March 27, 2026

An Open Letter to Kenta Kon, Toyota’s New CEO

2026 Open Letter to Kenta Kon, Toyota's New CEO

Dear Mr. Kenta Kon:

Congratulations on your appointment as CEO of Toyota Motor Corp.

You now have the opportunity to leave behind Toyota’s troubling environmental record and to address serious human rights and environmental issues in the company’s supply chain. You have a crucial choice to make.

You can choose to cling to the outdated technologies of the past, leading Toyota towards irrelevance as the industry accelerates rapidly towards electric vehicles. Or you can forge a new path, marshalling Toyota’s resources to become a leader in innovative, affordable electric vehicles with equitable, sustainable supply chains.

On behalf of the 36 organizations in over 15 countries, we urge you to use your new platform as CEO to:

1. Rapidly accelerate efforts to phase out internal combustion engines globally, providing

affordable and accessible electric vehicles in all countries where Toyotas are sold, not just in a select few;

1. Stop lobbying, political spending, and litigation that delay progress on mitigating climate change;
2. Create sustainable, equitable, fossil-free supply chains that protect the rights of workers and communities up and down Toyota’s supply chain.

Act boldly on climate change – from day one.

Move quickly to take Toyota from laggard to leader.

Forge your own legacy.

We look forward to hearing from you and meeting to discuss your vision.

Sincerely,

Public Citizen	United States
Federal Association for Sustainable Mobility Austria	Austria
350 Tacoma	United States
ABRAVEI	Brazil
ACOMOVES	Colombia
Adfree Cities	UK
Asociación Costarricense de Movilidad Eléctrica	Costa Rica
Asociación de Vehículos Eléctricos de Chile – AVEC	Chile
Asociación Nacional de Vehículos Eléctricos y Sustentables A.C. (ANVES)	Mexico
Asociacion Paraguaya de Vehiculos Electricos	Paraguay
ASOMOEDO	Dominican Republic
ASOMOVES	El Salvador
Center for Biological Diversity	United States
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ)	United States
CERAH	Indonesia
Earthworks	Global
Ekō	Global
Enter Nusantara	Indonesia
Environmental Working Group (EWG)	United States
GreenLatinos	United States
Industrious Labs	United States
Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities	Philippines
Institute for National and Democracy Studies (INDIES)	Indonesia
Labor Network for Sustainability	United States
League of Conservation Voters (LCV)	United States
Mighty Earth	Global
Movilizatorio	Colombia and Mexico
New Weather Institute	United Kingdom
Project Green Home	United States
Rainforest Foundation Norway	Norway and Global
SanDiego350	United States
Satya Bumi	Indonesia
Sierra Club	United States
STAND.earth	United States, Canada
SteelWatch	International
The YEARS Project	United States

Intervention in Rio Grande LNG Application to Increase Gas Exports

By Tyson Slocum

2026 Open Letter to Kenta Kon, Toyota's New CEO

Today in U.S. Department of Energy docket No. 15–190–LNG, Public Citizen intervened in Rio Grande LNG’s application to increase its authorized volume of LNG exports. We note that natural gas consumption by eight LNG export terminals now exceeds the gas consumed by the more than 73 million U.S. households that are served by natural gas utilities and the five million commercial gas utility customers combined. Read our full filing here RioGrandeLNG1

Glencore’s History of Market Manipulation and Bribery

By Tyson Slocum

2026 Open Letter to Kenta Kon, Toyota's New CEO

On March 6, an affiliate of Switzerland-based Glencore applied for market-based rate authority in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission docket ER26-1652. Today we filed comments, noting that the application omits reference to significant enforcement actions against the company for criminal violations of bribery and market manipulation statutes. Market based rates are an incentive, and should only be granted to applicants that do not engage in fraud, deception or misrepresentation.

