RT “RICO SHAKE-UP: New Proposal Could Reshape How America Investigates Protest Funding”
A contentious legislative proposal announced by former New York Judge and media personality Jeanine Pirro is generating significant debate in Washington and across the nation. The plan involves introducing a bill that would leverage the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to prosecute individuals and groups who secretly finance protest movements, with Pirro explicitly identifying billionaire philanthropist George Soros as a central figure of concern.
During a widely viewed television interview, Pirro detailed her intention to draft legislation targeting what she described as “secret, large-scale financial influence on American political and social movements.” She argued that such actions constitute a threat to the democratic process and national security. “This isn’t about free speech,” Pirro asserted. “This is about foreign-influenced money, funneled through dark channels, trying to manipulate the will of the American people. If someone is secretly financing nationwide unrest, they are not a philanthropist—they are a criminal under federal law.”
The most groundbreaking and controversial element of the proposal is its application of the RICO Act. Enacted in 1970, RICO was designed as a powerful tool for law enforcement to dismantle organized crime enterprises like the mafia by targeting patterns of criminal activity, or “racketeering.” A successful RICO prosecution can lead to severe penalties, including lengthy prison sentences and, crucially, the forfeiture of assets connected to the criminal enterprise. Pirro’s bill would seek to classify the coordinated, undisclosed funding of protests across multiple states as a form of racketeering. This would give federal authorities the power to freeze bank accounts and seize assets of individuals or foundations, such as Soros’s Open Society Foundations, if they are found to be bankrolling such activities with the intent to influence public policy.
Supporters of the proposal have quickly rallied behind the idea as a necessary measure to ensure transparency and fairness in political discourse. They argue that immense, untraceable financial contributions to activist groups can create an artificial sense of grassroots support and unfairly sway political outcomes. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) voiced his approval, stating, “For too long, dark money has dictated the political landscape in ways the average American cannot see. Judge Pirro’s legislation is a much-needed step to hold these billionaires accountable.”
close
00:00
00:00
01:31
Conversely, the proposal has drawn swift and sharp condemnation from critics, who see it as a dangerous overreach of government power and a direct assault on First Amendment rights. Opponents argue that the bill could criminalize legitimate philanthropic work and create a chilling effect, discouraging donations to advocacy groups across the political spectrum. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) characterized the move as “an attempt to criminalize philanthropy and silence voices that challenge entrenched power,” adding, “It is deeply concerning to see RICO being weaponized against people for funding legitimate advocacy work.”
Legal experts have expressed significant skepticism about the bill’s constitutionality and practical application. Former federal prosecutor Susan Carver noted that such a use of RICO would be a stark departure from established legal precedent. “RICO has never been intended for political activity, even if you disagree with the politics,” Carver explained. “This is a significant departure from established legal practice, and it would almost certainly face immediate constitutional challenges.”
Constitutional law professor Michael Levin elaborated on the legal hurdles, pointing out the high burden of proof required in a RICO case. “The government would need to demonstrate not only that money was transferred, but that it was done with criminal intent to manipulate or disrupt society,” Levin said. “This is a high bar, and courts may be very skeptical of stretching RICO this far.”
At the center of this debate is George Soros, the Hungarian-born financier whose Open Society Foundations have donated billions to causes including criminal justice reform, voting rights, and pro-democracy initiatives worldwide. While his foundations frame this work as supporting open and democratic societies, conservative critics have long accused him of using his wealth to destabilize communities and advance a progressive political agenda. Pirro’s proposed legislation is designed to bring what she calls “dark money flowing into America’s streets” into the light.
As of this report, George Soros has not issued a formal public statement in response to the legislative proposal. His representatives have historically defended his philanthropic endeavors as transparent and aimed at strengthening human rights and social justice, dismissing accusations of manipulation as politically motivated misinformation. The potential implications of such a law, should it pass, are vast. Political strategists like Karen Howard suggest that the mere threat of a RICO investigation could be enough to deter donors. “Even the perception that RICO could be applied to political donations may dissuade donors from supporting causes they care about,” Howard commented. “It’s a strategic move that could reshape the landscape of political activism in America,” potentially impacting fundraising for organizations ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
