Waging Nonviolence

This article From ICE to Iran, veterans are challenging US militarism  was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'n9aeomz4ROpJDA_TbOSxLw',sig:'YAE1p7Ommh8D2OTKw9oo5CLdgf6rTpvq987BCTnyV-8=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2272262840',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

One hundred fifty people holding tulips stand in formation on the marble floor of the Cannon House Office Building, until Capitol Police arrest over a third of them and remove them in cuffs. 

Maybe you saw an image of these veterans with their flowers — the red tulips that are an Iranian national symbol honoring martyrs. Perhaps you saw a photo of a disabled veteran’s wrists being handcuffed while leaning on a cane. You may have caught a video where a mother or a partner of a deployed soldier spoke about wanting their loved one back from this unconscionable war.  

When 66 protesters from a coalition of veteran and military family organizations were arrested on April 20, these images went viral worldwide. This attests to not only the specific weight given to veterans who speak out against wars, but also the deep hunger to see any kind of tangible action against the United States and Israel’s profoundly unpopular war with Iran.

One of those arrested was Katie Chorbak, president of 50501 Veterans, which organizes more than 2,000 members into policy fights, nonviolent direct action and sustained advocacy. Chorbak, a fifth-generation combat veteran, chose to bring her concerns directly to lawmakers out of the belief that veterans have a “responsibility to speak plainly” when the country is moving toward war without transparency or congressional debate.

#newsletter-block_7030efd753e8f2d3ef2849022f64f2ff { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_7030efd753e8f2d3ef2849022f64f2ff #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

“Veterans showing up in that space matters because we understand the realities of war beyond headlines and talking points,” Chorbak said. 

Despite decades of demonization of Iran by U.S. politicians, amplified by mainstream media, Trump’s war on Iran was met with immediate disfavor in March (a Reuters poll found that only 27 percent of voters approved of the initial strikes). Still, there has been little substantive resistance in Congress and relative quiet in the streets of cities that saw record-breaking protests against President George W. Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s.  

Yet, over these last 20 years, veterans never stopped organizing against U.S. wars and militarism. The organizers of the April 20 action — About Face Veterans Against War, Veterans for Peace, 50501 Veterans, the Center on Conscience and War, Military Families Speak Out and others — are building antiwar veteran and service member leadership, offering a vision of how we could end this country’s marriage to reckless, crushing militarism.

Where did this come from?

GI resistance is the tradition, dating back to the Revolutionary War, of American soldiers choosing to stand on their conscience and withdraw their consent to carry out the orders of commanding officers. The spectrum of resistance has encompassed the Vietnam War era’s more visible draft dodging and widespread disobedience in the ranks, and the quiet, mostly unseen refusal of soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars to execute civilians, load their guns, carry out missions, report for duty or even to deploy. 

In a 1971 demonstration, Operation Dewey Canyon III, antiwar veterans threw their medals at the U.S. Capitol. (Vietnam Veterans Against the War)

Now, military resistance to the war on Iran is beginning to take publicly visible forms. Hundreds of complaints were filed by troops in every branch of the military when Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a Christian nationalist, directed his commanders to inform their units that the Iran War is a holy war anointed by Jesus. And in the theater of war, service members whose labor enables the war machine can always find ways to clog the gears (sometimes literally). Rumors abounded of sailors clogging toilets and starting a fire on the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, which had to retreat for repairs in March.

Public acts of refusal are vital to building a movement. Many soldiers can’t imagine refusing orders or deployment until they see someone else doing it. But courage is contagious, and an opportunity to join a collective action can offer the necessary bridge to take that risk. 

Antiwar groups offer two core ingredients to transform spontaneous individual acts of refusal into a movement: visibility and access to support. Kelly Dougherty, who co-founded About Face in 2004 after returning from a year in Iraq in the Army National Guard, now serves as the counseling director for the Center on Conscience and War, or CCW, supporting service members seeking separation from the military, information about their rights or conscientious objector status. Dougherty says that while the Iran War has prompted a recent surge in calls to CCW’s hotline, “most service members I speak to have been questioning the system of war and whether or not they can morally participate in it for months or years.”

About Face has carried the banner of supporting GI resistance since its founding by Iraq War veterans with the support of seasoned organizers from Veterans for Peace. The group launched a Right to Refuse campaign after the 2024 election to bring renewed attention to the long tradition of refusal of illegal and immoral orders. To get the word out, Right to Refuse uses visibility efforts, direct actions, social media, on-the-ground outreach and word of mouth. An encrypted support form allows for anonymous inquiries. The campaign works in tandem with the GI Rights Hotline, which has fielded calls from active duty questioners and emerging conscientious objectors since 1994.

Previous Coverage

What happens when soldiers stop believing in war?

As mainstream media conglomerates continue to shift rightward, so grows the importance of direct actions that alert soldiers to their options, as well as pressuring elected officials.  This is why the CCW chose to have its executive director Mike Prysner risk arrest in the April 20 action. “Most people in the military aren’t familiar with their right to seek discharge as a conscientious objector,” Dougherty said. “We wanted to let service members know that if they are experiencing a moral crisis because they cannot, in good conscience, participate in war, that they can file for conscientious objector status and there is an organization that will support them every step of the way.” 

GI resistance has power because war requires obedient soldiers. But active duty service members’ opportunities to make direct impacts are shrinking as war becomes increasingly outsourced and automated. Remote-controlled weaponry is taking over from real humans (often referred to as “boots on the ground,” underlining the nature of using youngsters as cannon fodder). Perhaps the most concerning trajectory is the trend of replacing decision makers with AI that can deploy and direct weaponry, as seen with Israel pioneering a shocking rate of mass death in Gaza with their Lavender and Where’s Daddy programs. These trends make the launch of this war on Iran a critically important window for supporting GI resistance before complete control over mass killing is in the hands of the ruling class and their machines. 

Work stoppage or interference by active duty military can slow or impair the war machine, but this alone may not end the war on Iran. There are more ways in which antiwar service members and veterans can leverage their social position not only as workers, but as symbols. Their voices on military matters have weight both with elected officials and the general public. They have the platform to challenge the myths of morality, necessity and infallibility in which the warhawks wrap their armies and wars. As they increase the unreliability of the armed forces, they can also decrease public confidence in how the troops are being used. Both resistance and public opposition are key toward ending not only a specific war, but tearing up the blank checks for endless wars at home and abroad. 

Veterans rising to meet the moment 

Founded as Iraq Veterans Against the War, About Face has expanded from opposing the war on Iraq to a deeper critique of militarism, as new members joined over the years who had participated in many different facets of the so-called Global War on Terror. Its opposition to the war on Iran is part of a broader recent effort to challenge the U.S.-Israeli wars for regional dominance, resource control and global positioning. 

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'7Hk63C2HR612tEVbSTstOA',sig:'ByAz3okymnfIlsj8FT5mdfKMBdAOknnQ833nbgBmPew=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2272262682',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

After Oct. 7, 2023, About Face welcomed hundreds of new members who were moved to organize with other veterans in solidarity with Palestine. To harness that energy, they immediately formed Veterans for Ceasefire, whose first of many direct actions was a sit-in on Nov. 9, 2023 in Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s office. Eight members participated in the 2025 Global Sumud Flotilla. 

In addition to challenging U.S. aggression overseas, veterans have also become important voices for demilitarization of the homefront. In the summer of 2020, when troops were turned against U.S. civilians in the wake of George Floyd’s murder by police, About Face reached out to National Guard members, encouraging them “Stand Down for Black Lives” by refusing mobilization against racial justice protesters. 

Challenging militarism at home — and connecting it to wars abroad — has become even more crucial in a time of rising authoritarianism. “Right to Refuse was definitely created with Project 2025 in mind and what was promised in that document about domestic use of the military to enforce their authoritarian agenda,” said Matt Howard, interim national organizing director of About Face. 

Sure enough, ICE surges in 2025 saw the use of military forces to quell civil dissent and carry out race-based purges. The National Guard occupied cities, while the Department of Defense offered bases, staging areas and logistical support for mass detentions. Anti-ICE resistance also faced the kind of intensified surveillance and data collection tested in the killing fields of U.S.-Israeli wars abroad.

Tapping into the organic dissent in the ranks is a particular gift of the Right to Refuse campaign. Billboards facing the main gates of North Carolina’s biggest military installations appeared in September 2025 announcing a website titled NotWhatYouSignedUpFor.org (a joint visibility campaign of Win Without War and About Face). When thousands of active duty Airborne troops (a cold-weather division from Alaska) and military police were placed on standby for Department of Homeland Security support, including a 500-person brigade from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, a billboard at the main gate greeted them with, “Did you go Airborne just to pull security for ICE?” Marines entering Camp Lejeune saw “Not what you signed up for? You have options.” 

In U.S. cities experiencing paramilitary occupation from DHS forces, U.S. military veterans found opportunities to demilitarize the skills they brought home and apply them to justice, protection and liberation. A delegation of  About Face members traveled to Minneapolis in February to join local members and other community organizations in building a grassroots response to the escalation of ICE violence. 

Additionally, About Face’s Monitoring and Analysis of Military and Border Operations, or MAMBO, project uses open source intelligence gathering to analyze and map domestic deployments of military and DHS forces, offering usable reports to community groups. Some members of About Face and its close partner Veterans For Peace provide security for local actions and community events, and train and mentor emerging movement security practitioners, both civilian and veteran. This is a radical revisioning of what security can be when seen through a lens of demilitarization — neighbors keeping each other safe. 

Alongside the DHS and National Guard occupation of U.S. cities, the impacts of the war economy and continued cuts to social spending have provided many opportunities for action. Last Veterans’ Day, About Face organized a Vets Say No War on Our Cities march in major cities including those dealing with ICE occupation like Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, Washington, D.C. and Memphis. The message they shared was: “We will not allow attacks on our neighbors, or military occupation of our cities and deadly cuts on vital services to be normalized.”

On March 19, the 23rd anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, About Face coordinated national visits to senators to push for a repeal of the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force that opened the door to the “forever wars,” and for a vote against further supplemental military spending. A couple days later, members joined the Nuestra América relief convoy to Cuba, bringing supplies and challenging Trump’s saber-rattling. 

#support-block_2626a6ed01b1b55f66c9cf25de6ee6a8 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

About Face has also been incubating Veterans Against Fascism, a politically diverse coalition of vets united behind the call for No ICE, No War, No Cuts. “Fascism is everywhere, spread throughout the entire government. We have a responsibility to make it grind to a halt,” explained Joseph Funk, a member of About Face and leader in Veterans Against Fascism. “That means we have to defeat it anywhere it wants to exercise its power. That might look like opposing war and international violence, and that might look like standing against federal goons hunting children. It will probably look like a lot of things in the future.”

