What documented examples exist of organized payment for protesters in U.S. demonstrations since 2010?

1. What the investigative claims say: money, fiscal sponsors and training

Reporting in The American Spectator describes a trail of progressive philanthropic money—naming the Hopewell Fund and its place in the Arabella-managed network—that allegedly supports projects such as States at the Core (SATC), which the piece says provided on‑the‑ground training and “ICE Watch” instruction to activists in Minnesota, and frames that funding as an organized pipeline that can conceal the ultimate backers via fiscal sponsorship ^[1].

2. What mainstream experts and fact‑based reporters find: scant evidence for paid turnouts

Independent analysis summarized by HowStuffWorks reports that political scientists and mainstream reporters have found little indication that the large anti‑Trump demonstrations or other major protest waves since 2016 were the result of mass payment schemes, with scholars noting that the cost and logistical difficulty of paying millions of demonstrators would make such a program implausible ^[2].

3. The arithmetic and logistics objection: a concrete example of why mass payment claims falter

A widely cited calculation referenced in HowStuffWorks, drawn from Washington Post reporting, estimated that subsidizing anti‑Trump rallies at $25 per person would have required tens of millions of dollars—Philip Bump calculated roughly $57.4 million to pay protesters across a given period—underscoring the financial and coordination barriers to covertly paying very large numbers of participants ^[2].

4. Distinguishing “paid organizers or staff” from “paid protesters”

The available reporting distinguishes between documented, legitimate funding for organizers, staff or training programs (which can be routed through foundations and fiscal sponsors) and the different, and much less substantiated, claim that ordinary marchers were being paid to show up; The American Spectator piece focuses on funding for training and infrastructure rather than providing concrete, independently verified examples of cash payments to rank‑and‑file demonstrators ^[1].

5. Partisan frames and potential agendas in the sources

The Spectator investigation advances a partisan critique of progressive philanthropic networks and uses emotive language about “subversive mobilization tactics,” reflecting an editorial agenda that frames funding as nefarious; HowStuffWorks presents expert skepticism and arithmetic to rebut broad “paid protesters” claims, reflecting a fact‑checking orientation that highlights implausibility ^{[1] [2]}.

6. What is documented, what remains unproven, and the limits of available reporting

Available materials here document allegations of organized funding for activist training and name specific fiscal sponsors and projects in Minnesota, but they do not offer independently verified, itemized examples of organized, systematic cash payments to ordinary protesters at demonstrations; conversely, mainstream analysts provide counters—expert testimony and cost estimates—that argue large‑scale paid turnout is unlikely, but those analysts do not categorically rule out smaller, targeted payments or stipends in isolated cases because the sources do not exhaustively catalog every protest since 2010 ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Bottom line for readers following the record

The record in these sources shows two threads: investigative claims about organized funding for activist infrastructure and training routed through fiscal sponsors (as reported by The American Spectator), and skeptical mainstream analysis that finds no convincing evidence that mass protest turnouts were purchased (as summarized by HowStuffWorks and citing academic and journalistic calculations); neither side in the documents provided supplies definitive, independently verified receipts proving systematic payments to rank‑and‑file protesters across U.S. demonstrations since 2010 ^{[1] [2]}.