On May 24, 2022, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and U.S. Department of Justice jointly issued a record-shattering $1.186 billion enforcement action against Glencore, finding that it engaged in years-long manipulation and foreign corruption of U.S. and global oil markets, including manipulation of four U.S. based S&P Global Platts physical oil benchmarks and related futures and swaps. Glencore pled guilty to criminal violations of federal law, including criminal violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and criminal violations stemming from its manipulation of U.S. oil markets. Separately, on August 5, 2024 the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland found Glencore guilty of criminal violations for bribery regarding a mining deal in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And four Glencore oil traders face a criminal trial related to bribery schemes in West Africa, slated for trial in 2027.

Section 201 of the Federal Power Act declares “that the business of transmitting and selling electric energy for ultimate distribution to the public is affected with a public interest.” Courts have consistently determined that the primary aim of the Federal Power Act is to uphold the public interest and protect consumers from harm.

For decades, the Commission has stipulated that its market based rate authorities under Section 205 of the FPA are conditioned on an applicant’s conduct, determining that MBR applicants “will not engage in fraud, deception or misrepresentation. The provision of false, misleading or inaccurate information undermines the integrity of the FERC decision-making process, the smooth operation of markets and FERC’s ability to ensure just and reasonable rates for customers.”[9] The Commission should consider not granting market-based rate authority to applicants who have been recently sanctioned by government authorities for criminal violations of market manipulation and bribery statutes.

Read the full filing here GlencoreMBR

March 26, 2026

Public Citizen Testifies: Cracking Down on Corruption at the Dept. of Homeland Security

2026 Open Letter to Kenta Kon, Toyota's New CEO

On March 25, 2026, Public Citizen’s Democracy Advocate Jon Golinger testified at a Congressional hearing to examine:

“The Ultimate Grift: How DHS Is Enriching the President and His Allies at Taxpayer Expense”

Read Public Citizen’s written testimony here.

Watch the testimony and the full hearing on C-SPAN here.

Protecting Children from Manipulative AI Chatbots: State Legislation Tracker

2026 Open Letter to Kenta Kon, Toyota's New CEO

As AI chatbots become increasingly available and easy to access, teens are among their most frequent users. At the same time, there are mainstream efforts to integrate this technology into toys for very young children.

The American Psychological Association has expressed significant concern that AI chatbots programmed to foster emotional relationships may negatively impact children’s development and social wellbeing. 

Conversations with AI chatbots frequently end up being highly sexualized regardless of the user’s age and there are numerous pending lawsuits alleging that chatbots have encouraged children to commit serious harm to themselves and others. 

While there are very few existing guardrails protecting children from this technology, state legislatures across the country are  introducing urgently needed legislation to change that.

The table below illustrates where states have passed or are in the process of debating legislation to protect children from the harms of manipulative AI chatbots. 

 Public Citizen offers a model bill as well as legislative support for any state lawmaker interested in moving this forward in their state.