Winning public opinion

The Trump regime is not attempting to manufacture approval or even consent for its wars, but they are fighting on the narrative and cultural fronts. Nonpartisan organizations like About Face, which has challenged U.S.-led wars under every administration for the last 20 years and is not scared of calling out Democratic leaders, are laying a critical foundation. Those of us who remember Obama’s presidential victory on a platform of ending Bush’s wars, and the subsequent abdication of the forces who might have pushed him to follow through, know we need an antimilitarist movement bigger than opposition to Trump’s caricatured shock and awe. 

“Despite the fact that both parties have had a shitty track record on war and militarism, in the last 10 years MAGA has claimed to be the true antiwar standard-bearer,” Howard said. “We are in a moment where the betrayal of Trump’s base is really clear. They thought they voted in a peace time president and are finding out it was another empty talking point. For movements who have been committed to an antiwar politic, no matter who was in office, there is an opportunity to use our credibility to undermine authoritarianism and contest for people who are waking up.”

The good news: There is leadership and vision. Antiwar veterans are increasing their ranks, building collective power in campaigns and coalitions, and taking strategic aim at multiple pillars of the war machine. 

“Veterans can help focus public energy into concrete demands,” said Katie Chorbak, from 50501 Veterans. “If opposition is going to be effective, it has to be organized, informed and sustained. Veterans can help anchor that effort. What is needed right now is seriousness, discipline and sustained engagement. Change rarely happens because people are upset for a week. It happens when people stay organized long enough to matter.”

This article From ICE to Iran, veterans are challenging US militarism  was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

This article A call for bold action from the Gaza flotilla was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

The largest flotilla to Gaza departed on April 12, including vessels in the Global Sumud Flotilla and Freedom Flotilla Coalition, or FFC. This particular flotilla sails amid a regional war in the Middle East, instigated by the United States and compounded by the ongoing Israeli bombardment of Gaza and Lebanon. 

Since their departure, 22 of more than 50 boats in the Global Sumud Flotilla were “disabled and destroyed” and nearly all 180 individuals were abducted during an Israeli Navy raid on April 30, according to a GSF press release. The IDF attack occurred in international waters — hundreds of miles away from Gaza and within 80 nautical miles of Crete — which violates international law, specifically the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

“My stomach dropped,” said Zuleyma Guevara, whose daughter Fredi Guevara-Prip, was aboard one of the intercepted ships. 

Rosa Martinez and Noa Avishag Schnall, both aboard the Adalah in the FFC, are still hundreds of nautical miles from Gaza, but continuing east. For them the flotilla, and particularly the FFC, is a human rights mission. 

“Though we do have some medicine on the boat, it’s not like we’re going to be solving any mass medication crisis in Gaza,” Avishag Schnall said. “We are sailing because governments are not upholding their duties.”

Both volunteers on the flotilla and their loved ones assert that the flotilla is just one part of the larger pro-Palestinian movement. As Mika Lungulov-Klotz, Martinez’s emergency contact, put it, “everyone is able to pull a different lever.”

This article A call for bold action from the Gaza flotilla was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

This article Mothers are the most underestimated force for change was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

When Trump won the first time in 2016, I drank shots of tequila in front of my computer and then passed out in anguish. When Trump won in 2024, I couldn’t do that. This time around, I was a mom. 

By afternoon on election day, the red shifts on the map became overpowering — and yet I still had to pick up my son from childcare. I had to get him dinner, sing songs in the bathtub and make up stories for his stuffed animals. I still had to create a world that was joyous, delicious and full of love even though I was horrified by the political present.  

This is a very particular muscle I have had to build since becoming a mother. It’s different than building a practice of hope. It’s beyond feelings and all about the tangible needs of life. It’s being able to turn hope into something physical even when deeply worn down. Moms, aunties, grandmothers and other caretakers — we have to pull ourselves off the couch and make the sandwiches and brush the hair. 

Every day, in the face of whatever the greater world holds, we build our own pockets where injustices are righted, love is given and joy is present. We calm down tantrums with love and humor. We teach lessons on sharing and taking turns. This complicated dynamic mothers must hold, of nurturing children while social injustice rages, is something I’ve seen resonate across social media recently, with many women commenting on the realities of keeping children loved and happy while the world burns. 

#newsletter-block_db5d6e13576654b814731e9e87d0b022 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_db5d6e13576654b814731e9e87d0b022 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

Mothers are the everyday weavers of utopia. Philosophers, journalists, tech experts, Hollywood writers and pundits may throw up their hands and proclaim that our species is doomed, and yet in millions of homes around the world, mothers and caregivers are ensuring that on the contrary, we do live in a world of joy where resources are shared. The past few years of being a new mom have taught me we need to do more than survive; the real magic comes with what we co-create with our children — the evidence that a better world is possible. 

One of the unique aspects of motherhood is that, even while you’re dealing with the immediacy of food, shelter, joy, love, raising a human also means having one foot in the future. The writer and healer Prentis Hemphill said in a recent podcast episode, “Children as Sacred,” that “our culture actually seems to be anti-children and to me therefore anti the future. … What a child compels you to do is create, what a child compels you to do is nurture, to plant a seed, to think about what will grow beyond your life.”

This is no small feat, and might be one of the most underexamined sources of social change out there. Mothers are inherent futurists, just as gardeners are. Even when our children are in the womb, we have to be mindful of every chemical we come in contact with and what it could do to their development down the line. When our kids are growing up, we are constantly aware of how much of their future self is molded from the compendium of all the lessons we teach them. 

“Almost all of parenting is digging really deep for reserves when you are out of it,” said Jenny Zimmer, the co-executive director of the group Mothers Out Front. “Like you’re out of energy, you’re out of time, you’re out of patience, you’re exhausted, and you’re still finding the reserves to set [your kids] up for success.” 

It is this deep commitment to not just hoping for a better future, but knowing that it is formed through the actions we choose today, that directly links what we do now to what will become.

A better future is being built by the everyday work of caretakers to instruct the next generation that love and goodness can exist.

There’s nothing quite like the early years of motherhood for forcing people to realize they can’t do it all on their own. If you try to do all the things yourself, you will quickly break. It is with the village, the community that life gets a bit easier. “Mothers can do more because we know how to work together,” Zimmer noted. 

My formative activist years were working with the Burmese pro-democracy movement, and I remember witnessing women’s meetings where heavy discussions were held on moving aid to refugee camps, or monitoring elections — all while someone’s baby was being passed around from woman to woman. A group of women would chop up fruit to share, and others would help clean up. Communal care was the fundamental driver that allowed more women to step into leadership and peace-building. 

In Minneapolis and other cities besieged by ICE recently, it’s regularly mothers who are organizing food to deliver to those in need, raising money for affected families, forming safety patrols at kids’ schools and participating in ICE watches. Ashley Fairbanks helped start the group Stand with Minnesota, which is a center point of a lot of the mutual aid. In a recent interview with The Guardian, she said “We’re building a helper reflex where, instead of encountering a problem and saying that we can’t do anything, we’re just trying to do it.” 

There is so much to learn from mothers in Minnesota who are showing that the future can be better — by moving their anguished bodies to attend protests, deliver diapers and pick up their neighbors, and showing our children and our communities that we can operate with more humane ways of being. 

America does not have the best track record with positive visions of the future. The vast majority of films set in the future are dystopian, with a stalwart hero making their way through techno-fascism. In fact, when I tried to find films with a positive vision of the future, where humanity was able to come together and create something better — it’s pretty much just the “Star Trek” movies and “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure,” and even in those the vision of the future Earth is limited (“Star Trek” mostly takes place off Earth, and “Bill & Ted” gives us just a  few minutes’ glimpse of the peaceful future). 

What we need are the mother-filled stories of creation. How from small seeds, wondrous things can be born. Constructing a better future won’t come from some miracle technology that propels us forward. It comes from the everyday work of caretakers to instruct the next generation that love and goodness can exist.

Two directly opposed worldviews vying with each other in America right now are the much-publicized, hyper-individualized ideology of pseudo-macho tech oligarchs, and the quieter reality of mothers leaning into collective movements for a better world. A patriarchal worldview tells us that social change comes through highly publicized “wins” or technological silver bullets. 

#support-block_6755166bd5a36b22256423e0f2f8fa2a { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

In my conversation with Zimmer, she spoke about how working with mothers has shifted her understanding of what social progress looks like. “I had to reframe victory in my mind from a big win to basically like a journey. There’s always going to be opposition,” she said. “And so when I think about bringing my kids into organizing spaces with me, it’s less that I want them to see my team win something. And it’s more that I want them to see that a good life is spent in a collective project of trying to make things good for everybody.”

A mother’s commitment is incalculable. Rebecca Solnit wrote to me that the concept of motherhood comes down to the idea that “there is a superpower in being absolutely unshakably committed to something/someone morally and in every other way, to your last breath, and because that commitment wants to see goodness all around, doesn’t it manifest goodness?” The future of this planet is being deeply shaped every day by caretakers moving forward with love and an unfeigned commitment to a better future. Once we recognize this for the superpower it is, we can build more systems that embrace its potential. 

If we start accepting that mothers are a powerful force for good, then we need to support systems that can scale their engagement. Mexico City has built 15 “Utopias,” large community centers aimed to take some of the burden off of low-income caregivers. Bogota, Colombia is experimenting with manzana del cuidado, or care blocks, which support caregivers by clustering services together. Many other countries are enacting policies like extended maternity and paternity leave, subsidized child care and health care benefits that help mothers be more able to engage with public life. 

It would be hugely beneficial to society if instead of isolating and limiting people who have a “helper reflex” superpower, we instead built more ways to expand the utilization of this skillset. Mothers are a crucial force for change, not only in our homes and communities, but on a much wider scale — if they have the support they need to unleash their superpowers.

This article Mothers are the most underestimated force for change was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

This article The Global Sumud Flotilla is a mission of mercy, met with cruelty was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'26gxjtQ4Sx9ZCOm3IKUksw',sig:'O252H5Kc3kpsOOyKEiBiaV-Vawnrq4efv8L5djaUJDQ=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2270979603',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

After a symbolic launch in Barcelona on April 12, the Global Sumud Flotilla set out across the Mediterranean Sea to bring aid to Gaza in what proved to be the largest civilian maritime convoy of its kind: 58 vessels, more than a thousand participants from over a hundred countries. Amnesty called on governments to guarantee safe passage. Greenpeace sent the Arctic Sunrise. And in the early hours of April 30, off the coast of Greece, Israeli naval forces moved in. 

