Read the book. It's based on a lot of research and it's been actively used in practice in defeating a whole lot of governments a hell of a lot more repressive than Trump's.
Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority. The dictators are equipped to apply violence overwhelmingly. However long or briefly these democrats can continue, eventually the harsh military realities usually become inescapable. The dictators almost always have superiority in military hardware, ammunition, transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, the democrats are (almost always) no match.
The maintenance of nonviolent discipline against violent opponents facilitates the workings of the four mechanisms of change in nonviolent struggle (discussed below). Nonviolent discipline is also extremely important in the process of political jiu-jitsu. In this process the stark brutality of the regime against the clearly nonviolent actionists politically rebounds against the dictators’ position, causing dissention in their own ranks as well as fomenting support for the resisters among the general population, the regime’s usual supporters, and third parties.
Emphasis is mine, that's the answer to your question. He actually says later on that there are circumstances where violence is needed, I couldn't quickly find that quote, but he basically just lays out the history of where and how different types of resistance action have worked.
I realize it's not convincing when I just quote it out like that. Read the book. There are strong reasons and historical examples for everything he's saying in those quick summaries.