Adam Swart, CEO of Crowds on Demand, said his company declined a deal he valued at roughly $20 million to help organize nationwide protests against former President Donald Trump. Speaking with NewsNation, Swart revealed that the offer came from individuals connected to the “July 17th movement” but was ultimately turned down due to concerns over the effectiveness of the planned demonstrations.
The protests, set to take place across the U.S., are being led by a group called Good Trouble Lives On, which describes itself as peaceful and focused on social change. The date marks the fifth anniversary of the death of civil rights icon and former Georgia congressman John Lewis, who often spoke of causing “good trouble” to spark change. The group claims the event is meant to stand against what they describe as a severe erosion of civil rights under Trump’s leadership.
Despite the large potential payout, Swart said he passed on the offer because he believed the protests wouldn’t achieve their goals. “It’s not about being noble,” he explained. “I just don’t think this would be effective. Accepting would have only made everyone involved look bad.”
Crowds on Demand, based in California, is known for supplying people for events, protests, and rallies. Swart made it clear that the $20 million figure represented the total contract value nationwide, not personal income. He emphasized that his decision was grounded in strategy, not virtue.
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields responded sharply, criticizing the use of paid demonstrators. “People are being paid to fake outrage against one of the most successful administrations,” he said, adding that such efforts show a lack of real support and “scream a party in disarray.”
Meanwhile, anti-Trump protests in cities like Los Angeles have turned violent in recent weeks, with American flags burned and police officers assaulted. These incidents have sparked further debate over the use and funding of organized political demonstrations.
Fox News Digital reached out to Swart for further comment but did not receive a reply at the time of publication.