There is something deeply affecting in the sight of everyday people rising to perform the simplest offices of mercy while states and institutions, created for hours of peril such as this, withdraw behind procedure and delay. Across the Mediterranean, men and women gathered what aid they could carry, along with the inward resolve such a voyage demands, and turned themselves toward Gaza. Great structures, swollen with authority and self-protection, were suddenly made to look small beside a few fragile boats moved by fellow feeling.

That, for me, is the true subject here. The values-led flotilla and the light of humiliation it casts upon the official power structures. When private citizens must hazard sea and reprisal in order to bring food and medicine to the trapped, the failure has entered the marrow of public life. Whole systems, immense in apparatus and loud in self regard, stand exposed by a handful of human beings willing to cross water for strangers. The Greeks gave us words for it: demos, the common people, and kratos, their strength. A flotilla is democracy at its source.

#newsletter-block_67f13e14b2716b55a97772652dd32920 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_67f13e14b2716b55a97772652dd32920 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

In a relentless news cycle of death and destruction, there is something almost scriptural in the image of small craft setting out to relieve the besieged. A boat is a modest thing, rising and falling with the sea, vulnerable to delay, interception and fear. Perhaps that is why it can bear mercy so well. Mercy is among the most beloved names by which God is remembered in Islam, and these volunteers carried aid in their hold along with a quality of heart that official life has steadily thinned out.

The word sumud deepens the meaning further. For Palestinians, it has long meant steadfastness, a staying put in the face of erasure, a fidelity to land, memory and the human shape of one’s life. Here, steadfastness took to the sea. It left the olive grove and entered the waves. One remains steadfast by moving toward the wounded. One keeps faith by refusing distance.

By getting on those boats, the volunteers insisted that strangers are still our concern. A flotilla closes distance in the oldest human way, by drawing near, by consenting to inconvenience and risk because another people’s hunger has become unbearable to the soul.

To set out under such conditions is already a kind of testimony. One imagines the small practical gestures that attend such a voyage: the checking of ropes and provisions, subdued talk, private negotiations of fear, inward glances toward loved ones who would be left behind for a time. Heroism appears in a humble guise, the simple refusal to let danger relieve one of this duty. Those who boarded these vessels consented to exposure, and that consent lent the voyage its moral splendor.

There is something else that stirs the heart in such gatherings. The people who come together for a mission of mercy bring different languages, prayers and burdens of memory. Yet, for a brief and difficult passage they agreed to become answerable to one another and to those waiting beyond the horizon. This, too, is part of the beauty. A world daily instructed in difference and division still contains people capable of forming, under pressure, a fellowship. The boats carried supplies, certainly, though they also carried a living refutation of the lie that people are finally ruled by self-interest or tribe or fear.

Perhaps that is why maritime images can carry such spiritual force. The sea strips away illusion. No one sets out upon open water and remains wholly enclosed within self-regard. One enters a domain older than empires, where frailty and dependence are undeniable. To cross such waters in order to relieve the afflicted is to recover something ancient in the story, something older than diplomacy. It recalls the old belief that mercy is a labor asking something of the body. It must travel and bear fatigue and uncertainty. It must keep watch.

The greatness of the souls on this journey lies precisely in the fact that they remain recognizably human. They will be tired and perhaps seasick, maybe even afraid. They will carry their private griefs with them, along with the larger grief that summoned them to sea. Yet hope does not wait until the heart is free of trembling. It makes use of trembling and gathers what courage it can from love and shame, from prayer and the stubborn unwillingness to let the brutal terms of politics become the final measure of what is possible between us. Amid the daily grief, this is a welcome ray of light.  Hope as an act of resistance, with wet sleeves and a steady hand on the rope. Hope that has looked at the world and, despite every inducement to resignation, continues to choose the human bond.

Those who sailed in April had already paid for this cause. In October 2025, Israeli forces arrested over 450 participants from the last flotilla attempt, among them the Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and Mandla Mandela, grandson of Nelson Mandela. Those survivors set out again, undeceived about what might await. Their willingness to return lent the voyage a grave authority. Events confirmed its cost.

The answer came in the early hours of April 30, in international waters west of Crete, 600 miles from Gaza. Israeli naval vessels surrounded the fleet, ordering activists to their knees at gunpoint. Twenty-two of the 58 boats were seized. One hundred and seventy-five people were held aboard an Israeli frigate for up to 40 hours, denied adequate food and water, the floor beneath them repeatedly and deliberately flooded. They were punched, kicked and dragged across the deck with hands bound. Shots were fired, live and rubber both. Thirty-four people were hospitalized in Crete with broken ribs, broken noses and serious neck injuries. Sixty went on hunger strike, before being released.

Two steering committee members were then taken separately to Israel: Saif Abu Keshek, a Spanish-Swedish Palestinian who had been on an observer boat that never planned to sail to Gaza, and Brazilian activist Thiago Ávila. Abu Keshek was forced to lie face-down from the moment of his seizure, kept hand-tied and blindfolded, his face and hands bruised. Ávila was dragged face-down across the floor and beaten so severely he lost consciousness twice. The Brazilian embassy, visiting under glass, observed visible marks on Ávila’s face and noted his significant pain. Both are in Shikma Prison in Ashkelon and still on a hunger strike. A court has now extended their detention until May 10.

#support-block_26a1d3c8c77edfa954dcd33281640077 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

Spain called the detention illegal; Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez addressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly, saying his country would always protect its citizens and defend international law. Brazil stood with Spain. Turkey’s Foreign Ministry called the interceptions an act of piracy. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani called them a brazen violation of international law. The Trump administration called the flotilla pro-Hamas and threatened consequences for any who had offered support.

Power has answered mercy with boots and bound hands. One wants to call this a surprise, but it is more precisely a revelation: something that was always there, now brought into the open. What the interception has laid bare, beyond the suffering of those detained, is the shape of the blockade itself. What kind of order must travel 600 miles from shore to intercept civilian vessels that are carrying bandages? What does a law protect when it meets unarmed people at sea with firearms and drags them face-down across wet decks?

Thirty-two boats remain anchored in Crete, where the organizers are regrouping and considering their next steps. The flotilla was seized in part. It was not silenced. And that refusal has done what no press release could: made the condition of Gaza impossible to look away from, at a cost borne by those who were willing to bear it.

The boats are small enough to be dismissed by cynics, and large enough to shame the world. They carry the old lesson that power does not hold a monopoly on reality. Power cannot produce the moral beauty that appears when human beings gather themselves for the sake of others. That beauty remains one of the last unpurchased things.

I think, in these dark years, about the difference between authority and worth. The first may be conferred by the world; the second is earned in the secret place where the heart decides whether it will remain human. Those who set out from Barcelona hold no office at all. Even so, they carry more of the world’s honor than many governments assembled beneath their flags. They carry it at sea, in the dark, with their hands bound, still keeping watch.

The lantern is still on the water. Mercy has been met with force, and answered the force with the deeper testimony of the body’s willingness to remain. Thirty-two boats sail on. The heart still knows the way.

This article The Global Sumud Flotilla is a mission of mercy, met with cruelty was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

This article May Day was even more important than you think was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'Vk7zYaJHQWhViKUjU_oBVg',sig:'J-1ykjKxSlOelDfCtwyGVqfQDsdDifjKWbKzK6WjvHE=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2274083676',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

On May 1, organizers reported over 5,000 May Day Strong actions across the country — the most widespread distribution of U.S. May Day actions ever. Numbers are interesting — but they’re not nearly the whole story here. Because this May Day was even more important than you think.

With No Kings, millions were activated into the streets. May Day had another goal in mind — to stretch our mass mobilization skills to include more, to quote Martin Luther King Jr., “creative tension.” 

The need for escalation became all the more urgent in light of the MAGA Supreme Court’s ruling eviscerating the Voting Rights Act, the legal crown jewel of the civil rights movement. This heavy blow is aimed at the most reliable voting bloc for a just democracy in America — Black voters. So, in response, we have to return to risky tactics that wage struggle for our democracy.

So in New York, protesters with the Sunrise Movement shut down entrances to the New York Stock Exchange — a daring tactical escalation. In Raleigh, North Carolina, 20 school districts closed for the largest statewide teacher rally since 2019. In each of the thousands of May Day protests, people spoke to specific local conditions — North Carolina ranks 43rd in average teacher pay — but tied to the overall frame of workers over billionaires.

#newsletter-block_fab340f3bfe7333aae6a6df83b20d037 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_fab340f3bfe7333aae6a6df83b20d037 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

At Kent State University in Ohio, students honored previous generations who braved bullets, standing in the rain and wind to protest the closing of DEI offices and scholarships. They were part of the fast-moving and underreported growth of students organizing against this regime: Sunrise estimates 100,000 students participated in this weekend’s May Day strikes.

It’s important to note what we saw. Escalated tactics were trialed — this wasn’t just sign-waving. The May Day Strong coalition was also consciously moving in a unique formation with National Nurses United, AAUP, NDWA and dozens of local unions, including SEIU, AFSCME and UNITE HERE locals, joining with the likes of Indivisible and 50501. 

But perhaps most importantly and consequentially, it was a structure test for future economic disruptions. In a structure test you’re testing to see who is with you — who is ready to move and who just says they’re ready to move. So in real time we get to assess which groups are ready for further boycotts, strikes and other kinds of economic disruption. These tactics are important to build up for because they are not symbolic, but have a material impact on the authoritarian regime.

As a wise group, this coalition was testing what capacity we have for this kind of collective power. And that capacity was significant (with room to grow!). All consciously organized by a group that has a vision for building to rolling, wildcat and general strikes.

Finding the right yardstick

One of the hazards of living under an authoritarian attempting to consolidate power is that most of our victories will not come from government interventions. As civil resistance scholar Hardy Merriman has observed, we are facing a leader who can wake up each morning and do something terrible — kidnap Nicolás Maduro, fire competent federal workers, bomb Iran, cancel contracts, tear down part of the White House — and in the immediate term, we are not able to stop it.

Therefore “Did we stop him today?” cannot be our yardstick for growth — though obviously, it is an ultimate aim.

So May Day did not stop the Iran war, despite May Day Strong’s strong antiwar demand. It did not fulfill its goal of taxing the rich or guarantee that Trump will honor the “hands off our vote” demand. That’s not the right yardstick.

Previous Coverage

What’s next after the historic No Kings protest?

A different yardstick could be numbers. But of course No Kings blows that out of the water with an impressive 8 million people taking action this March.

