‘No Kings' organizers in Georgia want peaceful protests but are armed with deescalation tactics
Five years ago, an Atlanta protest that began peacefully ended in chaos with burning police cars and tear gas canisters.
With mass protests over the Trump administration's policies set to take place around the country Saturday, Georgia's leaders say they will be prepared if violent elements overtake peaceful protests. Around two dozen protests are scheduled across Georgia with hundreds across the country.
But organizers of the planned 'No Kings' event in Atlanta say they've taken every step to ensure a morning of peaceful demonstration.
'This is a permitted rally,' said Laura Judge, an activist with the Indivisible Georgia Coalition, one of the main organizers of the Atlanta event. 'We went and we talked with local officials and law enforcement to make sure that this is a safe and permitted, peaceful rally. But, you know, we went above and beyond to ensure that there is safety and de-escalation.'
Judge said that means over 100 volunteers, including 28 medics and 37 marshals trained in de-escalation, conflict prevention and crowd safety techniques. Medics will be specifically trained to assist older attendees and with disabilities, and the staff will include a law enforcement liaison to assist with communicating with police.
Georgia's top leaders have warned against violent escalations. Gov. Brian Kemp vowed 'heavy accountability,' and Attorney General Chris Carr issued a statement threatening to charge offenders with domestic terrorism, which comes with a prison sentence of up to 35 years.
'Our attorney general just put a statement out about how protests should look,' Judge said. 'And while we're committed and we want all our attendees to be peaceful and use their First Amendment rights, we don't want anyone having that threat of being arrested or being detained when we have done everything, we have checked all the boxes to do what is right using our First Amendment.'
Organizers of Columbus' event recommended an unusual response in case of unexpected behavior.
'In the rare event that individuals outside our organization come to the event and behave in ways that are contrary to our peaceful values, we strongly encourage attendees to sit, hold hands, and listen to to instructions from our trained de-escalators,' reads a post from Indivisible Columbus on social media. 'We are 100% committed to and united in peace.'
Speaking at a virtual meeting for nationwide participants Thursday, Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin called for spirited but peaceful protests, saying that violence would play into the hands of their political opponents.
'When some bad actors engage in property destruction or violence, the Trump team says, 'see, there, now we need to escalate further,'' he said. 'And that's Trump's plan, rinse and repeat. It's straight from the authoritarian playbook.'
Britt Jacovich, deputy communications director at the liberal MoveOn advocacy group, echoed Levin's sentiments.
'Trump wants chaos on camera, and so we shouldn't give him any footage to use,' she said. 'We win by showing the truth. We are joyful, proud, nonviolent, in every corner of the country.'
Judge said problems caused by outside agitators are always a concern for protesters, but volunteers have been trained to deal with potential criminal elements.
'I believe it's important that at least the organizers and the volunteers are all on the same page knowing who we go to and who we need to work with when things are escalating like that so that we're not branded as these agitators,' she said. 'Because that is not the purpose, our purpose is to show the power belongs to the people and we're allowed to speak up and we should not just automatically be branded as agitators or instigators.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
D.C. Mayor Calls Trump Takeover 'Un-American'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The mayor of Washington, D.C., has condemned the Trump administration's federal intervention in the city's policing, describing the deployment of troops to the capital as unpatriotic. "American soldiers and airmen policing American citizens on American soil is #UnAmerican," Mayor Muriel Bowser wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter. Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment via email outside office hours. Why It Matters It comes after President Donald Trump said at a press conference on Monday that the city "has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people." Trump's intervention marks an unprecedented federal involvement in the local governance of the District of Columbia, using emergency powers that city officials and critics describe as a political power play. The deployment has sparked backlash over constitutional limits and home rule rights. Critics argue it breaches democratic principles and could set a dangerous national precedent, while supporters frame it as a necessary measure for public order. Members of the District of Columbia National Guard patrol outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on August 16, 2025. Members of the District of Columbia National Guard patrol outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on August 16, 2025. Jose