to push back against the Trump administration’s perceived assaults on voting rights, immigrant protections, and free speech. Organizers include national progressive groups such as Indivisible, Black Voters Matter, and the Transformative Justice Coalition. This event follows the highly visible No Kings demonstrations on June 14, which organizers claim drew over five million participants.
Protests are expected in both major cities and smaller communities, with confirmed locations in Alabama, Georgia, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Washington State, and more. A live map on goodtroubleliveson.org shows over 280 events, and more are expected to be listed on Mobilize.us. Organizers emphasize peaceful action and de-escalation, explicitly prohibiting weapons and encouraging lawful behavior.
Despite this framing, the threat landscape is not negligible. Prior events associated with the No Kings and Good Troublebranding have attracted opposition from right-wing groups, and some have drawn heated confrontations. The presence of easily accessible event maps creates a known vulnerability: counter-protesters can precisely locate and disrupt gatherings, especially in politically polarized regions. Alexandria, Virginia, and parts of Georgia, where No Kings rallies featured public officials and drew strong partisan responses, are potential flashpoints.
Additionally, even peaceful protests on this scale generate risks of crowd surges, miscommunication with law enforcement, and isolated acts of aggression—particularly if extremist actors attempt to exploit the moment. Urban logistics, including traffic disruptions and the potential for escalated protest-counterprotest dynamics, will strain local response capacities.
There are no direct indications at this time of planned violence by participants. However, the highly political nature of the protests—targeting a sitting administration—and the online visibility of protest maps raise the risk of both spontaneous and premeditated confrontations. The movement’s explicit links to No Kings branding will further politicize its reception, especially in jurisdictions already wary of left-wing protest actions.
Analytically, this represents a hybrid mobilization: while the central coordination and branding are top-down, the decentralized hosting model (via Mobilize.us) means event quality, discipline, and safety protocols will vary significantly by location. Organizers will likely struggle to maintain consistent standards in crowd control, messaging discipline, and legal compliance—especially in rural or under-resourced zones. That variability should be a focus of local threat assessments.
