The presence of paid demonstrators at U.S. political rallies and protests reflects broader trends of “incentivized activism,” according to Adam Swart, CEO of the publicity firm Crowds on Demand. Swart, whose company has organized paid participants for protests and events since 2012, defended the practice in a recent interview, arguing that financial or social motivations—rather than ideological commitment—often drive participation in public demonstrations.
Speaking to Fox News, Swart described his firm’s role in recruiting individuals to amplify messages for corporate and political clients. He emphasized that compensating protesters is ethical, framing it as a way to help people advocate for causes they “support but might not otherwise be able to attend.” Labeling this dynamic as “incentivized activism,” he suggested most attendees at protests have motives beyond pure belief, such as social media attention or external pressures.
To illustrate his point, Swart referenced the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, questioning whether some participants—including those he termed “real housewives”—joined primarily to showcase their involvement online rather than to address systemic racism. He also cited instances of labor unions allegedly pressuring members to attend rallies by threatening unfavorable work assignments, while political staffers, he claimed, often volunteer personal time to support campaigns.
Paid demonstrators typically earn hundreds of dollars daily, Swart said, with large-scale national campaigns costing millions. Despite lucrative offers, he disclosed turning down a $20 million contract from groups opposing former President Donald Trump, citing strategic concerns rather than political alignment. “The campaign’s likely failure would damage our reputation,” he explained, criticizing what he called a “consultant class” behind unsuccessful efforts to counter Trump’s agenda.
Swart singled out advisors linked to President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, blaming them for electoral losses in 2024 and ongoing challenges in curbing Trump’s policies. His remarks spotlight the often-opaque mechanics of protest organization, raising questions about authenticity in grassroots movements and the role of financial incentives in shaping public discourse.
While Swart’s disclosures have sparked debate about ethical boundaries in activism, they underscore the complex interplay of ideology, economics, and perception in modern political engagement—a dynamic resonating beyond U.S. borders as similar practices gain global attention.