Luis Magana/AP What To Know On Tuesday, 800 National Guard troops arrived in Washington following an order from Trump. The deployment, aimed at addressing crime in the city, stands out as one of the most forceful federal actions in local policing in decades, even as crime rates have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years. Violent crime has plummeted by 26 percent this year compared with the same time last year, according to data from the Washington, D.C., police. Federal agents have been deployed in busy areas across the city, while National Guard troops patrol key locations such as the National Mall and Union Station. Washington officials filed a lawsuit against the administration in a bid to stop the federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), according to court documents. Lawyers representing the Trump administration and Washington, D.C., reached a deal on Friday to partially roll back U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's directive that placed the city's police department under federal control. According to the new agreement, the D.C. police chief will continue to lead the Metropolitan Police Department, replacing Bondi's earlier decision to hand full authority to Terry Cole, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. On Saturday, three Republican-led states announced plans to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., to assist with the federal government's plans, according to statements released by the respective state governors. West Virginia said it would send 300 to 400 troops, South Carolina pledged 200, and Ohio announced it would deploy 150 troops in the coming days, representing an increase in the federal presence in the city. Hundreds of Washington, D.C. residents gathered in Dupont Circle on Saturday to protest Trump's federal takeover of local policing, marching 1.5 miles to the White House while carrying banners that read "No fascist takeover of D.C." In March, Trump signed an executive order titled "Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful." This directed Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to instruct the National Park Service to remove and clean up all homeless encampments located on federal land within the city that falls under the National Park Service's authority. The Trump administration's crackdown on homelessness in Washington, D.C., has led to the dismantling of numerous encampments across the city. What People Are Saying A White House spokesperson told Newsweek on August 16: "The National Guard will protect federal assets, create a safe environment for law enforcement officials to carry out their duties when required, and provide a visible presence to deter crime." D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser in an open letter to city residents: "Over the course of a week, the surge in federal law enforcement across D.C. has created waves of anxiety. President Donald Trump, on Truth Social: "I'm going to make our Capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before. The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, at a press briefing: "Homeless individuals will be given the option to leave their encampment, to be taken to a homeless shelter, to be offered addiction or mental health services. If they refuse, they will be subjected to fines or jail time." What Happens Next Legal challenges to the federal takeover may be ongoing as the city attempts to wrestle control back from the president.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
What happens if gay marriage is overturned? The question alone is horrifying.
The more we talk about gay marriage as if it's something that could be questioned legally, the more the public will begin to question whether Obergefell was a mistake. A recent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeks to overturn the landmark 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, giving the entire LGBTQ+ community reason to be fearful – even if the case is unlikely to be heard by the court. Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky, filed a petition in late July asking the court to appeal a decision that she must pay $360,000 in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue a gay couple a marriage license after the Obergefell decision came down. According to the appeal, this infringed upon Davis' First Amendment right to freedom of religion. There are a variety of reasons gay marriage is likely safe despite this appeal, including changing opinions on the court, public support for same-sex marriage and the 2022 Respect For Marriage Act. It doesn't change the fact that the very notion of this right being overturned is a reminder to the LGBTQ+ community that our rights are dependent upon the whims of politicians and judges, and could easily disappear. I don't trust this Supreme Court to leave same-sex marriage alone In 2015, Davis wound up in jail for six days for contempt of court when she refused to grant a marriage license to gay couples in Rowan County, Kentucky. One couple who were refused a license, David Moore and David Ermold, sued Davis for violating their constitutional right to marry. Moore and Ermold were awarded $50,000 each in damages, plus $260,000 for legal fees. Davis