Adam Swart, CEO of Crowds on Demand, turned down a lucrative $20 million offer to help organize nationwide protests targeting former President Donald Trump, according to multiple reports. Swart said he believed the demonstrations—spearheaded by the group Good Trouble Lives On—would have been ineffective and potentially damaging to his company’s reputation.
“We were approached by interests aligned with the organizers of the July 17th movement,” Swart said. “And we rejected an offer that was likely worth around $20 million.”
Swart clarified that while he wouldn’t have personally earned the full amount, the total contract value—intended to fund large-scale demonstrations across the country—was substantial.
“This was a national effort,” he explained. “But I just don’t think it would have worked. It’s not a matter of virtue—it just wouldn’t be effective and would make everyone involved look bad.”
The proposed demonstrations, organized by Good Trouble Lives On, were intended to honor the legacy of the late Congressman John Lewis and draw attention to ongoing civil rights concerns through nonviolent protest. Despite the noble cause, Swart stood by his decision, stating that accepting the offer could have undermined his company’s credibility and the authenticity of the movement.
Meanwhile, the White House responded sharply to news of the rejected protest campaign.
Harrison Fields, a spokesperson for the Trump team, criticized the effort as evidence of a lack of genuine grassroots momentum.
“Trump’s America is so successful that blue-haired basement dwellers are being paid to stage fake protests against the administration’s remarkable achievements,” Fields said.
“Paid agitators should find real jobs instead of selling out for gift cards and meager paychecks that aim to divide the nation,” he added. “Nothing screams a party in disarray more than one that has to astroturf its outrage.”
While Good Trouble Lives On continues its push for civil rights reform through peaceful protest, Swart’s refusal to participate signals skepticism from even those in the professional organizing world about the effectiveness—or optics—of paid activism at such a scale.
