Conservative Figure Pushes for Expanded Use of Racketeering Law to Target Funding of Protests

WASHINGTON — Jeanine Pirro, the former Fox News host and current United States attorney for the District of Columbia, has reportedly called for the application of federal racketeering statutes to individuals and organizations accused of financing protests across the country, with particular focus on the billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

The proposal, which has circulated widely on social media platforms in recent days, suggests classifying certain forms of protest funding as organized crime under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO. Enacted in 1970, the law was originally designed to combat mafia-style enterprises by allowing prosecutors to target patterns of criminal activity, including asset forfeiture and enhanced penalties.

Proponents of the idea argue that coordinated financing of demonstrations — especially those that turn chaotic or involve property damage — could meet the criteria for a criminal enterprise. If adopted, such an interpretation could enable authorities to freeze bank accounts linked to alleged funders virtually overnight, potentially disrupting nonprofit networks and donor activities on a large scale.

The claims center on Mr. Soros, the 95-year-old founder of the Open Society Foundations, a major grant-making organization that supports progressive causes worldwide, including criminal justice reform, immigration advocacy and democratic initiatives. Conservative critics have long accused Mr. Soros of secretly bankrolling protests, from the Black Lives Matter movement in prior years to more recent demonstrations against government policies. These allegations often portray his philanthropy as an effort to sow division or undermine law and order.

However, representatives for the Open Society Foundations have repeatedly denied funding violent or unlawful activities. “We support peaceful advocacy and the fundamental rights to free speech and assembly,” a spokesperson said in previous statements responding to similar accusations. No court has found evidence that the foundation directly finances illegal protest actions.

The notion gained renewed attention amid heightened political tensions in 2025, following President Trump’s public calls for RICO investigations into Mr. Soros and his son, Alexander, who now chairs the foundation. Mr. Trump has alleged, without presenting specific evidence, that their support for liberal groups amounts to backing “violent protests” nationwide. Justice Department officials have explored related inquiries into progressive networks, though legal experts note that proving a RICO case requires demonstrating a clear pattern of predicate crimes, such as extortion or wire fraud, rather than lawful charitable giving.

Ms. Pirro, appointed to her current role last year after a career as a prosecutor, judge and television commentator, has been vocal on issues of crime and public safety. Her office has pursued aggressive prosecutions in the nation’s capital, including cases involving protests and perceived threats to federal agents. While she has not formally introduced legislation — as she holds an executive rather than legislative position — social media posts and commentary attribute to her a push for broadening RICO’s scope in this context.

Critics from civil liberties organizations warn that expanding the law in this way could chill protected speech. “The First Amendment safeguards the right to peacefully protest and to fund advocacy groups,” said a representative from the American Civil Liberties Union. “Labeling political philanthropy as racketeering risks weaponizing federal power against dissent, regardless of one’s views on the causes involved.”

Supporters counter that the focus is narrowly on illicit coordination leading to criminal acts. “If funding patterns enable ongoing disruption or violence, they should be scrutinized like any other enterprise,” one conservative legal analyst said.

The debate underscores broader divisions over protest financing in an era of polarized activism. Philanthropic donations to social movements are commonplace on both sides of the ideological spectrum, from liberal foundations to conservative donors backing advocacy groups. Yet accusations of “secret bankrolling” have become a recurring theme in political discourse, often amplified online.

As of now, no formal bill has advanced in Congress to amend RICO specifically for protest-related funding. Discussions remain largely in the realm of public commentary and social media, where viral posts have dramatized the potential consequences: frozen assets, sweeping investigations and a reevaluation of how political expression intersects with national security concerns.

Legal scholars emphasize that any such expansion would face significant constitutional hurdles. The Supreme Court has historically interpreted RICO broadly but with safeguards against overreach into legitimate activities. A push to apply it to protest funding would likely ignite litigation over free speech boundaries.

In the meantime, the episode highlights the enduring influence of figures like Ms. Pirro and Mr. Soros in America’s cultural and political battles. What begins as online speculation can quickly fuel national conversations about power, money and the limits of dissent in a democracy.