attempted to appeal the ruling with the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals but was denied this March. She then sent her appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in July, which is how we ended up here. Mat Staver, Davis' lawyer, told Fox News he believes this case will be heard by the nation's highest court based on the fact that three of the dissenting justices from Obergefell – Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito – are still on the court. Other legal scholars aren't so sure that five justices are willing to overrule the case. Robbie Kaplan, a lawyer who argued in defense of LGBTQ+ rights in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 in a ruling that eventually paved the way for Obergefell, told Axios it would cause a lot more legal problems than it's worth. "It's not just a recipe for administrative chaos," Kaplan said. "It also would result in an almost indescribable amount of (needless) suffering and heartache." Opinion: I was the named 'opposition' in Obergefell v. Hodges. I've never been happier to lose. I'm skeptical that the very court that sent abortion rights back to the states cares about the legal complications that a ruling like this could cause. In the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, Thomas even issued a concurrent opinion saying he believed Obergefell should be reconsidered. The Supreme Court has also asked Moore and Ermold to respond to Davis' petition, which hints at the possibility that this case could be considered by the court. Kim Davis' petition reminds us our rights are revocable Davis' appeal isn't the only attack on gay marriage since President Donald Trump returned to the White House and Republicans took the majority in Congress. Resolutions were introduced in five states that would have formally asked the Supreme Court to review Obergefell. In two of those states, Idaho and North Dakota, the resolutions passed the House of Representatives before failing in the Senate. While these measures were unsuccessful, it's a sign of growing discontent among Republican politicians with the legality of same-sex marriage. In June, the Southern Baptist Convention voted for a resolution to ask the court to reconsider gay marriage. A denomination may have no legal authority in our secular government, but the resolution signals that we should be worried. Opinion: I told you GOP would come for marriage. Southern Baptists just proved my point. The fact that these resolutions were even introduced is scary for the LGBTQ+ community. It's a sign that there are still people out there who think we shouldn't be able to marry the people we love, that our rights as couples should differ from the rights of straight couples merely based on a few verses in the Bible. It's a reminder that the rights we fought for years to gain can be reversed, that all it takes is a conservative shift in government to send us back to a time before legal gay marriage. What would happen if gay marriage were overturned? Thankfully, Democrats in 2022 passed the Respect For Marriage Act, which says that same-sex and interracial marriages must be recognized by the federal government and every state, even if Obergefell were to fall. However, the loss of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling would affect future generations of LGBTQ+ people looking to get married. If the Obergefell ruling were overturned tomorrow, same-sex marriage would become illegal in 32 states that have constitutional and/or legislative bans on marriage equality. This would affect more than half of the LGBTQ+ people in the United States. Per a May 2025 Gallup poll, 68% of Americans say same-sex marriages should be legally recognized. While this is a safe majority of people, support is down from a high of 71% in 2023 – signaling a potential shift in the acceptability of gay marriage nationwide. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. I'm also not one to believe that public support will sway the justices from hearing a case. After all, abortion rights were also widely popular, but that didn't stop the court from sending legality back to the states. Gay marriage is not going to disappear tomorrow. This does mean, however, that gay people are once again being reminded that their rights are dependent on a handful of people and the opinions of politicians and can easily be stripped away. We've already witnessed how the trans community has lost rights in a matter of months. The more we talk about gay marriage as if it's something that could be questioned legally, the more the public will begin to question whether Obergefell was a mistake. Even if it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will take up this review, the fact that an appeal was even introduced is bringing anxiety to the LGBTQ+ community – and it should be taken seriously. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump moving closer to decision on making weed less criminal in eyes of federal government: sources
