In a stunning revelation this week, Adam Swart, CEO of the California-based firm Crowds on Demand, disclosed that he rejected a $20 million offer to provide paid demonstrators for the upcoming Democrat-aligned “Good Trouble Lives On” protests, slated for July 17.
Crowds on Demand, which openly advertises its services in “advocacy campaigns, demonstrations, PR stunts, crowds for hire and corporate events,” is known for its ability to rapidly deploy actors posing as activists, supporters, or audiences to shape public perception. According to the company’s website, its services are available nationwide, with a proven track record of executing high-volume, short-notice mobilizations.
But Swart said no.
“We rejected an offer that probably is worth around $20 million,” Swart told NewsNation on Tuesday. “The value of the contract would have been worth around that amount nationwide to organize huge demonstrations around the country.”
When asked for specifics about who made the offer or when, Swart declined to elaborate. He did, however, express concerns about potential violence and questioned the overall effectiveness of manufactured protest movements.
“Personally, I just don’t think it’s effective,” he said, reaffirming his decision to decline involvement.
The “Good Trouble Lives On” demonstrations have been heavily promoted by left-wing activist groups and are intended as a follow-up to last month’s “No Kings Day” protests, which received hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and were held in support of the controversial anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. Footage from those earlier protests revealed that the crowds skewed significantly older, with many participants appearing to be in their 60s and 70s.
These are the NO KINGS protestors pic.twitter.com/UstCTDPfrg
— Serf (@TheRoyalSerf) June 14, 2025
The July 17 events are backed by a coalition of far-left organizations including the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), 50501, the National Education Association (NEA), the Women’s March, and several others. Funding sources reportedly include Democratic Party donors, such as Walmart heiress Christy Walton, and progressive advocacy groups like Indivisible.
The rejection by Crowds on Demand raises fresh questions about the authenticity of modern protest movements, especially as political theatrics become increasingly professionalized and well-funded. While the group prides itself on offering passionate, well-coordinated campaigns, even Swart appears to draw a line at accepting large-scale contracts designed to artificially inflate public outrage.
