The Passerine Post

On March 28th, 2026, tens of thousands of people arrived in Portland for the No Kings rally – one of dozens happening across the country. These protests have been a massive movement, noticed by news networks and police departments nation-wide. 

I had not gone to Portland to participate. My fiance and I had planned this weekend trip a month prior, and we stumbled into downtown tired from the train ride and ready to do the shopping we had prepared for. 

We first noticed the signs of protest while approaching the light rail station. Large groups of people on bikes with attached carts, signs they hadn’t finished putting up for display hanging off the sides or tucked under their arms, people in outfits designed to draw eyes. I was very excited to be able to see the protest – I had graduated high school during the George Floyd riots, and while I was unable to participate due to school, the events caught my attention and have made me interested in the way movements like these gain traction.

Of course, No Kings as a movement has garnered much more positive media attention than the protests of 2020. As someone seeking to start a career in journalism, it’s important for me to begin to understand why. While such a broad question is difficult for me to answer definitively, I can at least interrogate some of the news that was published about the No Kings protest in Portland, what it seeks to evoke in its readers, and the accuracy of that reporting in Portland during that weekend.

One of the first articles I saw regarding the protests was a piece published by Koin and written by Ariel Salk and Aimee Plant – “‘Do it at your own risk’: Portland organizers prepare for nation’s third No Kings rally this weekend”. The title begins immediately by highlighting the danger of the protest, saying anyone who participates is doing so at their own risk. What risks exist at this protest, that they feel the need to warn people of it?

Before reading, my first thought was obviously the increased police activity that accompanies protests. Movements that seek to disrupt the status quo – especially ones that are popular among left-wing parties – are disproportionately policed according to statistics reported by The Guardian. While No Kings is a bipartisan movement, the messaging of the protest is clearly opposing Trump’s regime. John Hinderaker, president of The Center of the American Experiment, a conservative think-tank, claimed in an interview with PBS that the Democratic party’s platform “consists almost exclusively of hating Donald Trump”. He also claims that those participating in the No Kings protest are election deniers – which would be amusing, coming from a Trump-appointed judge after the attempted coup on January 6th, 2020, if it wasn’t so sad.

So, what’s in this Koin article regarding the No Kings protest? What risks are they highlighting?

The article begins by hyping up the event, including quotes from organizers that discuss how the first protests were massive successes. They discuss the routes protesters plan on walking, and note that they do not end at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building in South Portland. They also report that a court decision has recently allowed for law enforcement to once again use force outside of the ICE operations facility, including weapons such as tear gas. Koin does not comment on the implications that tear gas, a chemical weapon banned from international warfare, is permitted for use on unarmed civilian protesters.

This leads to the quote from the article’s title. The event organizers in Portland explain that they cannot protect people who go to the ICE facility, and thus, they are doing so at their own risk. The authors end the article with a quote saying that the event organizers are happy to be working with the local police department for organizing the event, implying that should protesters avoid the ICE facility, the protest will be safe for everyone involved.

The content of this article seems in conflict with the title. The article itself largely creates excitement for the event, organizers saying they hope this protest will be “the best” of the three major No Kings protests that have happened. While risks are associated with taking the protest outside of the organized parameters, the article ends by noting that local law enforcement is working with the event organizers. What exactly are people “doing at their own risk” when they attend the planned event?

Misleading reporting like this contributes to narratives that seek to mischaracterize these protests as violent and dangerous. With most major news networks requiring subscriptions in order for people to read past the first paragraph, headlines and ledes are incredibly important, as they may be the only information many viewers see. When news networks report that attending a protest has risks, those dangers should be actually present at the event.

Later that day, people did, in fact, march to the ICE facility to protest. Three were arrested with officers citing “criminal activity including assault and criminal mischief”. It is not possible to say that more accurate reporting of the risks of doing this could have prevented this – in protests, the risk is often the point, as people hope to make a statement by placing their personal safety on the line. However, no injuries have been reported, even from the protest outside of the ICE facility.

The dissonance between this article’s content and title is reflective of much of the reporting on protests. Many early anti-ICE protests were framed as riots by many news outlets, which lead to people in Portland donning whimsical outfits to display their non-violent intentions. The most famous of these is, of course, Seth “Toad” Todd the frog – many imitators were present during the march on March 28th, and they made the event something joyous. 

I have personally seen no news outlets reporting on my experience of the protest, which was a true coming together of people from hundreds of different backgrounds, all championing a unified cause and seeking to support their neighbors and communities. I saw children holding flags and playing with balloons folded in the shape of animals or hats; I saw a group of several teenagers meet and work together to carry a 25 foot long tarp that read “no war in Iran”; I was personally assisted in crossing the massive parade to the other side of the street by three men in 8 foot tall inflatable unicorn costumes, holding one of their rainbow tails to get me to my destination. 

It is a tragedy to see these moments of kindness forgotten in favor of a narrative that supports an environment of apathy and nihilism. We cannot afford to forget that these protests happen because people – those we love, our family, friends, neighbors and peers – believe in something. They believe it’s worth the risk. And I believe the experience I had there was worth that risk, too.