But No Work, No School, No Shopping is not sign-waving — it’s economic pressure. In preliminary data from the event, 89 percent of participants refused to shop that day, 14 percent didn’t go to school and 32 percent participated in “No work.” We’re now expanding our ability to materially disrupt the regime.

Yes, we need to go further. Yes, we need more than one-day actions. Yes, we need many more groups to participate, but critics don’t make movements — doers do. And the doers were off doing a lot of things.

They were turning out for public demonstration in small towns where showing up at all takes courage. Towns like Idaho Falls, Idaho, Lewisburg, West Virginia and the ranching town of Dillon, Montana.  

In San Francisco, as elsewhere, protesters were arrested doing direct action, among them  elected officials (and several vying for office). In their case, they blocked the airport — the site of a recent high-profile confrontation with ICE forcibly detaining a woman and her child. While being arrested, Sanjay Garla, first vice president at SEIU United Service Workers West, said, “It’s a good day for the movement. ICE out of SFO!”

Memphis showed up boldly. They now face the triple threat of an ongoing National Guard deployment, new redistricting due to the Supreme Court ruling and an enormous Elon Musk xAI data center. Protesters blocked the entrance to Musk’s Colossus I supercomputer, with its massive turbines polluting air and water. 

“We want xAI to turn the turbines off,” protester Jasmine Bernard told Channel 3 news in Memphis. “We know the consequences of xAI being here far outweigh any benefits that somebody may be able to conjure up.” In city after city, protesters were making visible the story of how billionaires are wrecking our lives — and making clear that we’re not going to put up with it.

In Washington, D.C., people blocked numerous intersections, demanding core values of democracy: no more attacks on workers, peace and the long-delayed D.C. home rule. Keya Chatterjee of Free DC explained where the escalation is headed in an AFSCME press release: “Millions of people across the country rose in solidarity today and that’s what it’s going to take to end this regime and their attacks for good. The next step is to flex our economic muscle.”

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'uR4jmIyMTuRyYSus8H6NVA',sig:'kVDFOgXx8MMv6ecKN_HS9wj6AkyxZJ0Oq0R-VH1AuqM=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2274057397',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

And if you hadn’t heard much about May Day in your community, obviously that means there’s more to do. But also it’s a good sign, as it means people outside your immediate circle were organizing and moving things. If you’re reading this and realize you’re not yet in the boat, join May Day Strong’s list so they can reach you as they plan what comes next.

May Day Strong proved the organizing phenomenon that getting people in motion is difficult, but once people stay in motion, getting them into greater motion becomes easier. And that is a different kind of victory, measured by different instruments.

The research on what actually determines success in civil resistance makes a stark point: 83 percent of successful anti-authoritarian campaigns win when they have strong participation of labor — without labor, the percentage that wins plummets to 29 percent. 

May Day Strong put together one of the widest coalitions yet: a mix of national and locals of National Nurses United, AAUP, NDWA, NEA, AFT, SEIU, Chicago Teachers Union, Starbucks Workers United, the United Electrical Workers, and APWU, alongside Indivisible, 50501, DSA chapters, immigrant rights organizations, and hundreds of local groups. All under a broad set of sensible demands: 

• Tax the Rich: Our families, not their fortunes, come first.
• No ICE. No war. No private army serving authoritarian power.
• Expand democracy, not corporate power. Hands off our vote.

Movement research is also very clear on another point: Movements that wage economic disruption succeed at dramatically higher rates than those that stay in the realm of courts, elections, rallies and petitions alone.

That’s why testing out the operational capability of days of “No Work, No School, No Shopping” is critical. It may be needed in the future if there are attempts to steal elections or other inflection moments — so it’s important for us to get in shape now. 

It’s worth recalling this particular tactic’s history and what happened in Minneapolis.

Minneapolis gave us the blueprint

Operation Metro Surge placed 3,000 armed, masked federal agents throughout Minnesota, leading to ICE agents killing Renée Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. Families hid. Children were afraid to go to school. ICE agents unleashed chemical sprays on students and staff.

Out of that terror, something else was born. Unions, faith leaders and community organizations made a call: Jan. 23 would be a day of “No Work, No School, No Shopping.” We, as workers and students and consumers, would use our power to stop business as usual. 

The day started at a negative 40 degree wind chill. Despite that, over 100,000 people showed up in the streets. Notably, the action was backed by the executive board of the Minnesota AFL-CIO. Subsequent polling found that nearly one in four Minnesota voters either participated or had a loved one who did.

At the AT&T call center in the Twin Cities, “they only have about 20-30 people, out of over 100, who are still working,” Lori Wolf, a CWA Local 7250 member, told Labor Notes. Across many sectors — SEIU 26, UNITE HERE Local 17, ATU bus drivers, IATSE stagehands, AFSCME municipal workers and OPEIU office workers — people made the choice to stay home.

I have written extensively about the “pillars of support” as a way to understand authoritarian power — the institutions whose cooperation an authoritarian needs to govern, and whose withdrawal of cooperation can crack that power open. On Jan. 23 in Minneapolis, we saw pillars from media to small businesses crack — not break, but crack — across almost every dimension at once. 

Over 1,000 businesses closed. The faith pillar moved, activating new national networks, with over 700 faith leaders participating and roughly 100 arrested in an action at Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, blockading the departure lanes used for deportation flights. Across the country, police — long a backbone of state enforcement — began to break ranks, with chiefs publicly condemning ICE tactics and others moving beyond words to support legal distance from rogue, unaccountable and untrained agents. 

Minneapolis Federation of Educators showed up in force with their sea of blue hats — while the following week, University of Minnesota students called for a nationwide walkout. Tens of thousands of students were activated, and they helped spark thousands of largely unreported protests by students nationwide.

#support-block_3eb01ecaf94582e8aff90f3b5519a723 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

This was not a spontaneous eruption. It drew on networks built after the murder of George Floyd, labor councils shaped by years of relationship, and immigrant rights organizations that had been organizing long before most people noticed. What Minneapolis gave us was not just inspiration. It was a blueprint — and a question. Could it spread?

A structure test

Much of the country does not have the resources, history of organizing and relatively healthy movement ecosystem that Minnesota has. We need more practice moving in more unity with each other. 

In that sense, this May Day was what unions call a structure test. A structure test is not an action you take because you’re ready. It is an action you take to find out whether you’re ready — and where you’re not.

In labor organizing, a structure test is any ask you make of people that is deliberately lower-stakes than the final big ask. It’s designed to reveal the real shape of your organization: who will put their name on a petition, who will wear a sticker to work, or who will attend a public meeting, before you ever ask anyone to walk a picket line. “In the lead up to today’s most successful strikes,” wrote the great Jane McAlevey, referring to historic 2018 teachers’ walkouts, “countless structure tests are conducted in advance of knowing a workplace or workplaces are actually ready to strike to win.” 

Her model of building to win requires doing small tests to both exert power and to identify organizing weaknesses. Each May Day locale hopefully is doing a debrief to assess what networks were activated. Nationally we can see groups who came on board and did turn out, and others who did not.

“We are asking people to take a step into further exerting their power in all aspects of their lives — as workers, as students, as members of local organizing hubs,” Leah Greenberg of Indivisible told The Guardian. “It’s important as it builds muscles towards greater non-cooperation.”

A structure test is very different than wishful thinking (“why can’t everyone just do a general strike?”) — it is testing the capability of institutions and their resolve. It is the practice of honesty about where you are. It is the act of asking, in public and under conditions of real pressure: Who is actually with us?

That question, asked in thousands of cities on May 1, is the most important thing that happened that day. Not because we have the final answer. But because now we know more about the shape of the answer than we did on April 30.

Power, unity, leadership: an honest accounting

Researchers often converge on some key measures to assess movements resisting authoritarianism: unity, planning and nonviolent discipline.

The scale of coordination — thousands of events, major national unions, official city holidays in Chicago, teacher actions statewide in North Carolina, airport actions in the Bay Area, nurses on strike in New Orleans — represented unity and planning, in a real and measurable expansion of what this movement can do. 

“The way we build power is by flexing power,” said Martha Grant, one of the May Day Strong organizers.

In Chicago, the birthplace of May Day, the Chicago Teachers Union recently won the concession that all public school children learn about May Day, creating what CTU president Stacy Davis Gates called “academic freedom for all of us to understand where our empowerment comes from.” Thousands rallied at Union Park alongside a day of economic blackout with SEIU Healthcare Illinois and Indiana, Indivisible Chicago and the Chicago Federation of Labor. 

Previous Coverage

What’s it going to take to get to mass strikes?

There are real tensions in any broad front. There are more groups that need to be brought in. And because institutions like unions have been so gutted, there are many more individuals that need to be connected, too — hence one reason organizers created “Strike Ready” to capture individuals wanting to participate who weren’t connected to some of the big organizations.

In Minneapolis this January, what was most striking was not the headline number but the distributed leadership underneath it: union shop stewards who had built trust over years, faith leaders who had organized their congregations, neighborhood organizers who knew every door on their block. 

May Day 2026 built some of that model into its design, encouraging people to register their own events and lead their own actions. But we also know that thousands of communities had nothing on the map: places where the networks are thin, where people are activated and angry but not organized. That gap is the next frontier. The work of the next months is not another rally. It is building into those communities — finding the people who will knock on the next door.

We are training for something larger

May Day 2026 was, in the language of Freedom Trainer’s Community Strike Readiness workshops, not just a day of action. It was one structure test — because we have some big inflection moments coming up. Perhaps the biggest test of this year may be preparing for enforcement of election results — something that the tactic of the strike is well suited for.

A general strike is not a valve we can just turn on and off. It requires groups ready to move in formation with each other — and May Day Strong is positioning itself to be the entity that tells us it’s time to strike if the election is stolen. This is critical.

Cliff Smith, a Roofers Local 36 official and May Day Strong organizer in Los Angeles, said plainly what many are saying privately: “We should not depend on the November midterm elections to provide us with any solutions to this problem. We should have contingency plans in the event that there are not free and fair elections.”

Of course, between now and the election we need a lot more public action and pressure. And the civil disobedience that May Day Strong incorporated is crucial. 

This is just a beginning. The May Day Strong campaign is hosting dozens of planning and debrief sessions and turning its attention towards defending the right to protest, right to vote and the right to have a free and fair election.

May Day 2026 wasn’t perfect — but it was a real exercise of power. We learned where we stand, not in theory but in motion. The muscles are there — maybe stiff, maybe uneven — but real, alive and ready to grow for more escalation, more economic disruption, more clarification of the billionaire opponents who are threatening the existence of all of us. That matters. Now we just have to keep building on it.

