Shasta TPUSA Under Attack

Redding Resistance Mobilizing Protest Against Local Turning Point USA

A local activist group known as Redding Resistance is mobilizing community members for a “peaceful” protest against an upcoming Turning Point USA (TPUSA) event, with social media posts circulatinge on Facebook accusing the conservative organization of promoting “hate-based extremism.” Flyers shared across several Northern California Facebook groups, including What’s Happening Butte County and RE-SISTERS, feature bold messaging such as “TURNING POINT NOT WELCOME HERE NO HATE!” and urge residents to join a demonstration outside the Redding Civic Auditorium on February 7, 2026, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The posts encourage interested participants to “reach out to Redding Resistance” for details, framing the TPUSA gathering — billed as a free “Faith Night” event focused on inspiration and Christian values — as unwelcome in the community.

One widely shared image declares that “Hate-based extremism has no home here,” while allied online commentary describes TPUSA as standing for “hate, division, racism, [and] Christian nationalism.” Organizers, including Kim Ressa, have emphasized that the protest will remain nonviolent and focused on values of inclusion and democracy.

Amid the controversy, conservative and Christian groups in the area are suggesting a counter-protest in support of the local TPUSA chapter, potentially rallying attendees to defend the event’s focus on faith and community values. Details on these plans remain emerging, but they could lead to a larger gathering at the venue, highlighting the ideological tensions in Shasta County.

Background on Redding Resistance

Redding Resistance is a small, volunteer-driven grassroots organization operating in Shasta County, a predominantly conservative region. Founded by Brooke McGowen, a painter and political artist who relocated from New York City after years of activism there, the group describes itself as building community through protests, free markets, cultural events, and resistance to policies perceived as threats to rights and democracy.

McGowen’s activism dates back to 2008, when she established the Radical Art Initiative in Brooklyn, collaborating with movements like 350.org on environmental and economic justice causes. In Redding, she has led efforts since around 2024–2025, with Kim Ressa emerging as a key spokesperson and event coordinator.

The group maintains a private Facebook community (approximately 390 members) and an Instagram presence, collaborating with local allies such as Indivisible Redding Shasta and the Shasta Coalition. While self-described as independent and grassroots with no external funding reported, Redding Resistance frequently participates in nationally coordinated protest days. Examples include February 2025 rallies aligned with the 50501 movement, April 2025 “Hands Off!” actions, and multiple “No Kings” events in June and October 2025. These synchronizations follow public toolkits and dates set by broader coalitions like Indivisible and NoKings.org.

Beyond domestic issues, Redding Resistance has direct links to pro-Palestine activism. The group, including founder Brooke McGowen, has hosted or co-hosted events such as “Free Palestine - Break the Siege!” (calling for an end to the Gaza blockade and increased aid) and solidarity actions like noise demonstrations for Gaza. These activities place the group within the broader pro-Palestinian protest ecosystem, which often includes criticism of Israeli policies.

Central to Redding Resistance’s campaign against the TPUSA event is their demand to bar the group from using the Redding Civic Auditorium, arguing that as a taxpayer-funded public venue, it should not host what they deem “hate-based extremism.” However, this claim borders on absurdity when scrutinized: the auditorium, while city-owned, is privately operated by the non-profit Advance Redding under a long-term lease, granting them autonomy in bookings without direct city interference. Barring TPUSA would not only risk violating First Amendment protections against viewpoint discrimination in public forums but also ignores the venue’s financial struggles, where diverse rentals help offset multimillion-dollar subsidies—potentially increasing taxpayer burdens if events are selectively canceled. Ironically, Redding Resistance regularly utilizes public spaces like City Hall for their own protests, raising questions about consistency and the slippery slope of politicizing venue access.

Rhetoric: A Stark Contrast

The rhetoric employed by Redding Resistance in this instance is sharply confrontational, directly labeling the local TPUSA event and organization as promoters of hate, extremism, division, and propaganda — accusations that extend to critiques of “Christian nationalism” and right-wing ideology.

In contrast, the local TPUSA chapters — primarily student-led at Shasta College and Simpson University — focus on affirmative, inspirational messaging. Their social media promotions for the “Faith Night” event highlight themes of faith, community, freedom, and positive gatherings, with posts expressing excitement about chapter growth and invitations like “God Bless America and God Bless Shasta.” There is no evidence in their public content of direct attacks on opponents or labeling of local groups.

This disparity underscores a broader ideological clash: one side employing accusatory language to mobilize against perceived threats, the other emphasizing constructive, value-based outreach.

In a polarized environment where both sides claim to defend community standards, a lingering question arises: Which one sounds like the “hate group”? Major monitoring organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Anti-Defamation League have criticized TPUSA nationally for associations and rhetoric but even they do not formally designate TPUSA as a hate group promoting bigotry against protected classes. It’s worth noting the SPLC itself has faced accusations from critics across the political spectrum of functioning as a partisan hate organization, with claims that it unfairly labels conservative and Christian groups while overlooking extremism on the left. The debate appears rooted more in political disagreement than objective classifications of hate.