State	Bill	Status	Level of Protection for Minors
AL	HB 324	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
AZ	HB 2311	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
AZ	HB 2737	Introduced 2026	All people - consent + parental consent (EPIC)
CA	AB 2023	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
CA	SB 1119	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
CA	AB 1064	Vetoed 2025	Protects minors from manipulative features
CA	SB 867	Introduced 2026	Ban on companion chatbots in toys
CA	SB 243	Enacted 2025	Protects minors from extreme harms
CA	SB 300	Passed Senate 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
CO	HB 1263	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
CT	SB 86	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
FL	SB 482	Failed 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features - can be overriden by parental consent
FL	HB 659	Failed 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
FL	HB 1395	Failed 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features - can be overriden by parental consent
FL	SB 1344	Failed 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features - can be overriden by parental consent
GA	SB 540	Passed Senate 2026, Passed House 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
HI	HB 1782 / SB 2788	Passed House 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
HI	SB 3001 / HB 2502	Passed Senate 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
IA	HF 2204	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
IA	HF 2507	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
IA	HF 2715	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
IA	SF 2417	Passed Senate 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
IL	SB 3262	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
IL	SB 3368	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features - can be overriden by parental consent
IL	HB 5044	Introduced 2026	Product liability
IL	HB 4705 / SB 3261	Introduced 2026	Requires child safety plan
KS	HB 2772 / SB 499	Introduced 2026	All people - consent + parental consent (EPIC)
KS	HB 2671	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features - can be overriden by parental consent
LA	HB 295	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
LA	HB 734	Introduced 2026, Withdrawn 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features - can be overriden by parental consent
MD	HB 1250 / SB 827	Introduced 2026	All people - consent + parental consent (EPIC)
MD	HB 952	Introduced 2026, Passed House 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
ME	LD 2162	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
MI	SB 760	Introduced 2025	Protects minors from manipulative features
MN	SF 1857	Introduced 2025	Protects minors from manipulative features
MN	HF4452	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
MO	HB 2031	Introduced 2025	Protects minors from manipulative features - can be overriden by parental consent
MO	HB 2032	Introduced 2025, Passed House 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
MO	HB 1742	Introduced 2025	Protects minors from manipulative features
MO	SB 1455	Introduced 2025	Protects minors from manipulative features
NC	SB 624	Introduced 2025	Duty of Loyalty
NE	LB 1185	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
NE	LB 939	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
NE	LB 1083	Introduced 2026	Requires child safety plan
NM	HB 174	Introduced 2026, Failed 2026	Protects minors from some limited manipulative features
NY	SB 9051	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
NY	A10379	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
NY	SB 5668 / AB 222	Introduced 2025	Protects minors from manipulative features - can be overriden by parental consent
OK	SB 1521	Introduced 2026, Passed Senate 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
OK	SB 2085	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features - can be overriden by parental consent
OK	HB 4083	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
OK	HB 3544	Introduced 2026, Passed House 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
OR	SB 1546	Enacted 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
PA	HB 2215	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
PA	SB 1090	Passed Senate 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
PA	HB 2006	Introduced 2026	Protects all people from some extreme harms
SC	H 5476	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features - can be overriden by parental consent
SC	HB 5138 / SB 896	Introduced 2026	All people - consent + parental consent (EPIC)
SC	S 1037	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features - can be overriden by parental consent
SD	SB 168	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
TN	HB 1898 / SB 2171	Introduced 2026	Requires child safety plan
TN	HB 1946/ SB 1700	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
TN	SB 1493/ HB 1455	Introduced 2026	Unlawful to train a chatbot to be manipulative
UT	HB 438	Failed 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
UT	HB 286	Failed 2026	Requires child safety plan
VA	SB 796	Passed Senate 2026 Carryover until 2027	Curtail emotional dependence and extreme harm for all users
VA	HB 758	Failed 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
VA	HB 635	Carryover until 2027	Protects minors from extreme harms
VT	H 784	Introduced 2026	All people - consent + parental consent (EPIC)
VT	H 804	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
WA	HB 2225 / SB 5984	Enacted 2026	Protects minors from manipulative features
WA	SB 5870	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms
WI	AB 965 / SB 939	Introduced 2026	Protects minors from extreme harms

Last updated: April, 1, 2026

See an error or want to share information on relevant legislation? Please contact Ilana Beller (ibeller@citizen.org).

 

March 25, 2026

Testimony: Connecticut Should Establish a Climate Insurance Surcharge

Testimony of Rick Morris in Support of Connecticut S.B. 453, An Act Concerning A Climate Change Related Surcharge on Certain Insurance Policies

2026 Open Letter to Kenta Kon, Toyota's New CEO

Environment Committee
Legislative Office Building, Room 3200
Hartford, CT 06106

March 13, 2026

Chairman Senator Lopes, Chairman Representative Parker, and honorable members of the Environment Committee,

My name is Rick Morris and I am the senior insurance campaigner with Public Citizen, a national public interest advocacy organization with over 25,000 members and supporters here in Connecticut.

I am here to testify in strong support of S.B. 453, An Act Concerning A Climate Change Related Surcharge on Certain Insurance Policies.

