The 3.5% Rule
As protests against the Trump administration grow, I’ve seen frequent references to the “3.5% rule” in posts about the protests. The 3.5% rule was articulated by political scientist Erica Chenoweth in 2013. Chenoweth reviewed hundreds of civil disturbances over the past 125 years, and showed that most governments could be overthrown when 3.5% of the population was mobilized in non-violent opposition protests (“peak events” in Chenoweth’s words). The statistics from her 2020 paper show that the chance of success is a gradual function with the mobilized percentage of population, as seen in the following chart.
Dr. Chenoweth wrote that a movement which mobilizes 3.5% of a population probably has majority public support, but provided no evidence to support this claim.
Left-leaning organizations have widely touted the 3.5% rule as a means of achieving governmental policy changes such as climate action. Both Dr. Chenoweth and climate activist Kyle Matthews caution against using the 3.5% rule in that way. The uprisings studied by Dr. Chenoweth tried to achieve one of two goals: either to overthrow an authoritarian government, or to achieve territorial independence. Advocacy for policy change was not within the scope of the study.
So, what are anti-Trump activists mobilizing protests against the administration trying to achieve, and how? “Stop Trump” makes a handy sign to wave at a street demonstration, but is less clear in terms of Constitutional actions. Given Republican control of the Senate, the House of Representatives, a subservient cabinet and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court, stopping Trump’s policy objectives seems far-fetched. Impeaching Trump to inaugurate vice-president Vance as president is more unlikely, and also counterproductive toward liberal goals. Are they hoping to overthrow the Trump administration through popular revolt? That would also mean overthrowing the Constitution of the United States. In the ensuing chaos, we would be more likely to fall into autocracy, not less likely. Recall that the result of the French revolution was not a a democratic government, but guillotines and Napoleon.
Trump clearly won the 2024 election (despite lying incessantly about the result of the 2020 election). Numerous political analyses of the vote show a rightward shift in all 50 states, at all levels of jurisdiction. Polling at the time of the election (and still) showed weakening support for Democrats relative to 2020. One analysis showed that about 7 million voters who voted for Joe Biden did not vote for Kamala Harris. Anecdotally, some voters were angry about Gaza, some were discouraged about inflation, some voters didn’t like the process of Harris’ nomination, and some simply didn’t trust Harris. Overall, Trump clearly won.
The entire question of trying to hound Donald Trump out of office begs the question, “What about democracy?” Donald Trump won the majority of electoral college votes and the popular vote. Voters chose this president and chose Republicans to dominate both chambers of Congress. According to our Constitution, Republican voters have the right to see the results of their choice (and deserve those results). It is the Republicans’ turn at bat, and progressives simply do not have the constitutional authority to overturn the government because they don’t like those policies.
The word “unprecedented” can be used to describe many of the actions of the 2025 Trump administration. Trump has issued 145 executive orders to date, far more than any other presidency. He embarked on a program to remake the federal government and American society, using tactics that are bullying, coercive, grifting, and often illegal and immoral. Actions of the administration that are illegal should be challenged in court. Actions of the administration that are immoral should be challenged in letters to representatives, newspapers, social media posts and protests. There are actions which are economically damaging, and those should be discussed at the kitchen table and barbershop, and in more letters to congressional representatives. But other things, including radical downsizing of government, imposing tariffs on trade, cruelly repressing immigrants for trivial offenses, shifting government responsibilities and costs to the states, reducing government support for climate science, reducing aid to poor people and lowering taxes for the wealthy – are not explicitly illegal, and cannot be readily stopped under the constitution. Some of these actions, such as tariffs and taxation, require the cooperation from the Republican majority in Congress, which has been willing given to the President, at least so far. Actions which are constitutionally permitted to the president provide no grounds for replacing this administration.
Insurrection Act
The Insurrection Act contains the authority of the President to declare martial law and deploy the military against American citizens. This could represent a stepping stone to the full assumption of authoritarian powers through suppression of opposition institutions and individuals. Section 332 of the act reads as follows:
10 U.S.C. §§ 331-335
Sec. 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”
Activists attempting to use the 3.5% rule to overturn the presidency of Donald Trump are probably guilty of sedition and insurrection, both federal felonies. Attempting to overthrow the elected government of the United States by unlawful assemblages is, by definition, an insurrection.
Note that “unlawful obstructions” are the first item justifying the President’s authority to implement the Insurrection Act. Protest marches without permits, or blocking bridges and other means of public transport would be sufficient cause to deploy military force against protesters and suspend civil rights. Note that invoking the Insurrection Act is solely a matter of Presidential discretion. No act of Congress is required, and restraint from the courts is limited to a reasonable interpretation of the powers granted under the Act.
