🛑 SIDEBAR: Enemy Combatant or Mercenary? When Paid Protest Turns to Subversion
In recent months, reports have emerged that certain protestors—especially in high-profile anti-American or anti-Israel demonstrations—are being paid thousands of dollars to travel, organize, and disrupt. Some are trained activists tied to global NGOs or ideological movements. Others appear in coordinated, near-military fashion—masks, tactics, and all.
So what are they? Protestors? Mercenaries? Or something else?
Let’s define the terms:
🔹 Enemy Combatant:
An individual—armed or unarmed—who takes actions in support of hostile forces against the United States. This can include sabotage, subversion, or aiding foreign entities engaging in hybrid warfare.
🔹 Mercenary:
A person who engages in combat or destabilizing activity for financial compensation, not ideology or national duty. Typically unaffiliated with official military forces. Under international law, this is often considered illegal.
🧨 If a foreign-funded group pays individuals to disrupt national infrastructure, intimidate citizens, or oppose lawful government operations…
That starts looking less like “protest” and more like mercenary insurgency.
Key Questions for the Republic:
Who is funding these actors?
Are U.S. laws being applied equally to paid political agitators?
When does foreign-funded disruption cross the line into domestic insurgency?
The threat isn’t just ideological—it’s operational.
The Republic must not confuse protected speech with coordinated, compensated subversion. The Constitution doesn’t protect paid mercenaries masquerading as peaceful protestors.