This article May Day was even more important than you think was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

This article Why power analysis is key to fighting ICE was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'N5YdDyLKS0J5qFYhDZlyOw',sig:'JEr8kp-qsdyHH7veEfpV3mFipuFukC3iE4Hc03O2tYA=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2258577189',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

The ICE campaign to round up millions of immigrants is grounded in tactics designed to inspire public fear and passivity. Dressed in tactical gear and wielding deadly weapons, masked agents strive to project an image of invincible power as they rampage through communities, smashing into cars, breaking down doors and wrestling people into unmarked vehicles.

Nevertheless, many activists have refused to be intimidated, successfully confronting agents on the street to prevent harassment and arrests. Such ad hoc resistance has its limitations, however, since ICE activities often occur out of public view.

In response, activists are using a more systemic approach by targeting businesses that underpin the agency’s ability to function. Because ICE cannot carry out its operations alone, it relies on a network of companies to provide equipment, intelligence, communications, travel, accommodations and everything else huge bureaucracies require.

For example, Palantir has been the target of a campaign because, among other things, it provides surveillance software and database management services to ICE. The Coalition to Stop Avelo targeted Avelo Airlines, forcing it to end its deportation contract with ICE. And boycotts have been launched against Home Depot for allowing immigration raids on its property and Hilton Hotels for accommodating ICE agents.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'IKevCvA4T6FGlO9Pah89HA',sig:'aaDRIb0NxSNN5IXFsEYWGulX0xXKFIYz_KvRV9r7BZk=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2264645203',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

While a simple internet search can turn up dozens of companies that have been awarded ICE contracts, sometimes finding your opponent’s most vulnerable pillars of support requires doing extensive research. 

Identify targets that are vulnerable to pressure 

In the early 2000s the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, or CIW, did a detailed evaluation of their industry and discovered new targets that drastically changed the direction and effectiveness of their campaign for farmworkers’ rights.

Tomato pickers in the small South Florida town had been struggling since the group was founded in 1993 to increase wages and improve working conditions in the fields. Using short work stoppages, marches and hunger strikes aimed at influencing the growers, they had been able to raise their wages marginally, but the growers remained intransigent. By every measure, the workers were still impoverished.

Discouraged by slow progress, the workers undertook a deep analysis of the food industry. As described by Susan Marquis in her book “I Am Not a Tractor!,” their research revealed a couple of key insights. First, the tomato growers they had been targeting with their protests could not afford to raise the farmworkers’ wages even if they wanted to, because tomato prices were set by the buyers.

The second revelation was that the buyers, unlike the growers, had public-facing brands. The fast food restaurants and grocery stores that were buying tomatoes from the Immokalee growers had brands to protect, and the last thing they wanted was to have their public images tarnished.

Consequently, after targeting the growers for seven years, CIW pivoted, launching a national boycott of Taco Bell. The demand was that the company simply pay an extra penny per pound for their tomatoes, with the extra revenue passed on to the workers. What made Taco Bell especially vulnerable was its ubiquity on college campuses, where student activists could apply additional pressure. 

Previous Coverage

Lessons from the Coalition of Immokalee Workers for low-wage workers

After about four years of organizing and agitating, the fast food giant’s parent company, Yum! Brands signed an agreement with CIW. Next, the workers targeted McDonald’s, a campaign that succeeded after only two years. After that, the dominoes tumbled quickly as Burger King, Whole Foods, Subway and many more companies were forced to the negotiating table. Using extensive research to expose the industry’s power relationships and find the right targets was the key to their success.

As the CIW’s campaign illustrates, when designing a campaign strategy, your immediate opponent and your best target may not always be the same. Even when your opponent has the capacity to acquiesce to your demand, they may be relatively immune from any pressure you can bring to bear. Fortunately, power is more like a web than a monolith, and while your opponent may seem powerful, their power is not intrinsic, but rather derives from other people and institutions they cannot fully control. Targeting one or more of these pillars of support may prove more fruitful than attacking your opponent head on. 

Don’t stop at the obvious

Finding those pillars requires doing a power analysis. Power analysis is all about uncovering connections and asking how various entities interact to create a web of dependencies that can reveal your opponent’s vulnerabilities and sources of power.

Most professional campaigning organizations understand the importance of doing in-depth research on their opponent, but if you’re a member of an ad-hoc group of volunteers fighting, for example, a data center or a detention center in your community, the idea might not occur. You may try to coerce local politicians or regulatory boards to take your side because they seem to have the power to stop the project. But targeting the most obvious entity may not give you the best chance at success.

“Sometimes we’ll just get stuck at the city council or the mayor … because the immediate decisions stop there,” said Lauren Jacobs, executive director of PowerSwitch Action. “But what I think is critical is that we are completely mapping the whole terrain.”

“I think that there is utility that can come from going after your immediate opponent, but … your most obvious opponent might not always be who actually has the power to give you what you want,” said Molly Gott, a senior research analyst at LittleSis, a nonprofit research organization focused on corporate and government accountability. “And there can oftentimes be utility to mapping out a little bit more the other powerful players that are involved and the ways that you can pressure them.”

In 2021 the Defend Black Voters Coalition launched a campaign against Michigan state lawmakers who were pushing to overturn the 2020 election results and suppress Black voting. Although the campaign was eventually suspended after Michiganders passed a ballot initiative that essentially accomplished the campaign’s objectives, the coalition’s process was a great illustration of how a thorough power analysis can uncover layers of indirect connections between people and corporations that may not be obvious at first.

#newsletter-block_06d5ffc30749b91d8d5e3b8d96b4f39d { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_06d5ffc30749b91d8d5e3b8d96b4f39d #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

As described by Andrew Willis Garcés in a Training for Change podcast, the coalition realized it would be futile to target the entrenched Republican legislators who were attempting to interfere with Michigan elections. But research revealed several big donors who supported the Republican legislators, and one of those companies — insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield — had contracts worth billions of dollars with Michigan cities and counties.

So the campaign targeted Democrat-controlled municipalities across the state, urging them to pass resolutions threatening those business ties if the insurance company didn’t end its support for election-denying legislators. The campaign began to gain momentum as five cities and counties, including Detroit and Wayne County, approved contractor accountability measures before the voter ballot initiative was approved and the campaign ended.

But targeting tertiary targets — Michigan municipalities — to indirectly influence legislators shows how deep research on an opponent can reveal potentially vulnerable connections up and down the power chain.

The nuts and bolts of power analysis

“I know this can be a challenge for groups that don’t have people on staff who are researchers,” Jacobs said. “There’s a lot that we can do via simple Google searches and not stopping on the first page of results. We can dig and find out a lot of stuff that’s in the public domain.”

In addition to deep internet searches, another way to gather information about your opponent is doing what James Mumm calls a “research action.”

“You could be talking to workers, you could be talking to ex-employees of a company,” said Mumm, who is chief of institutional advancement at the People’s Action Institute, a national federation of local groups dedicated to building the power of poor and working people. “If you get a meeting, you could sit down with the target of your campaign and ask them questions.”

Specialized databases can also be useful, Mumm said. For example, Pitchbook provides detailed financial data on corporations, and LexisNexis contains news articles and court cases. But these databases are expensive and may be beyond the reach of all-volunteer groups unless they can find a professional advocacy group that has a subscription and is willing to share.

The questions to explore when doing a power analysis vary based on the type of campaign, but Gott, the LittleSis research analyst, offers some examples: “If we’re thinking about doing a power analysis of a corporation, we look at who are the executives, who’s on the board, how do they get financing, what banks do they work with, who are their investors, who are their customers, who are their shareholders, do they get subsidies, all that kind of stuff.”

When researching powerful people, Gott says the investigation should be similarly wide ranging: “For example, research might include questions such as what boards are they on, what kinds of business and social networks are they a part of, do they have investments, do they belong to a particular country club, what are their political relationships, do they give money to particular elected officials,” she explained.

Mumm suggests a slightly different approach to power research by trying to answer four basic questions about your opponent: what do they want, who do they fear, who has power over them and who do they have power over. The first two questions can help form the campaign’s strategy and test its effectiveness.

“So we’re trying to take what they want away from them and bring what they fear closer,” Mumm said. “And the only way we know if we’re doing either one of those correctly throughout the course of a campaign is we get a reaction from the target. If we get no reaction from a target, then we have made bad guesses and have to do more research.” 

Tracing connections helps answer Mumm’s third research question — who has power over your opponent? You might discover your opponent has financial ties, supply chain dependencies, political affiliations, personal relationships and more — any of which could present promising campaign targets. This is how you can generate secondary and tertiary targets.

Researching the fourth question — who does your main target have power over — can be a great source of intel, according to Mumm, especially in corporate campaigns. That’s because not everyone likes their boss. Employees who are disgruntled or sympathetic to the campaign’s objectives may provide inside information that can shed light on corporate decision making and internal power dynamics. All this information can be compiled to inform a campaign’s targeting strategy.

The information gathering process shouldn’t end after the initial strategy is settled on. Continuing research during a campaign is crucial because power relationships are constantly shifting, especially during long campaigns. Also, as more information about the opponent surfaces, a change in target might be necessary, especially when a campaign gets bogged down.

When a strategy isn’t working, Gott said, “then you go back to the drawing board, maybe do more research, maybe revisit research that you already had.”

Reevaluate your target as needed

A good example of a campaign finding success by shifting to a secondary target occurred during the Riders Against Gender Exclusion, or RAGE, campaign in Philadelphia. In 2010, bus drivers were harassing trans people whose appearance did not match the gender on their passes, and accusing them of using someone else’s pass. RAGE formed to fight the policy.

After some research, the group determined that SEPTA, the Philadelphia transit authority, was the entity that had the power to eliminate the gender markers, so that agency became their target.

“Ultimately we were pretty clear that SEPTA were the ones that could say yes or no to our demands,” said Nico Amador, who was one of the RAGE organizers. “Sometimes as campaigners, we are dealing with a target that really has no direct accountability to us. Voters don’t choose the head of the public transportation system.”

Consequently, after two years of unsuccessfully pressuring SEPTA, the campaign was losing steam. The group took stock and decided to pivot to a less confrontational objective. A new “Ride with Respect” campaign engaged allies to sign cards pledging to intervene if they saw someone being harassed by bus drivers because of a perceived gender mismatch on their bus pass.

Meanwhile, a woman who had attended RAGE meetings decided on her own to initiate conversations with a few Philadelphia City Council members to discuss the gender marker issue. The lobbying resulted in the City Council unanimously passing a non-binding resolution in support of changing the bus pass gender policy. Shortly afterwards, SEPTA discontinued the use of the gender markers on commuter passes.