While the First Amendment grants the right of peaceful assembly, it does not grant the right to unlawful assembly. Some activists, working under John Lewis’ principle of “good trouble” advocate peaceful but unlawful obstruction as a tactic for achieving social change. Those tactics succeeded in producing positive change during the Civil Rights era. But activists need to understand that under an unscrupulous administration, “good trouble” may provide the pretext for the imposition of martial law and the loss of American democracy.
The best way to prevent Trump from invoking the Insurrection Act is to not commit an insurrection.
A common sign at protest marches reads: “This is what democracy looks like!” There is a song and a documentary about protests titled, “This is what democracy looks like”.
I say to the contrary; the image to the right shows what democracy looks like.
Conclusion
Donald Trump and Republicans won the 2024 elections. They have the constitutional right to exercise control over the powers of government, to set policies and execute their agenda. Democrats have relatively little constitutional power to obstruct that agenda. Further, obstructing Republicans’ agenda runs the risk of obscuring the cause of economic declines resulting from Republican policy. It is essential that voters see and experience the consequences of Republican policies to have better-informed votes in the future.
Attempts to overthrow the Trump administration through protests and obstruction are illegal according to the Insurrection Act. The acts of resistance are unlikely to achieve any gains in power, and will justify deployment of the military against US citizens, and the imposition of martial law. That would be a major step toward authoritarian rule. If progressives were somehow able to unseat the Trump administration, activists should be realistic in their expectations about what would happen next. MAGA is certainly not going to accept the replacement of the Trump administration calmly. Any mob-driven political change would be met with an even stronger, armed, counter-revolt. The simple term for that outcome would be civil war.
Make no mistake, I'm almost physically nauseated by the actions of the Trump administration. I'm nauseated by Trump's attacks on immigrants, on free speech, on the freedom of the press, on due process for the accused, on the role of government in society, on the independence of the courts, on the independence of legal and economic federal agencies, on higher education, on climate science and health science, on LGBTQ+ rights, on government humanitarian action, on global support for democracy, especially in Ukraine, on truth itself, and on and on. I’m absolutely nauseated. But finding the right path for a just and lasting rejection of the MAGA movement is critical. We have to think and act carefully, and make sure we preserve democracy even as we reject Trump and his followers.
There are activists and political observers who accurately understand the authoritarian nature of the Trump administration. They draw parallels between actions of the Trump administration and the rise of Nazism in 1930s Germany, and use these fears to justify insurrection. They are incorrect. The United States in 2025 is not Germany in the 1930s, and fear does not justify insurrection. Our country has over two centuries of successful elections, we have federal checks and balances on executive power, and we have power over election processes held by the states. Barring some ill-considered, counter-productive disruptions by the opposition to Trump, we will have a generally free and fair election in 2026, and another in 2028. If Democrats create significant disruption to society, it will justify the consolidation of authoritarian power. Further, voters will blame Democrats for the dysfunction and continue to elect Republicans.
Democrats are seeing the consequences of losing the 2024 elections, and need to address the weaknesses in public opinion that led to that loss. Voters, for their own reasons, chose Republicans in 2024, across the board. For fair elections in 2026 and 2028, voters need to experience the impact of those Republican policies without Democratic interference.
There is no shortcut to undoing the election of Trump and Republican majorities in the US House and Senate. We cannot constitutionally reverse the election of 2024 until our next elections in 2026 and 2028.
References
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world, David
Robson, BBC, 2019.
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/Erica%20Chenoweth_2020-005.pdf
Questions, Answers, and Some Cautionary Updates Regarding
the 3.5% Rule, Erica Chenoweth, Harvard Kennedy School, 2020.
https://commonslibrary.org/social-movements-and-the-misuse-of-research-extinction-rebellion-and-the-3-5-rule/
Social Movements and the (mis)use of Research: Extinction
Rebellion and the 3.5% rule, Kyle R Matthews, 2020
“I therefore argue that XR is misusing research by applying
it to a context that it does not relate to. This misuse has informed XR’s
strategy of mass mobilisation and disruptive actions, and led it away from
alternative strategies that may be more useful.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/06/25/735536434/the-magic-number-behind-protests
The Magic Number Behind Protests, Darien Woods, 2019.
https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/documents/hdasa/references/insurrection_act.pdf
Insurrection Act
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265871/
This Is What Democracy Looks Like, A filmed account of the
street protests against the World Trade Organization Summit in Seattle,
Washington, USA in 1999, 2000.
https://joshblake.bandcamp.com/track/this-is-what-democracy-looks-like,
song, Josh Blake.
