Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Has Crowds on Demand been involved in any high-profile controversies or scandals?
Executive Summary
Crowds on Demand has been publicly linked to the business of supplying paid participants for demonstrations, a fact its CEO Adam Swart repeatedly acknowledges and frames as a reaction to the monetization and manipulation of protest activity. Recent statements emphasize large surges in demand for paid protesters under certain administrations and assert that truly organic protests are rare, claims documented in multiple interviews in 2025 [1] [2]. While these admissions have fueled controversy, the company presents its role as offering balanced services for left and right and as a corrective against chaos and misinformation [2].
1. Why this admission matters: the company openly sells protest participation
Adam Swart’s public remarks treat the selling of crowd participation as an established business model, insisting the firm supplies paid participants to both conservative and liberal causes and that requests rose markedly during the Trump years, with figures described as a 400% increase in requests. Those figures appear across interviews from August and October 2025 and are used to argue the marketplace for protests has expanded [2] [1]. The repetition of the 400% figure in separate outlets indicates the statistic became a central talking point for the company, shaping how journalists and critics interpret its activities [2] [1].
2. Where critics and defenders clash: manipulation versus marketplace services
Critics view the company’s admission as proof that protests can be manufactured and manipulated for pay, amplifying fears about misinformation and engineered public sentiment; Adam Swart himself warns that demonstrations can be co-opted by actors making money off chaos, including foreign and domestic forces he says want to pull America apart [1]. Defenders or company spokespeople, however, frame the service as neutral and pragmatic, arguing Crowds on Demand provides peaceful, law-abiding participants for a range of clients and positions the business as a tool for underdogs and local interests rather than purely a political weapon [2].
3. Media coverage and narrative consolidation in 2025
Interviews and articles from mid- to late-2025 show the narrative consolidated around two linked claims: that paid protest requests surged under particular political conditions and that the firm sees little that is purely organic in modern protest culture. Multiple pieces from August and October 2025 repeat the same themes and stats, suggesting either coordinated messaging by the company or a dominant journalistic frame that amplifies the CEO’s talking points [2] [1]. The consistency across outlets increases the reach of the company’s framing while also sharpening critiques that it monetizes civic expression [2].
4. What is omitted from the public record and why it matters
Public statements emphasize demand and the company’s ability to supply demonstrators but provide limited granular data on client types, payment structures, geographic distribution, or oversight mechanisms beyond generalities about peaceful behavior and lawful participation. This omission leaves unanswered questions about who exactly hires these services, how participant roles are disclosed to audiences, and whether there are safeguards against deceptive political manipulation—gaps journalists and critics note but that the company has not comprehensively filled in the public record [2] [3].
5. Possible agendas shaping claims and coverage
The company’s messaging, repeated across outlets, serves to normalize and monetize protest services while simultaneously positioning Crowds on Demand as a corrective force against more malicious manipulation—a dual agenda that benefits the firm’s commercial interests and reframes criticism as ideological. Journalistic coverage that leans heavily on company-provided figures risks echoing a single narrative; conversely, critics emphasizing manipulation without acknowledging claims that services are bipartisan may reflect a political motive to delegitimize paid participation irrespective of context [1] [2].
6. Evaluating credibility: what multiple sources collectively show
Across the available 2025 pieces, the credible constants are the CEO’s admissions that paid protest services exist, the claim of substantially increased demand during certain administrations, and the company’s claim of serving both sides and stressing peaceful conduct. These repeated elements strengthen the factual basis that Crowds on Demand operates in this space, while disparities and omissions in data suggest caution in extrapolating broader societal effects without further evidence and independent investigation [2] [1].
7. Bottom line and what to watch next
The firm’s public statements have generated controversy because they confirm the practice of hiring demonstrators and suggest a booming market; at the same time, the company pushes back by framing its services as neutral, lawful, and responsive to demand. To move beyond competing narratives, reporters and researchers should seek independent audits, client records, and participant testimony—data currently not included in the public interviews—to assess the scale, impact, and ethical boundaries of paid-protester businesses [3] [2].