Connecticut faces a fast-growing home insurance affordability crisis driven by climate change. The state needs to act now to protect homes and household budgets by lowering the risk, both by building physical resilience and addressing the root cause: fossil fuels.

While proven solutions can lower costs by building resilience, many households need upfront financial support. Connecticut should build a comprehensive home risk reduction grant program, funded by the highly profitable insurance industry, which had $1.2 trillion left over last year after paying claims.

As a historically insurance-centered state facing high climate risk, Connecticut should lead in keeping coverage affordable and should not wait for the federal government to fund it. Connecticut should look to innovative sources for near-term investments, where even modest investments made early can pay off. Every $1 spent on resilience saves $13 in economic impact, damage, and cleanup costs later on.

Grant programs in 10 states show that targeting vulnerable homes for upgrades lowers losses and expands adoption beyond initial recipients. For example, in Alabama, homes retrofitted to the Fortified standard had a loss frequency 55–74% lower than conventional homes in the storm’s path during Hurricane Sally.

To fund this program, Connecticut should look first to the industry that stands to benefit the most, the insurance industry itself. The state has the authority to raise industry fees and surcharges now. States that already use industry funding include Alabama, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Maine.

While insurance companies stand to benefit from a resilience program, insurance companies fuel the climate crisis by recklessly investing over half a trillion dollars in fossil fuel projects. A commercial policy surcharge as described in this bill will recover a small slice of the profits from these fossil fuel-related insurance transactions.

Connecticut’s insurance affordability crisis is not inevitable. By investing in resilience and emissions reduction, targeting support to vulnerable households, and securing sustainable funding, the state can stabilize insurance markets and protect residents from rising climate risks.

The people of Connecticut are already paying enough. It’s time for the historically profitable industries driving this climate and insurance crisis to pay their fair share.

We urge the committee to pass S.B. 453. Thank you for your time and support on this issue.

 

Mpox, opacity and the need for access obligations in pandemic prevention, preparedness and response

Health Action International, Salud por Derecho, Public Citizen

2026 Open Letter to Kenta Kon, Toyota's New CEO

Within just a few years of the emergence of COVID-19, mpox caused two international health emergencies. Once again, the Global South was left without ready access to adequate amounts of vaccine, the supply of which was needlessly restricted by the reliance on a limited number of suppliers and the high, non-transparent price of the MVA-BN mpox/smallpox vaccine. The experiences again reinforced that opaque agreements can undermine the public interest and that countries need to implement stronger systems to support international collaboration during emergencies, and deliver equitable access to countermeasures.

Despite the MVA-BN vaccine being underpinned by German public science and over $2.3 billion in U.S. government  funding and large public procurements, MVA-BN’s manufacturer, Bavarian Nordic has controlled supplies, never publicly justified its high pricing, and, despite claims to the contrary, has not  engaged on effective technology transfer to African manufacturers. 

Critically, where public funding underpins research and development, as is the case with MVA-BN, it is essential that this support is tied to clear conditions ensuring fair pricing, cost transparency, including on distribution mark-ups, and equitable global access. These principles should be systematically embedded in national and regional budgetary frameworks guiding R&D investments. Without such safeguards, public funding risks reinforcing existing inequities and failing to deliver on its intended public interest objectives.

Contradictory Positions

For its part, the European Union (EU), both through the European Commission and Member States, has long been committed to global health as a shared international endeavor. Early and consistent supporters of initiatives such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the EU has publicly and repeatedly acknowledged the need to secure and enhance  universal access to health technologies. This includes, when necessary, the use of TRIPS flexibilities.

Recently, however, we’ve seen an increasing number of instances where the legislative steps and political actions of the EU are contradictory to previously stated goals and commitments. From the lack of meaningful implementation of the WHA resolution 72.8 to restrictive framing of compulsory licensing in the context of emergencies, the EU would seemingly reject the tenets of transparency and good governance in the manufacture and procurement of health goods as part of international consensus.

