President Donald Trump has dropped a bombshell on Truth Social, targeting billionaire George Soros and his son Alex with a call for prosecution under the RICO Act over their alleged funding of violent protests across the United States.
Breitbart reported that Trump’s latest outcry accuses the Soros family of bankrolling chaos, claiming their financial support through the Open Society Foundations has fueled unrest and caused significant harm to the nation.
“George Soros and his Wonderful Radical Left son should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, throughout the United States of America,” Trump declared on his platform.
Well, if throwing money at Discord qualifies as racketeering, this could be a courtroom drama worth watching. But let’s unpack the law and the accusations before we start casting the movie roles.
The RICO Act, part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, was designed to combat organized crime’s infiltration into legitimate businesses engaged in interstate commerce. It’s a heavy legal hammer, typically swung at mob bosses, not philanthropists. Yet Trump seems to think it fits the bill here.
According to Trump, the Soros family’s actions through their foundation have crossed a line into causing “great damage” to the country. That’s a bold claim, but is funding advocacy groups the same as running a crime syndicate? The jury—literal or figurative—remains out.
Breitbart News reported that the Open Society Foundations partially bankrolled CASA, a leftist organization that rallied for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an accused MS-13 gang member and unauthorized migrant also tied to human smuggling and domestic violence allegations.
CASA’s protest aimed to shield Garcia from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents preparing to detain him. That’s a tough optic for any group claiming the moral high ground.
The financial ties deepen with CASA reportedly receiving a $250,000 grant from the Soros foundation in 2023, while CASA in Action, its political arm, got a hefty $1.6 million in the same year.
That’s a lot of cash for advocacy, especially when it’s tied to defending someone with such serious accusations. One has to wonder if every dollar was spent with full transparency.
Trump didn’t stop there, vowing his administration would not “allow these lunatics to rip apart America” any longer. Strong words, but they tap into a frustration many feel about unchecked influence in political activism. Still, painting with such a broad brush risks oversimplifying a complex issue.
Beyond CASA, the Soros Foundation’s reach extends to other contentious causes, including a reported $6.2 million to Human Rights First between 2016 and 2021, a group that sued the Trump administration over deportation orders for unauthorized migrants.
Legal challenges are part of democracy, but when they’re funded by such deep pockets, it raises questions about whose agenda is really at play.
Then there’s the New York Post’s report that, since 2016, over $15 million from Soros has gone to groups linked to anti-Israel protests following Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. That’s a significant sum for causes that many Americans find divisive at best. It’s hard not to see why this would stoke ire among those who value national unity.
Specifically, the Open Society Foundations funneled $13.7 million through the Tides Center, a leftist hub that sponsors nonprofits reportedly justifying Hamas’s actions.
The Tides Center also gave $30,000 in 2020 to Desis Rising and Moving, a group behind an anti-Israel protest in New York City’s Bryant Park. These connections paint a picture of a sprawling network that’s tough to ignore.
For many conservatives, this pattern of funding feels like a deliberate push against traditional American values, prioritizing progressive causes over stability.
While philanthropy is no crime, the optics of supporting protests—some tied to violence or extremism—can understandably rub folks the wrong way.
Yet, it’s worth noting that funding advocacy, even controversial causes, isn’t inherently illegal under current law. The RICO Act targets organized crime, not political disagreement, and stretching it to fit this scenario could set a precedent that chills free speech. That’s a tightrope both sides need to walk carefully.