Concerns Over Exploitation of America’s Protest Culture
The leader of a national crowd-management company has raised alarms about the potential exploitation of American protests by paid agitators, profit-seeking entities, and foreign influences hoping to create discord. Adam Swart, the CEO of Clouds on Demand, shared with Fox News Digital his observations on how certain demonstrations are manipulated for financial gain rather than genuine civic engagement.
Swart expressed concern that various domestic and, potentially, international groups are trying to drive a wedge within the country. He emphasized that these forces aren’t necessarily aligned with either political side; instead, they capitalize on chaos for profit.
This statement aligns with the upcoming “No Kings” protests set for October 18, which aim to challenge political elitism and government overreach. Swart noted that his company had been approached regarding participation in this event but chose to decline, describing the planning as flawed and warning it could simply become another example of political theatrics without real impact.
“It’s the same people echoing the same sentiments and expecting different results,” he remarked.
Organizers of the “No Kings” movement disagree with Swart’s portrayal, asserting they anticipate similar or greater turnout compared to their previous demonstration, which they claim attracted about 5 million participants. A spokesperson emphasized that these protests are centered around building opposition to authoritarianism, devoid of fundraising motives.
This spokesperson also highlighted the movement’s commitment to nonviolence, detailing their efforts in training volunteers for security and de-escalation. They pointed out their proactive measures in monitoring online activities and addressing threats, portraying “No Kings” as thoughtful and organized.
Swart acknowledged that while some progressive groups support the movement, his concerns regarding manipulative tactics are applicable to a broader spectrum of large-scale protests. He described a “protest industry” characterized by consultants and influencers who monetize political outrage rather than fostering authentic grassroots movements.
“I took a pay cut to steer my company toward common-sense principles,” he explained. “If I accept every job, I could be making vastly more, but I prefer not to contribute to the noise.”
Swart mentioned that Clouds on Demand now refuses contracts deemed divisive, choosing instead to back peaceful and intentional demonstrations. “I aim to elevate meaningful expression, not just crowd antics,” he concluded.
He warned that not all demonstrations fully represent their stated causes. Some groups or foreign interests may emulate legitimate advocacy networks, obscuring true intentions and identities behind events.
Swart emphasized that the rising political divide creates fertile ground for opportunists to take advantage of societal anger and confusion. “In times of strife, both sides point fingers rather than investigating who truly benefits from the chaos,” he noted.
He illustrated how some protests appear designed to instigate conflict for viral attention, which serves those profiting from outrage and divisiveness. Swart likened this trend to recent warnings from U.S. intelligence regarding foreign attempts—especially from countries like Russia and China—to spread divisive misinformation during critical political moments.
He further criticized major social media platforms for profiting off polarization, asserting that their revenue hinges on conflict and negativity. Swart argued that the focus should shift from ideological labels to understanding the economic motivations driving engagement.
Expounding, he reiterated that the threat of societal breakdown transcends political lines, warning that both domestic and international actors could exploit division for gain. “This is a significant national security issue—our unity is at stake,” he asserted.
Swart’s warning goes beyond any single protest or political initiative; it’s more about recognizing patterns where public expression can be manipulated for disruptive purposes. He called for a return to purpose-driven protest efforts, stating, “If we don’t grasp this reality, we risk remaining at the mercy of those who thrive on conflict.”
Still, he maintains a sense of optimism. “Awareness and transparency can mitigate risks,” he believes. “Let’s focus on building coalitions, not blaming each other.”
