January 6 Was A Riot. No Kings Is An Insurrection

Suppose we begin with a simple legal question: what constitutes an insurrection? US federal law, under 18 U.S.C. §2383, defines insurrection as an organized, violent uprising against the authority of the United States or its laws. It is not mere protest. It is not riot, per se. It is a purposeful, coordinated attempt to defy or subvert the enforcement of federal law and thereby replace it with an alternative order, even if only temporarily. By that standard, it is the ongoing ‘No Kings’ uprising, not the chaotic riot on January 6, 2021, that most closely fits the definition. The term has been stretched beyond recognition by partisan usage, but if we restore legal precision, the evidence leads us to a counterintuitive conclusion: the true insurrection is unfolding not in hours but in weeks, not in the halls of Congress but in the streets of Los Angeles, Seattle, New York, Newark, and 200 other American cities.

Begin with January 6. That day has been declared an “insurrection” by countless media outlets and politicians, but few have paused to consider whether it fits the legal or historical definitions. What occurred was a riot, prompted by frustration, compounded by poor security, and intensified by a combustible mix of rhetoric and confusion. But a riot is not an insurrection. The FBI has stated repeatedly that it found “scant evidence” of a centrally coordinated plan to overthrow the government. No weapons stockpile, no alternate government-in-waiting, no attempt to hold territory, and no coherent manifesto. The breach of the Capitol was disgraceful, but by nightfall the constitutional order resumed. Congress certified the election. The government never lost control, nor did the crowd have any real plan or desire to seize it.

By contrast, the anti-ICE protests, particularly those under the “No Kings” banner, are sustained, coordinated, funded, and explicitly aimed at obstructing federal law. Their goal is to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement from carrying out lawful detentions and deportations ordered under immigration law. This is not speculative. It is explicitly proclaimed. Members of Congress, city mayors, governors, and local prosecutors have all declared their noncooperation with ICE, often in direct defiance of federal statutes. These statements are not simply rhetorical. They are backed by policy: sanctuary laws, local refusals to honor ICE detainers, and even, in some cases, public statements encouraging resistance.

Consider Newark. On May 9, 2025, Mayor Ras Baraka and Rep. LaMonica McIver physically joined a protest aimed at disrupting operations at a federal immigration detention facility. McIver was subsequently arrested for assaulting a federal officer. This is not a symbolic gesture. It is an elected official using physical force to obstruct a lawful federal action. She is now facing federal charges. This is precisely the kind of organized, official-backed violence against US authority that the insurrection statute was meant to address.

Nor was Newark an isolated incident. The “No Kings” protests, held in over 200 cities on June 14, 2025, were meticulously organized by Indivisible and a web of NGOs backed by figures such as George Soros. They were not spontaneous. There were logistics hubs, training seminars, and material distribution centers. Protesters received $60 high-filtration masks, water, bail fund access, and instructions on “nonviolent resistance” tactics that included chaining oneself to federal buildings. In Los Angeles, protests against ICE have continued for more than a week, with over 850 arrests and repeated assaults on federal officers. The Department of Homeland Security reports a 413% increase in attacks on ICE agents during this period.

Nor can we ignore the ideological undercurrent. The slogan “No Kings” is not as innocuous as it seems. It is a well-documented rallying cry for anarchist and Antifa groups. Variants such as “No Gods, No Masters” have long been used to signal violent resistance against all forms of state authority. The adoption of this slogan by elected officials and taxpayer-funded organizations is not incidental. It reflects a conscious alignment with the logic of rebellion, not reform. Most disturbingly, the protests have now turned deadly. A Democrat activist in Minnesota, citing betrayal of the immigrant community, used the No Kings protests as justification for assassinating Democrat political leaders. Millions in property damage have followed in the wake, burned vehicles, smashed storefronts, vandalized homes. No Kings is no longer a slogan. It is a manifesto, and it has drawn blood.

One might ask: isn’t this simply protected protest? No. The First Amendment does not confer a right to obstruct federal law or to assault officers executing lawful duties. Peaceful protest is sacrosanct. Coordinated efforts to disrupt immigration enforcement through violence and subversion of the law are not. When protesters slash tires on ICE vehicles, storm detention centers, or physically attack agents, the line between protest and insurrection is not merely crossed, it is erased.

Moreover, unlike January 6, the anti-ICE movement enjoys the protection and encouragement of state actors. This is unprecedented. It is one thing for a mob to break the law; it is another for elected officials, sworn to uphold it, to lead the mob. In California, sanctuary laws explicitly forbid local cooperation with ICE. In cities like Chicago, New York, and San Diego, ICE officers are routinely denied access to jails, and in some cases, criminal aliens are released without notice. This is not civil disobedience. This is institutional defiance of federal authority. When such defiance is coupled with coordinated, funded, and violent actions on the street, the result meets every element of insurrection.

The law is clear. Under 18 U.S.C. §2383, it is a federal crime to “incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof.” What does it mean to “set on foot” or to “assist”? It means exactly what is happening. City officials refusing cooperation. NGOs funding material aid. Politicians glorifying resistance. Teachers unions encouraging turnout. These are not passive associations. They are active facilitators of an illegal campaign to nullify immigration law by force or threat of force.

Contrast again with January 6. It was an outburst. A few misguided groups, some possibly goaded by federal informants, rushed into a building. There was no plan, no funding network, and no sustained campaign. The legal system treated it accordingly. Despite the political theater, not a single defendant has been convicted of insurrection under the statute. The Department of Justice has instead relied on charges like unlawful entry, obstruction, and in some cases, seditious conspiracy, a different charge entirely, and one used sparingly.

And yet, no such restraint applies to the anti-ICE insurgents. Judges like Hannah Dugan in Wisconsin have actively obstructed immigration enforcement. Local prosecutors refuse to charge attackers of ICE officers. Rioters are released without bail. The rule of law is not merely undermined; it is inverted. The state, once the enforcer of order, has become its saboteur. This is not the anarchic chaos of January 6. It is organized rebellion cloaked in institutional legitimacy.

A final objection might be raised: Isn’t this just civil rights activism in the tradition of the 1960s? That analogy fails. The civil rights movement sought to vindicate constitutional protections through courts, legislation, and peaceful protest. It did not seek to nullify entire bodies of federal law by force. It did not storm federal facilities. It did not call immigration agents “terrorists,” as San Diego Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera has done. It did not coordinate with black bloc anarchists or require riot gear distribution stations. This is not Selma. It is siege.

And it matters. If we call every riot an insurrection, we rob the term of its meaning. But if we ignore genuine insurrections simply because they flatter progressive pieties, we invite lawlessness cloaked in moral sanctimony. The Constitution provides mechanisms for dissent. It does not sanction sedition. And when those entrusted with lawmaking abandon legality for ideology, the republic teeters.

In short, if January 6 was a riot mislabeled as rebellion, the anti-ICE movement is a rebellion mislabeled as protest. And it is time we acknowledged it for what it is.

If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.

READ NEXT: $550 Million Scandal Erupts Inside Biden’s Foreign Aid Machine