Higher level taxonomy has been in flux for a few decades. Most recently, DNA evidence has really changed our view of higher level relationships. Here’s some information about that in a previous post: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/why-are-ciliates-chromista-i-thought-they-were-protozoa/18129/5
Most people studying relationships at this higher level don’t bother with the standard taxonomic hierarchies (subkingdoms, phyla) and just name major clades. Here’s an example: https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(19)30257-5
And a 2001 article about the “protozoa”: https://bioone.org/journals/the-american-biology-teacher/volume-63/issue-7/0002-7685(2001)063[0483:TPAKBD]2.0.CO;2/The-Protozoa-A-Kingdom-By-Default/10.1662/0002-7685(2001)063[0483:TPAKBD]2.0.CO;2.pdf?casa_token=xxQuYP49D6oAAAAA:C6H5lNJFrEezqCr8qg57rywK3sIB2tNPn8zr3wTEqnK09vkaWnIDMI3d-76ZOxhRtKQ1CyNNJg
Both protista and protozoa have long been recognized as “catch all” groups rather than evolutionary groups with shared common ancestors. iNat taxonomy sort of does the best it can given the current state of flux.
It’s my understanding that iNat follows the taxon framework of the Catalog of Life:
https://www.catalogueoflife.org/