The decision by the European Commission to engage in the procurement (and potential donation) of mpox vaccine doses without disclosing prices and other relevant information constitute a step in the wrong direction. The fact that this comes right after the European Court of Auditors censured the European Commission’s negotiation and management of COVID vaccine contracts makes it all the more surprising. 

Lack of Transparency cannot become Business as Usual 

Following concerns raised regarding the lack of transparency in the procurement of mpox vaccines in relation to potential donation from EU countries to third countries, a formal communication (endorsed by over 20 organisations from all over the world) called for the disclosure of the terms of the agreement. The request emphasized that opacity in contractual arrangements risks obscuring pricing structures and conditions that may affect equitable access, while undermining accountability and public trust. However, the letter did not result in any disclosure of the contract.

Subsequently, access to the framework contract was obtained through a freedom of information request. The disclosed document confirms the scale of the agreement—covering the potential supply of up to eight million doses—and highlights the extent to which key elements, including pricing, several terms related to donations, and other terms presumably deemed commercially sensitive, remain redacted. This limited disclosure reinforces concerns that current practices fall short of transparency standards necessary to ensure fair pricing, informed public oversight, and alignment with broader global health commitments.

In addition to the redactions, the agreement includes provisions that undermine transparency and fall short of supporting broad access. In order to donate doses, parties to the agreement in most cases must first obtain Bavarian Nordic’s consent (framework article I.4.5). Additionally, terms regarding donations to third countries appear to be restricted to only certain countries, for example, by excluding upper-middle-income countries from the framework’s definition of  “LIC/LMIC” countries, suggesting donation to these countries may be prevented. The EU should clarify restrictions regarding donations, as these terms could undermine the ability to donate doses based on health need during outbreaks. 

The confidentiality provisions of the Donation Agreement (article 13) establish a broad and restrictive framework that limits the disclosure of key contractual information. By defining confidential information expansively, the agreement effectively shields critical elements, such as pricing and supply conditions, from public scrutiny. In practice, this restricts public oversight of publicly funded agreements, hinders independent assessment of pricing and terms to ensure that public purchasers are not overpaying at different stages of the distribution, and undermines accountability in the procurement of essential health products.

Obligations and Equity

Following recent health crises including ebola and mpox outbreaks, and the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world recognize the need to help ensure equitable access to medical products. Many are examining how access considerations should accompany public support. World Health Organization member states are actively negotiating to develop a system to ensure sharing of pathogen information results in reciprocal access to medical countermeasures and other benefits. Without strong commitments and public accountability, measures intended to support access could fall short. 

As negotiations in the WHO Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) on the proposal for a Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) Annex text to the Pandemic Agreement advance, it is increasingly clear that without explicit enforceable obligations on pricing, technology transfer, and supply diversification, existing inequities will persist or worsen. Aligning EU practices with these emerging global norms will be essential to ensure that innovations, including those that are publicly funded, are accompanied by  timely, affordable, and equitable access to medical countermeasures worldwide. 

It is high time for the EU to lead by example on transparency in prices and procurement of health technologies and, by extension, on equity and solidarity.

March 24, 2026

Louisiana v. Callais

2026 Open Letter to Kenta Kon, Toyota's New CEO

The case 

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to issue a decision in Louisiana v. Callais, a landmark voting rights case with nationwide implications. At its core, this case is not just about one map in one state. It is about whether the federal government can continue to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the central legal safeguard against racially discriminatory voting laws and maps.

Why this matters

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting laws and district maps that deny or dilute the right to vote based on race and is the primary tool for challenging discriminatory redistricting. The outcome could significantly weaken protections against racially discriminatory maps and reshape representation in Congress.

Our work

The stakes are too high to wait, so we are taking action now. Through briefings and resources, we are educating activists, organizers, volunteers, and community members about the importance of the Voting Rights Act and the implications of the Callais case. At the same time, we are underscoring the real-world consequences that gutting Section 2 would have, especially for communities in the South and across the country. By elevating voices from those directly impacted and offering clear messaging guidance and calls to action, we are equipping supporters to speak effectively about the issue now and ensuring people are informed, empowered, and ready to defend voting rights in their own communities.