It isn't quite the ruckus involving the Jeffrey Epstein docs, but there is a quieter, more important conflict inside Trump world over weed — namely whether the president should legalize it and just how legal it should be, The Post has learned And according to my sources, Trump is in a compromising mood. He appears to be moving closer to making a decision in the coming weeks to make weed something less criminal in the eyes of the federal government. Advertisement Trump is ready, several MAGA pro-pot sources tell me, to make a decision on at least reclassifying weed as a so-called Schedule III drug, putting it on par with semi-controlled substances like anabolic steroids. Not to get too far into the proverbial weeds, but Pot Inc. wants marijuana reclassified so it's not being lumped in with hard drugs like heroin — and it's a drama these pages first covered in late April. That way this booming business continues to grow with access to the banking system as cultural norms continue to shift and the majority of Americans see pot as no more dangerous than booze. Tax revenues would flow into federal coffers as the industry expands. Trump appears to be moving closer to making a decision in the coming weeks to make weed something less criminal in the eyes of the federal government. AFP via Getty Images There are headwinds. Many MAGA types believe pot is leading to cultural rot. Breeding a population of stoners isn't good for the country since the pot today is far stronger than the joints Cheech & Chong rolled years ago. Advertisement Trump barely drinks and personally hates anything that dulls the senses. He's a law-and-order guy — witness his takeover of DC policing over quality-of-life issues, including the persistent smell of pot almost everywhere you walk. That said, the president seems to be leaning toward a compromise on federal legalization, including allowing for medical use based on evidence of its efficacy in severe pain relief. He's also said to be compelled by the business and the political argument of going soft on pot. He's done that before, doing his famous 180 on crypto for votes during the 2024 election and delivering with deregulation that is propelling the blockchain industry. Advertisement There are an estimated 17 million-plus Americans who use pot regularly, and Trump understands math. The pot lobby could help in key races as the midterms approach. MAGA loyalist Matt Gaetz, the former Florida congressman and Trump's initial pick for attorney general, is one who believes embracing pot would further expand Trump's base among working-class people of all races, where pot u sage is most prevalent. 'President Trump would cement [these voters] for Republicans for 25 years by 'rescheduling' marijuana,' Gaetz said. 'Obama always wanted to do it but didn't have the balls.' Gaetz added that Biden with his 'autopen presidency' was too busy destroying the country to care. 'This is yet another opportunity for Trump to notch a generational win where Ob- ama and Joe Biden failed.' Advertisement Longtime hedge fund trader Marc Cohodes is even more adamant about legalizing marijuana. He is both an investor in Pot Inc. and a medical user after shoulder surgery. 'If he totally legalizes, Trump will totally destroy the Democratic Party,' Cohodes tells me. 'Polls show that most Americans want this legalized. Trump will turn the GOP into the people's party.' Trump's options include totally 'declassifying' pot, making it 100% legal in the eyes of federal law. He could also 'reschedule' pot as a 'Schedule III' controlled substance, along the lines of anabolic steroids and other drugs that the feds have modestly blessed for specific medical-related uses. If he does nothing, pot would r emain a Schedule I drug, where the federal government views it as a highly controlled substance. Up to $60 billion annually The various distinctions matter for the pot industry, which is estimated to rake in between $40 billion and $60 billion a year. While marijuana is fully legal or decriminalized in most states, without the federal government taking it off the Schedule I list it can't be 'banked.' Wall Street shies away from underwriting the stock of any company that in Pot Inc. parlance 'touches the plant.' If Wall Street can begin underwriting pot stocks, financing US-based growers, for example, Pot Inc. could grow exponentially. Still, legalization skeptics on Trump's team will have a say. New Drug Enforcement Administration chief Terry Cole is a veteran at an agency with a long anti-pot bias. Advertisement Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of the Department of Health and H uman Services, has spoken about decriminalizing weed but also how there are negative health effects from consuming the 'high-potency' stuff. Many critics say today's bud has hallucinogenic effects, and could be a gateway to more dangerous stuff like opioids. That's why Gaetz thinks Trump won't go for full legalization and allow it only for medical use. Ditto for longtime Trump political guru Roger Stone. 'I don't think he ever completely de-schedules it, which is what I would do,' Stone tells me. Advertisement Cohodes says not going all the way would be a mistake. First, banking for Pot Inc. would remain difficult if it is only re- scheduled. Plus, making it totally legal could help decimate a major source of income for the various drug cartels. It would be age-restricted by the government. 'By eliminating prohibition, illegal cartels get removed because legal businesses not currently banked become bankable,' Cohodes said.
