When most people hear the word “mercenary,” they conjure up images of shady men protecting corrupt regimes. Today, however, another mercenary prowls our streets: the paid protester.
A crucial element of the democratic process is free speech, debate, and yes, civil protests about public policy. But we should be concerned about interference by mercenaries funded by hostile foreign governments and nationals to manipulate public opinion, create costly public disturbances, and unduly influence government officials and institutions.
These American mercenaries are employed to shout slogans and disrupt political events, government operations, academia, and institutions. For instance, Code Pink, financed by backers in China, has disrupted many public events over the years, including a March 2025 Congressional hearing.
No one questions the right of Americans to speak freely, to petition the government for redress of grievances, and to protest peacefully. And no one questions the right for citizens to be paid to speak, lobby, or protest by other citizens or advocacy organizations that represent every viewpoint imaginable.
But foreign nationals and foreign governments have no such right to participate, surreptitiously or overtly, in our democratic process. When enabled by nefarious foreign forces, these mercenaries pose a danger to American civil society and our republic. This is a national security issue that imperils the functioning of our entire political and electoral system.
There are credible reports of the terrorist group Hamas funding protests that have caused immeasurable damage to students, college campuses, and the educational environment. In June, Congress sought an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into Chinese-financed protests — think the ANSWER Coalition, financed by a billionaire who lives in Shanghai, participating in recent anti-ICE riots in Los Angles.
Funding by foreign adversaries is intended to cause dissension in our civil and political society, not to inform rational discussion or debate by American citizens.
The government can address this threat without violating the constitutional rights of citizens. Their right to speak and assemble should be protected, while preventing nefarious actors from being paid by foreign actors and enemies.
We already do this in elections. Under federal law, foreign nationals — except for permanent resident aliens — are prohibited from making any contribution or donation in “connection with a Federal, State, or local election.” Foreign nationals can’t give money to candidates or to political parties, nor can they engage in independent expenditures.
This isn’t the only type of ban on foreign nationals. As then-Judge (now Justice) Brett Kavanaugh pointed out in Bluman v. FEC (2011), the Supreme Court has long held that foreign citizens can be excluded “from activities that are part of democratic self-government.” That’s why aliens are also barred from voting, being candidates, serving as jurors, and in some places, banned from working as police officers or working in public schools. We should have the same concern about foreign nationals and governments funding protesters and advocacy.
We already have such a disclosure requirement for another First Amendment freedom — the right to “petition” the government for a redress of grievances — known in modern parlance as lobbying.
Under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), 2 U.S.C. § 611, anyone who acts on behalf of a foreign national has to file detailed disclosure information with the U.S. Department of Justice. This law applies to political activities, public relations, dispensing funds, or representing the foreign national’s interests before the federal government.
Shouldn’t the public, government officials, institutions, and the press similarly know if individuals or organizations protesting their activities or providing their “opinions” are similarly being paid by foreign nationals or foreign governments?
One mercenary protest company is “Crowds on Demand,” which has seen a 400 percent increase in demand since the summer of 2024. Companies like this will support any paying cause. In our entrepreneurial country, that is a perfectly legitimate business.
But who is accountable when paid protests cross over into unlawful activities? Into violence? Into the obstruction of federal law enforcement? The individual perpetrator is accountable, but so too should be the agent enabling the crime by payment to the extent that agent incited such misbehavior.
Too often such protest financiers rest secure, free of any ramifications of the disruption and harm their money buys. This must change. Foreign actors with a little cash can finance harmful activities without anyone ever knowing they were involved in instigating that disruption.
No actions should be taken by Congress to limit citizens and domestic organizations from exercising their First Amendment rights. But foreign nationals and foreign governments don’t have such rights to participate in our political process.
Congress should consider extending the ban on foreign financing of elections to their financing of other actions that are part of the political process — like protests. At the very least, similar to the disclosure required in FARA, organizations such as “Crowds on Demand” that provide paid protesters and agitators who received foreign funding should be required to register and disclose the foreign funding.
This could be done with a registration system at the Justice Department modeled on the FARA registration process.
In the same way that the Federal Election Commission has a 48-hour reporting requirement for candidates receiving donations shortly before an election, the registration system could require the organizations to keep their disclosures updated as they receive foreign funding. This disclosure requirement would not apply to domestic funding since domestic organizations and associations are entitled to donor privacy as the Supreme Court said in 1958 in NAACP v. Patterson.
Alternatively, states could implement such a disclosure requirement tied to business licensing. As corporations and organizations that form, supervise, manage, or fund protests register with state governments to do business in that state, they could be required to disclose information about foreign funding, with a requirement to continually update that information.
The Supreme Court has held that local governments can impose reasonable time, place, and manner limits on protests. A reasonable requirement that cities and towns could implement when organizations apply for a permit to protest is that the organization disclose if protesters are being paid and the identity of any foreign nationals providing such funding. This could be in addition to or an alternative to the Justice Department or state business license registration process.
We are not proposing that protesters carry signs saying, “We are being paid by China to stage this protest.” That would be impractical. But by requiring such information to be part of a registration or application process, it would be publicly available. Absolute transparency about foreign funding is essential when making judgments about the legitimacy of such protests and the messages they are conveying.
Protesting is a protected part of American democracy and our constitutional form of government. But it should not be allowed as a weapon of hostile foreigners who have no right to interfere with or misrepresent the will of Americans. Unchecked, national enemies will be able to fund debilitating and demoralizing protests aimed at causing dissension, chaos, violence, and sedition, not democratic civic action.
Bolstering American civil liberties requires hardening our republic from foreign-financed sedition.