While it’s likely the RAGE campaign against SEPTA had softened their resistance and set the stage for the policy reversal, it was the City Council that ultimately proved to be the decisive target.

“I think there was maybe an oversight on our part once we had actually built that power and that influence to not notice that the City Council as a secondary target would have been a smart move,” Amador said.

But Amador doesn’t think it was a mistake to initially target SEPTA.

“I think in our case it would have been hard to build legitimacy around the campaign if we had not put pressure on SEPTA directly first,” he said.

#support-block_14bf8a0f8450703d8c247b896b84c226 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

Nevertheless, this example demonstrates the importance of constantly reevaluating targeting decisions as power relationships fluctuate during the course of a campaign.

While doing extensive opposition research may seem like a daunting task, especially for poorly resourced groups, there is help. LittleSis provides research assistance and free training programs for activists. It was LittleSis research that aided the successful StopAvelo campaign by identifying some of the airline’s pillars of support, like airports that leased them gates, local governments that provided them subsidies and universities that signed promotional deals with them.

Besides providing toolkits, research guides and their own database of powerful people and institutions, the nonprofit offers an annual four-part webinar called Research Tools for Organizers that covers the basics of power analysis. 

“We talk about intro to power research … understanding the history of it in social movements in the U.S., and then how to research a corporation, how to research nonprofits and how to research billionaires,” Gott explained.

No matter how formidable an opponent appears on the surface, chances are they have social, political or economic connections that render them vulnerable. Power research can help campaigns identify pillars of support, and finding the right target can be the difference between success and failure.

This article Why power analysis is key to fighting ICE was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

This article A peace agenda to end military madness was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'9d200FZBSONMmdpUpWoz3Q',sig:'4H34AzCl8kk2yw3Bfvc5ip3eqnuLjohTpSMjKQiFL5U=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2272262936',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

The president who promised to end forever wars and spoke of reducing nuclear weapons has succumbed to what David Wallace-Wells calls “impulsive warmongering.” 

After bombing Iran for 12 days last June, the U.S. and Israel launched a massive military assault that has caused widespread damage in the region and major disruption in global energy markets. In January, Donald Trump sent military forces to capture and arrest the leader of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro. The White House has proposed the largest military spending increase since World War II and plans to pay for it with draconian cuts in health care and other domestic social programs. Trump has refused offers by Moscow to preserve limits on U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals and wants to resume nuclear testing.

Opposing these policies and advocating for peaceful alternatives is essential to create a safer world. A more engaged global peace movement is needed to counter these threats and advocate for a more secure future. 

Below is a four-point agenda for political action: End the war against Iran; prevent nuclear proliferation in the Gulf; halt and reverse the global nuclear arms race; and slash military spending levels. 

Ending the war in Iran

Stopping Trump’s continued military aggression against Iran is an urgent priority. The war is increasingly unpopular. Recent polls show 58 percent of Americans opposed to the war, with disapproval of Trump’s presidency at a record high. 

Although Republicans in the Senate have repeatedly rejected Democratic attempts to invoke the War Powers Act limiting U.S. involvement, some in the GOP have signaled that the statute’s 60-day deadline on May 1 could be a turning point. Some Republicans have indicated they will not support the war beyond that date if the president does not seek Senate approval or find a way to end the conflict. These rumblings of discontent, although faint, are an indication of mounting political trouble for the White House.

The president desperately needs a way out of the quagmire he has created for himself. He claims that Iran has been defeated and the war is over, but Tehran refuses to yield. The U.S. allowed the initial deadline for the end of the ceasefire to pass last week without taking further military action, but Trump repeated his odious threat to cause the “major destruction” of Iran’s civilian infrastructure. 

Previous Coverage

The American peace movement we need today

As Trump flails about for a solution, opponents of the war must continue to demand an end to all further bombing and all U.S. military operations in the region, urging a withdrawal of American forces and negotiations for a solution to regional security issues and agreed limits on Iran’s nuclear program. 

Protests against the war are increasing. On April 20, dozens of veterans and military family members demonstrated at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Members of About Face, Veterans For Peace, Common Defense, Military Families Speak Out and other groups unveiled antiwar banners in the Cannon House Office Building rotunda. They held red tulips out of respect for the thousands of Iranians killed by U.S. strikes. They conducted a flag-folding ceremony to honor the 13 U.S. troops killed so far in the war. Chanting antiwar slogans, more than 60 of the veterans and their supporters were arrested by U.S. Capitol Police. 

That same day protesters gathered at the New York office of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand urging support for legislation introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders that would block U.S. funding for additional weaponry and bulldozers to Israel. The Sanders resolution is gaining increased support among Democrats in Congress. The actions in Washington, D.C. and New York in recent days were among many protests against the war across the U.S., around the world and in Israel. 

Opposition to the war has become a theme of the No Kings movement, which initially concentrated on saving democracy and opposing executive overreach. With Trump’s attack against Iran, the focus of the movement has broadened. Messages opposing the war and its costs were prevalent in the massive March 28 mobilizations. Posters for “healthcare not warfare” appeared frequently. 

Antiwar themes need to be front and center as activists engage in the midterm elections. MoveOn, the Movement Voter Project and other organizations are already hard at work mobilizing support for progressive candidates. By participating actively in political meetings and campaign debates, opponents of the war can deliver a powerful message: If candidates want our vote, they must take a firm stand against Trump’s disastrous war.  

Preventing proliferation in the Gulf

The stated purposes of the war have shifted constantly, but the most consistently emphasized goal is to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. Trump has also mentioned other objectives, such as regime change and gaining control of Iran’s oil. If nonproliferation is the goal, the use of military force is the wrong approach. Most successes in nonproliferation policy have been the result of diplomatic bargaining, often utilizing targeted sanctions and incentives. 

Iran’s nuclear program was effectively contained through the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, which blocked Tehran’s pathway to developing nuclear weapons. (Details on how the JCPOA curtailed Iran’s nuclear program and the evidence of Iranian compliance with the agreement are available here.)

#newsletter-block_e7b39b95c5d4dade65c4c92918c6696e { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_e7b39b95c5d4dade65c4c92918c6696e #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

Although the U.S. State Department reported Iranian compliance with the JCPOA, Trump claimed falsely that Tehran was cheating and reneged on the deal in May 2018. The U.S. then imposed “maximum pressure” sanctions, leading to renewed enmity, prompting Tehran to enrich uranium to higher levels and laying the foundation for the current armed hostilities. 

Iran made major compromises in the JCPOA, and it offered similar concessions in negotiations in June 2025 and February 2026. On the last two occasions, the U.S. and Israel began bombing just as conciliatory Iranian proposals were presented. Given Trump’s disdain for diplomacy, Iranians are understandably skeptical of the prospects for a negotiated agreement. 

U.S. and Israeli assaults may have stirred an impulse among Iranian hardliners to play the nuclear card they have previously held in reserve but have not used. The tragic irony is that a war supposedly to prevent Iran from building a bomb may increase the propensity to do just that. 

Worsening the danger is Trump’s commitment to help Saudi Arabia acquire uranium enrichment and plutonium separation facilities. As Washington wages war to prevent Iran from enriching uranium, it is proposing to help Tehran’s rival develop a similar and more expansive nuclear capability. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman stated in a 2018 interview that if Iran develops a bomb, “we will follow suit as soon as possible.”  

A nuclear arms race in the Gulf would be a nightmare for everyone, including Israel, which adds a compelling argument for ending the war and engaging in effective diplomacy to settle the dispute with Iran and contain nuclear programs in the region. Members of Congress have introduced legislation to prevent Saudi enrichment and impose strict nonproliferation guardrails on the proposed deal. These efforts deserve public support.

Halting the arms race

Nuclear proliferation is not just a concern in the Middle East. Dozens of disarmament groups in the U.S. and other countries recently joined together to issue a global “Call to Halt and Reverse the Nuclear Arms Race.” The groups are urging a complete stop to the development and deployment of nuclear bombs and weapons systems on all sides, including the U.S., Russia and China. The organizations have unified around the message that “more nuclear weapons will not make the world safer.”

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'3bnZ3DobSUphotgTT2aXsw',sig:'-HL4zq5s1lwdnVKGZlhMSctFoNTlHG8yVwEKoquRHOM=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'1246391377',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

Disseminating the call and seeking additional endorsements from religious, scientific and social organizations are achievable action steps that can increase awareness of the nuclear danger. Building support for the call can prepare groups to oppose specific acts of nuclear development by the United States, such as the deployment of additional nuclear warheads on existing weapons platforms, and resuming nuclear explosions at the Nevada test site. 

Activists are also demanding that Washington and Moscow formalize an agreement on maintaining current strategic weapons limits and begin negotiations for a new arms reduction treaty. They advocate for the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, as specified in the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Slashing war budgets 

The president and his Republican supporters in Congress are drastically militarizing the U.S. federal budget. Adjusting for inflation, Trump’s 2027 budget will increase military spending by more than 40 percent. Among the many alarming items in the new budget is a 65 percent spending increase on plutonium production to create 100 new plutonium pits for nuclear warheads per year. 

Even before the proposed increase, military spending is higher now than it was at the peak of the Vietnam War. It is nearly twice what it was in 1961, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about the “unwarranted influence” wielded by the military-industrial complex. 

The new budget can be regarded as a vast corporate welfare system to further enrich arms contractors. The unparalleled increase in their financial power will enable arms builders to lobby the government for even more unnecessary weapons. It will also benefit members of Congress who receive contributions from weapons contractors to create jobs in their district. It’s a legalized form of corruption masquerading as national defense. 

Decades ago, those who profited from war were branded merchants of death. Peace activists in the 1930s helped Sen. Gerald Nye of North Dakota convene widely publicized hearings on the munitions industry. The proceedings exposed the role of industrial and financial magnates in promoting the pre-World War I arms race, and fueled public disgust with capitalist greed. Perhaps an equivalent public disclosure of arms contractor corruption could be organized today.

Military spending expert Stephen Semler’s analysis of Trump’s 2027 budget illuminates America’s warped national priorities. Setting aside entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, which are funded by fixed formulas written into law and can only be adjusted through extraordinary Congressional action, Trump’s budget allocates 80 percent of discretionary spending either directly or indirectly to war: preparation for war, the consequences of past wars or militarized policing. If enacted, the new proposal would cut spending on domestic priorities and social programs by $300 billion.

