No Kings Day Protest – October 18, 2025 Threat Assessment
Executive Summary
The October 18, 2025, “No Kings Day” protest represents a national day of action coordinated by the 50501 Movement and supported by a diverse coalition of civic, faith-based, and progressive organizations. Staged in response to what participants describe as authoritarianism under the Trump administration, the protest marks the second mass demonstration under the “No Kings” branding. While explicitly nonviolent and supported by extensive training and de-escalation efforts, recent incidents—including the armed arrest of a neo-Nazi counterprotester in Nashville—demonstrate the real and escalating risks facing mass gatherings. The overall threat to this event is High, based on the credible possibility of armed counterprotester violence, law enforcement clashes, and reputational fallout.
Threat Profiles
Counterprotester Violence
A prominent and growing threat to the “No Kings Day” events is violence from far-right counterprotesters, many of whom are ideologically opposed to the anti-authoritarian and anti-Trump messaging of the movement. This threat has moved from theoretical to tactical reality, as demonstrated by the arrest of Elijah Millar—a 19-year-old neo-Nazi and online extremist—at the June “No Kings” protest in Nashville. Millar, who was on the FBI’s radar and had previously lost access to firearms due to mental health concerns, brandished a weapon while antagonizing protesters. Despite extensive prior indicators of radicalization and online posts glorifying mass shooters, he was able to attend and attempt to provoke violence.
The presence of high-profile online organizing and decentralized event maps allows for targeted disruptions. Movements such as Patriot Front and unaffiliated extremists with ideological grievances against perceived “leftist” events are likely to see the October 18 protests as a flashpoint. Armed provocateurs could infiltrate protest zones with the intent to intimidate, livestream confrontations, or even initiate violence.
Likelihood: High
Consequence: High (potential for fatalities, serious injury, and severe reputational damage to organizers and cities hosting events)
Active Assailant / Armed Lone Actor
The normalization of armed presence at public protests is one of the most troubling trends of 2025. Following a series of incidents in Springfield, West Chester, Huntington Beach, and Pueblo—where counterprotesters and agitators arrived at protests armed—there is a growing likelihood that a future protest could suffer a mass casualty event. In particular, events with broad political messaging, symbolic timing (e.g., Trump’s birthday, military parade counters), and strong social media engagement serve as likely targets for lone actors with extremist motivations.
What differentiates the October 18 risk is the prior precedent set during the June protest cycle, where multiple armed individuals attempted to provoke crowds and livestream confrontations. If even one of these escalates to discharge of a weapon, the densely packed, decentralized nature of these events means panic, injury, and death are likely.
Likelihood: Medium-High
Consequence: Catastrophic (mass casualty, breakdown in local order, national headlines)
Law Enforcement Clashes
While organizers stress nonviolence and de-escalation, the political context increases the risk of law enforcement overreach or miscommunication. The June “No Kings” protests in some cities saw the use of crowd control tactics, tear gas, and rapid arrest deployments. Given ongoing friction between progressive activist networks and federal law enforcement—particularly after the militarization of the LA ICE raids—many police departments are on heightened alert.
Where police perceive the presence of anarchist blocs or anti-fascist elements (some of whom have publicly declared intent to organize), there may be a lowered threshold for intervention. If violence erupts due to a third party, law enforcement responses may be swift, broad, and potentially harmful to nonviolent demonstrators.
Likelihood: Medium
Consequence: Moderate-High (injury, mass arrest, erosion of public trust)
Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED)
There are no credible threats of VBIED attacks at the time of writing. However, the symbolic nature of the protests, their proximity to government buildings and landmarks, and their open accessibility present a viable attack vector for ideologically-motivated actors. Events in major cities like Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Atlanta may be especially exposed to this form of threat.
Likelihood: Low
Consequence: Catastrophic (mass death, major urban disruption)
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Intrusion
UAS usage—either for live surveillance or disruptive purposes—remains a rising threat category, especially in urban protests with high media coverage. Organizers, livestreamers, journalists, and adversarial actors all use drones, which complicates airspace management and raises safety concerns.
There is also a minimal but nonzero threat that UAS could be used to drop irritants or incendiary devices into crowds. While this has not yet occurred in the U.S., its feasibility has been demonstrated in overseas protests.
Likelihood: Medium
Consequence: Moderate (chaos, minor injury, media escalation)
Environmental and Logistical Disruption
With thousands expected in cities across the country, logistical disruption from heat, lack of sanitation, or transit bottlenecks is plausible. Urban protest areas may become inaccessible to emergency services in a crisis. If local agencies are unprepared, even small complications can snowball into dangerous delays or crowd surges.
Weather forecasts currently indicate seasonal norms, but late October brings volatility to cities like Chicago, Minneapolis, and Boston. Rain or sudden temperature drops could also increase health risks, especially for elderly participants.
Likelihood: Medium
Consequence: Low-Moderate (disorganization, non-life-threatening injury, reputational damage)
Recommendations
For Law Enforcement:
Develop and rehearse rapid-response protocols specifically tailored to lone actor violence or armed counterprotester disruption.
Ensure visible, non-escalatory deterrence (e.g., uniformed presence without riot gear unless needed).
Coordinate in advance with protest organizers, including a single point of contact and real-time communication methods.
Designate and secure protest perimeters with anti-vehicle barriers where applicable.
Brief field units on the ideological background and tactics of far-right extremists active in your region.
For Security Planners and Organizers:
Mandate completion of safety, de-escalation, and “know your rights” trainings for all volunteer marshals and hosts.
Deploy dedicated de-escalation teams wearing visible identifiers.
Conduct site assessments in advance, including surveillance blind spots, exits, and potential infiltration points.
Use visual signaling systems (colored flags, hand signs) to convey crowd movement, danger, or emergencies.
Encourage attendees to bring water, snacks, and copies of emergency contact forms.
Establish secure, encrypted communications between core teams (Signal, Zello) and maintain backups.