Battling Trump’s Pay-to-Play White House Ballroom Scheme

2026 Open Letter to Kenta Kon, Toyota's New CEO

President Trump collected hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations and billionaires for his White House Ballroom Project through a circuitous corruption scheme involving a tax-exempt charity and two government agencies.

A Public Citizen report found that over two dozen corporate donors backing the ballroom project benefited from nearly $43 billion in contracts last year and $279 billion over the last five years, raising major concerns about corruption and pay-to-play.

Through a lawsuit, protests, deep-dive research, dedicated advocacy, and a drumbeat of persistent public pressure, Public Citizen has led the charge to expose Trump’s Ballroom Project as the corrupt vanity project it is.  We’ll never stop fighting to save the People’s House from being used as a prop in Trump’s ballroom shakedown scheme.

Exposing Conflicts-Of-Interest

When high-level government officials have financial connections, professional links, or personal ties to corporate contractors, lobbyists, or favor-seekers, it creates a cloud of questions about who those officials are really working for.  Us or Themselves?

Public Citizen was the first to reveal that White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Attorney General Pam Bondi had extensive records as corporate lobbyists for a litany of controversial clients that then could – and in fact did – lobby the agencies they led.

When documents revealed that a high-ranking Department of Homeland Security official’s spouse ran a company benefiting from a government contract with her office, Public Citizen exposed the conflict and led the charge to force the official to resign. 

Shining Sunlight on Dark Money

Secretive SuperPACs construct elaborate schemes to hide the true identities of their funders from voters until after Election Day.  This prevents voters from knowing who’s really behind these campaign ads, making it difficult to evaluate the credibility of an election ad’s claims.

Public Citizen has led the charge to shine a spotlight on the funders behind shady SuperPACs.  Our groundbreaking report “Unmasking Musk: Inside the Scheme to Hide Elon Musk’s $20 Million Spending on ‘RBG PAC’ Campaign Ads From Voters Until After The Election” unraveled the scheme to conceal Musk’s funding of the so-called “RBG PAC” from voters until after the 2024 election.  This secretive SuperPAC engaged in an elaborate scheme to exploit a loophole in federal campaign finance law to hide $20 million in funding from Musk until after the election so it could use Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s name and image in a digital ad campaign to persuade women voters in four swing states to believe that Trump’s and Ginsburg’s opposing positions on abortion, a key issue in the 2024 election, were  “alike.”

Now, Public Citizen is working to persuade Congress to enact a national “Sunlight On Dark Money Law” modeled on successful state laws that require on-ad labeling with the names of the top three funders of secretive SuperPACs.  Voters deserve to know who’s really behind these ads so they are empowered to assess the merits of the ads claims for themselves.

No Kings

2026 Open Letter to Kenta Kon, Toyota's New CEO

The president thinks his rule is absolute. But in America, we don’t have kings — and we won’t back down against chaos, corruption, and cruelty. No Kings is a movement born in the streets, shouted by millions, carried on posters and chants, it echoes from city blocks to rural town squares, uniting people across this country to fight dictatorship together.

As a part of the No Kings mobilizations, our team has supported the operational and organizing infrastructure that makes large-scale democratic action possible. Our team has assisted in drafting and refining core movement materials. We have convened our vast network of coalition partners to recruit and onboard them into the No Kings coalition. And we have helped shape the public narrative of the movement and of course invited our membership to host events and participate by the thousands

Through this work, we have helped strengthen the backbone of a nationwide mobilizing infrastructure committed to peaceful First Amendment actions and to a democracy where everyday people have a powerful voice. On days of action, our team supports on-the-ground logistics by setting up events, managing press check-in, guiding media, troubleshooting issues in real time, and ensuring events run smoothly. Together, these efforts have expanded the reach, visibility, and effectiveness of the No Kings movement, helping to turn public concern for democracy into organized, collective action.