#support-block_e80aed8590e5399d5a6f1ee211befbfb { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

On top of all of this, the White House has announced it will submit a $98 billion supplemental appropriation to continue the war on Iran and stock up weapons to fight similar wars in the future. The war supplemental will face stiff opposition in Congress, deservedly so. The budget debate provides an opportunity for activists to mobilize against further spending for war, and also to challenge the entire warmaking budget. Small cuts here or there will not suffice against the monstrously distorted budget now before Congress. 

If we add to the direct and indirect costs of war, the military’s share of the interest on the national debt, along with growing expenditures on prisons and immigrant detention centers, the amount of tax dollars devoted to the wars at home and abroad in Trump’s proposed budget would exceed $2 trillion per year, according to Semler’s analysis. Programs for public health, the environment, housing, scientific research, day care, nutrition and education are slashed to the bone. The Trump administration has built a garrison state that feeds weapons contractors and starves the rest of us. This is a tragedy of historic proportions, and it means there is nowhere to hide from the war machine and the surveillance state. 

More and more people and organizations now have no choice but to pay attention to overspending on the Pentagon, and to fight back as if their lives and livelihoods depend on it. Because, increasingly, they do. Among the organizations working directly against the war machine’s spending splurge are People Over Pentagon, a coalition that includes Public Citizen, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Project on Government Oversight, the American Friends Service Committee, Peace Action, and the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and the Poor People’s Campaign, a joint project of the Kairos Center and Repairers of the Breach.

Pressure is needed to demand a fundamental restructuring of federal spending priorities. Without a wholesale shift towards more balanced budgeting, millions of Americans will suffer from untreated medical conditions, inadequate nutrition and lack of access to economic opportunity.

The peace agenda is demanding and will require an enormous mobilization of political action from millions of Americans. The challenge is daunting, but the prospects for progress are real. Trump’s warmongering is increasingly unpopular. The prospects for political realignment in November are increasing. Millions of people have participated in No Kings protests. If the political energy against Trumpism can be harnessed for a concentrated campaign to stop war and militarism, a more peaceful future will be possible.

This article A peace agenda to end military madness was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

This article Rural India is not giving up a work guarantee without a fight was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Across villages in India, protests erupted in December 2025 after the Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, government scrapped one of the largest social safety nets in the world and replaced it with a watered-down version. 

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, or MGNREGA, guaranteed paid work to rural households. The new Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act not only drops Gandhi’s name but also steers away from the original rights-based framework that served as an economic lifeline for the roughly 30 percent of households in rural India who live in poverty. 

After Modi signed the new act into law on Dec. 20, unions and other workers’ organizations started mobilizing the rural population, running campaigns and demonstrations explaining the fine print and how it strips away the right to guaranteed employment. While the new law raises the number of days that the government will pay people to work from 100 to 125, it adds restrictions. Before, people who held job cards could apply for work whenever they needed it. Now, there is a 60-day pause period during the sowing and harvesting period. And, most concerning to advocates, work availability is now subject to a capped federal budget. 

Economist Jean Drèze said that this all amounts to a fundamental change: “The federal government now holds the discretion to give work. This dependence is a serious dilution of the principle of [guaranteed] employment, and it is bound to reduce the bargaining power of workers in private employment as well.”  

Protesters across rural India held funeral processions to lament the death of the old program. In the northwestern state of Rajasthan, women wailed, wept and thumped their chests at administrative block offices and headquarters, echoing the local custom of professional mourners, known as rudaalis.

#newsletter-block_4cd7384b76dca76e8313c20a030581ac { background: #ececec; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_4cd7384b76dca76e8313c20a030581ac #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

In other states, women composed and sang songs condemning the rebranded law. Workers also held rallies and submitted memoranda of demands at the government offices, where workers apply for job cards under MGNREGA and demand work. 

Meanwhile, a coalition of center-left political parties, including the Indian National Congress Party, launched their own nationwide agitation, which ran from Jan. 10 to Feb. 25 and included marches, sit-ins and a one-day fast. Their demands are to roll back the new law and strengthen MGNREGA, with timely work assignments and a nationwide minimum wage of $4.30 per day (currently, daily wages range from $2.50 to $4).

Coordinating the bottom-up protests is the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, or NSM, founded in 2017 — a decentralized national coalition of workers’ unions, mass organizations, NGOs, activists and public intellectuals that brought together over 30 groups across 15 states. The coalition’s demands go further than the political parties’ and include 200 days of work per adult rural worker during natural disasters and a minimum wage of roughly $9 per day, adjusted annually for inflation. 

Since December 2025, thousands of people have participated in the nationwide mobilization coordinated by NSM, consisting of creative actions from the local to the state level, including the protests at the administrative offices in January, mass demonstrations at state capitols in February, and women-led protests on International Women’s Day in March. The ongoing protests aim to apply electoral pressure to the ruling party and force the government to repeal the new act and strengthen the old one. 

At ground zero, exasperation and relentless protest

Feb. 2, which marked 20 years of the rural livelihood program, saw mass demonstrations at state capitals, district headquarters and administrative offices.

In Kumrapara Village in the eastern state of West Bengal, which lies in the Sundarbans region — one of the most vulnerable climate hotspots in the world — a group of families gathered around midday to protest the new act and discuss their exasperation over the lack of rural work for many years now. 

In March 2022 the Modi government stopped issuing MGNREGA funds to West Bengal, an opposition-led state, over financial irregularities. Last year, a parliamentary committee report observed that the suspension of funds had led to sharp increase in “distress migration and disruptions in rural development initiatives. … exacerbating economic hardships in the state.”

Life was marginally easier with work available at the villages. Now, the young men have largely left to find seasonal work in southern and western India, over 1,000 miles away from the eastern state of West Bengal where they live. 

Farmer, activist and lawyer Avik Saha said that the BJP government has been trying to throttle the MGNREGA since coming to power a decade ago. “Finally, they have been successful in dismantling the program,” he said. Their goal, he believes, is “to convert rural labor into cheap unorganized labor.” 

The original act, passed in 2005 by the Congress party, was designed to address rural poverty and unemployment. It served as a fallback option for workers in times of agrarian crisis. Numerous studies found that the act was successful in bringing money to rural households and reducing debt and hunger. The work itself built rural infrastructure and adaptation to drought and floods.  

The act was especially crucial for groups who face job discrimination, such as Dalits, Adivasis, migrant workers and women. With a quota that women make up one-third of beneficiaries and an equal-pay mandate, the act encouraged women’s participation in work outside their homes. Over the years, research has shown that MGNREGA has gone a long way in providing women with paid work and autonomy over household decisions, including children’s well-being. According to the central government’s data, women made up over 58 percent of participants in the employment program in 2025.

The protests over the act’s demise build on the years of decentralized rural protests against its erosion. Since the right-wing Modi government came into power in 2014, the act has been under threat, with funds curtailed, wage payments delayed and a hard-to-access digital attendance system leaving the poor scrambling to get work.

Workers visit their local governing body office to demand work on Feb. 2. (WNV/Ritwika Mitra)

Slogans like “Har haat ko kaam do, kaam ka pura daam do” (Give work to every hand, pay fairly for that work) have defined the protests from the early years.

“These show a movement of ordinary people doing extraordinary things,” said Nikhil Dey, founding member of the people’s organization Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, part of the NSM. “The biggest legacy is the coming together of people’s thoughts and actions, and the beautiful articulation of their demands. The slogans are an assertion of their citizenship.”

The women in the village have been protesting since funds were cut off from West Bengal in 2022 — taking to the streets, blocking roads, clanging pots and pans at local administrative offices and traveling to the state capital of Kolkata, 50 miles away. 

“The clanging of plates signaled that we need work to eat — the plate being a symbol of us securing our rice for the day,” said Nirubala Halder, a worker in her 60s who said she has gone to every protest since 2022.

Halder’s neighbor Namita Pramanick, 60, said she is still owed pay for work she did in 2021. “I cleaned ponds painstakingly for 22 days. There is no hope now to get paid or work,” Pramanick said.    

People from the village gather around Kanai Halder, an activist with the West Bengal-based agricultural workers’ organization Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti, another member of the NSM. “You cannot afford to lose hope now,” he tells them. “This is going to be a long battle, and we have to prepare for it. Would you rather that your young boys and husbands leave for distant lands?”

Work opportunities are drying up in Sundarbans, which has been called the cyclone capital of India, as climate change intensifies the cyclones. Seawater flooding from the storms is raising soil salinity. Guaranteed work would be a social security buffer in the village and also help climate resilience efforts like restoring mangroves and building earthen embankments to keep out tidal surges. 

“The truth is we have not protested enough,” Saha said. “In a way, we have allowed this to happen. But eventually farmers, farm workers, MGNREGA workers will be forced to come together due to economic compulsion.”

The support of political parties is key

On May Day, the NSM will protest the new act, and on May 15, the platform has planned decentralized demonstrations at work sites and administrative offices across the country. 

The workers’ organizations are learning to tap into the power of social media to spread word about the protests. 

They were inspired by another protest movement brewing in the states of north India in December — in opposition to a ruling by India’s Supreme Court that made the Aravalli hills vulnerable to mining and construction. Instagram was flooded with content. When the workers’ organizations asked the women in the villages how they knew about the protests around Aravalli, they responded by showing them Instagram reels. 

#support-block_13001be32f4782829a5ca605e69a59da { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

“We realized we had never explored the potential to connect through social media. It is a smart way to form an organic decentralized movement which the government cannot clamp down on, and to get the mainstream media to pick up on it,” said Nikhil Shenoy, member of Rajasthan Asangathit Mazdoor Union, a part of NSM. 

Workers with the NSM have been recording catchy songs accompanied by puppetry to help push out word about the protests on Instagram.

Ultimately, Shenoy believes that pressure from political parties will be key to making change. With West Bengal headed for elections on April 23 and April 29, the ruling All India Trinamool Congress party has made the first plank of its reelection platform a guarantee of 100 days of work to all job card holders in the state. The party accused the ruling BJP of “betraying the people of Bengal” by withholding funds for MGNREGA.

While there has been some cooperation between the political parties and the NSM, Shenoy stressed the need for more. “The political parties have a reach which we cannot achieve,” he said. “When they are able to pick up on the pulse of the people, then the movement gets bigger. The government will only listen when it is politically hurt.”

This article Rural India is not giving up a work guarantee without a fight was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

This article Cooperation is more powerful than coercion was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

This article was first published on Meditations in an Emergency.

What is power? It is at its most essential the ability to influence an outcome on any or all scales, to protect one’s own interests at a minimum and to influence, even control others at a maximum. 

Violence is constantly misunderstood as power, and it certainly looks like power, and in some respects it is power, but a limited kind of power to harm and destroy. The threat of violence is often used to coerce — but also often has negative consequences, including the loss of other kinds of power, the powers that come with relationship, connection, alliance, trust. Violence isolates and alienates; it makes enemies, it stirs up dangers that linger. Friends are another kind of power built through another set of skills.

Botanist David George Haskell’s new book “How Flowers Made Our World: The Story of Nature’s Revolutionaries” describes a kind of power often ignored or dismissed, just as flowers themselves are. He writes, “When flowers arrived, they upended and transformed the planet. They were late arrivals on the world stage, appearing about two hundred million years ago, long after the evolution of complex animals and other land plants. By one hundred million years ago they were the foundation of most habitats on land.” 

He expanded on the subject in a “Wonder Cabinet” podcast interview, declaring “We often think of power and revolution as about control, authoritarianism, and violence. Might makes right. But that’s not the only way in which revolution and power and transformation take place. Flowers offer a different narrative. They changed the world in revolutionary ways through cooperation, through collaboration, often mediated by beauty, by sensory experiences. So a flower is quite literally speaking to the sensory system of a bee or of a hoverfly or of a bird to draw that animal into establishing a cooperative relationship, a reciprocal relationship. And we’re just the latest animal to become enchanted by the flowers and to become loyal collaborators with the flowers.”

Flowers, as he unpacks, developed the power to influence others’ behavior by building symbiotic relationships: “I’ll feed you fruit if you scatter my seeds; I’ll give you nectar and pollen in return for pollination; I’ll let you domesticate me and provide you with your daily bread and you’ll plant and tend me across countless fields for countless generations.” In an earlier book, “The Botany of Desire,” Michael Pollan speculated that plants had domesticated us as much as we had domesticated them, since we serve their needs so that they may serve ours, from the most practical issue of bodily sustenance to the most poetic one of bouquets and beauty. That’s flower power.

A hawk moth on a morning glory I witnessed a few summers ago in Santa Fe. (Rebecca Solnit)

But as Jonathan Schell reminded us in his landmark book from 2003, “Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People,” violence as military attack is often deployed because politics — the art of persuasion, the building of alliance, the finding of common ground — has failed. Violence itself often fails too. Schell came of age as a young writer who went to Vietnam at the height of the U.S. war there and perceived that for all its superior military might, the U.S. could not conquer the people of that country. Because the U.S. or some of its leaders didn’t learn that lesson, the same mistake was made in Afghanistan, Iraq, and is being made now in Iran. 

People who have violence at their disposal often confuse it with power, and while it can achieve some things it fails at others. I think of the abusive spouses who think they can coerce love but often can only extort a reluctant simulation of the same by someone whose motivating feeling is fear rather than love and whose desire is often to escape.

Something that’s struck me about the Trump administration throughout its second term is its profound misunderstanding of power. Over and over again, Trump and his minions demonstrate that they think they have a monopoly on power and that history will unfold as their actions without any reactions, a literally inconsequential view, as in, “There will be no consequences other than the ones we impose.” It’s a version of reality so simple I would not accuse a toddler of holding it; toddlers know well there will be reactions and consequences, because they know others have power.

But the Trump administration’s thugs, for example, went into Minneapolis thinking they were a conquering army that would terrorize and intimidate the populace into subjugation and found that the populace was fearless in its defiance. It was a defiance motivated by a kind of moral beauty — solidarity, care, loving thy neighbor — that this administration has trouble imagining, especially when that solidarity reaches across differences of ethnicity and religion, as it did in Minneapolis. In this sense love is a power, or a motivating force to exercise the power of solidarity with the oppressed and the power of noncooperation with the oppressors. The abominable JD Vance doesn’t understand these forces; he had earlier misinterpreted Catholic theology to claim that, “We should love our family first, then our neighbors, then love our community, then our country, and only then consider the interests of the rest of the world.” Catholic theologians smacked him down then, and they haven’t stopped since. 

Speaking of the Catholic church, this week The New Republic described this extraordinary situation:

Days after Pope Leo XIV delivered his State of the World speech, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby summoned Cardinal Christophe Pierre, the Vatican’s U.S. representative, to a closed-door Pentagon meeting for a bitter lecture. ‘The United States,’ Colby said, according to a blistering new report by The Free Press, ‘has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side.’ One U.S. official present at the meeting brought up the Avignon papacy, a period in the 14th century in which the French monarchy bent the Catholic Church into submission, ordering an attack on Pope Boniface VIII that led to his downfall and subsequent death and forcing the papacy to relocate from Rome to Avignon, a region inside France.

Yes, these idiots reportedly threatened the head of this ancient institution, on the basis that the pope had better not dare oppose their power. But unless it wants to use violence against the pope and the Vatican, the Trump administration has very little power in that situation. And if it did use violence, the blowback would be profound, domestically and internationally.

#newsletter-block_d5faafb9d4dd4992d6954dd51f333936 { background: #ececec; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_d5faafb9d4dd4992d6954dd51f333936 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

The power the administration constantly squanders without understanding the consequences is soft power. Take for example, the fact that when Trump wanted European countries to help him reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which was only closed because of his feckless unforced mistake of a war, heads of state laughed at him because he’d destroyed the U.S.’s once-good relationships with a number of their countries with his threats against Greenland, his waffling on support for Ukraine and NATO, and his tariffs.

USAID created soft power around the world while also doing actual good in saving lives and preventing suffering; dismantling the organization was one of many actions this administration took that weakens this country in the long run and, really, the short run — that with all that macho strutting and bullying, they don’t understand that they are weak and making this country weak says more about the epic incomprehension. This should remind us that knowledge is power, and understanding is power; stupidity is a weakness of theirs evident in the attack on Iran. The heroic uprising against the regime was undermined, not strengthened, as the Trumpists thought, by this attack. They strengthened the regime instead. And Iran has seized control, for now, of the Strait of Hormuz and is demanding huge tolls from ship traffic there.

The war has had catastrophic impacts around the world on the price and availability of fossil fuel and fertilizer (aka nutritional supplements for flowering plants), and that in turn has sacrificed more U.S. soft power and good will and created more suffering. The fact that this fossil-fuel crisis is pushing both nations and individuals to speed the transition to renewable energy is another consequence the fossil-fuel-allied regime did not foresee. Likewise, the Trump administration has exercised its power to sabotage climate efforts and renewable energy in ways that make this country weaker in the long term, but Trump is on his way out and clearly does not care about the long term in any way other than in masturbatory monuments to himself and illicit wealth for his family. In a similar way, Netanyahu has devastated Israel’s relationships with its neighbors and much of the world, because he apparently only cares about his own fate and not about his country’s, let alone the lives of those he has slaughtered in Gaza and Lebanon.

While the primitive machismo of the Trump administration sees violence and the ability to inflict harm as power, and asserts that because it is powerful it does not need alliances and good relationships internationally, these things have not made it and our country strong, but weak.

Vice President JD Vance has a playground bully’s understanding of power, as has been clear at least since he went to Europe in 2025 and went out of his way to insult and patronize the world leaders he met with there. It too sacrificed the long-term power of having the trust and support of European heads of state and diplomatic leaders. Vance said this week in response to the Iranian refusal to give up the right to enrich uranium, “You know what? My wife has the right to skydive, but she doesn’t jump out of an airplane because she and I have an agreement she’s not gonna do that, because I don’t want my wife jumping out of an airplane.” This stunningly idiotic analogy seems intended to mean that Iran is like his wife, someone who has to agree to his wishes, but he has instead shown that he doesn’t understand analogies, power, Iran and, possibly, wives.

Previous Coverage

What we can learn from the playbook that defeated Orbán

Last week Vance went to Hungary to try to stump for Viktor Orban, the authoritarian president there who as I write, has just lost the election after 16 years as prime minister, during which he worked hard to spread authoritarianism around the world, including in the U.S. The vice president’s efforts were said to have been the opposite of helpful. Only yesterday, the inexperienced Vance failed to gain anything in his negotiations with a far more skilled Iranian negotiating team. The Trump administration appears to have lost this war — had it won, it would be dictating terms, rather than unsuccessfully negotiating to return to the status quo of an open Strait of Hormuz. And of course the main justification after the fact for the war is Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear arms, but speaking of soft power and the power of cooperation, Trump sabotaged the deal the Obama administration struck with Iran. Soft power trumps the power of violence, over and over.

And then there’s the case of congressman and California gubernatorial candidate Eric Swalwell, exposed Friday by a detailed account in the San Francisco Chronicle of his alleged manipulation and sexual abuse of a staffer and by another report at CNN detailing accounts of sexual misconduct by more women. It’s a sordid story or several of them, and one that is only too familiar. Two things are most striking to me. One is his apparent gambling on getting away with exactly the kind of actions that have in recent years terminated a lot of men’s reputations and careers and sent some to prison (even if some have bounced back or escaped the most serious consequences).

The other is that while espousing Democratic and presumably lower-case democratic values, he allegedly used the power differential to bully and coerce young women, and counted on that inequality to keep them silent. Now he looks likely to pay for his abuse of power with a permanent loss of it. The term democratic values in the sense I just employed it means a world in which the rights and voices of young women matter even when they’re in conflict with a powerful man, a new world just emerging thanks to feminism. The soft power Swalwell had as allies, supporters and endorsers building possibilities of further political power is fast draining from him. By using coercive power, he has lost cooperative power.

#support-block_3a1e3fab28aeb59c5aba01af8f67ec17 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Become a sustaining monthly donor today!

Donate

The lesson flowers offer is that when you treat others well, when you meet their needs, you can enter into relationships that serve you as well as them. When you use violence or otherwise exploit and coerce to get what you want, you create adversaries, not allies, and they too often turn out to have power. In a world of increasing equality over the past few centuries, cooperative power matters more, and violence, as Schell points out, has become an increasingly weak way to get what you want.

We are increasingly coming to understand nature itself — Haskell’s book is a fine exploration of this — as orchestrated by cooperation and symbiosis, not the Social Darwinist’s vision of brutal competition for scarce resources. Haskell’s is only one of many splendid books about this new vision of nature to appear recently. Forestry scientist Suzanne Simard, whose book “Finding the Mother Tree” was a hugely impactful account of how forests are essentially communicating cooperatives, a deeply interwoven whole, not a collection of lone competitors, has just come out with a new book I’m excited to start reading, “When the Forest Breathes: Renewal and Resilience in the Natural World.”

It is all connected. In my most recent book I quoted the scholar Judith Butler who has another explanation of why violence should not be conflated with strength or power: “In my experience, the most powerful argument against violence has been grounded in the notion that, when I do violence to another human being, I also do violence to myself, because my life is bound up with this other life.”

This article Cooperation is more powerful than coercion was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.