Calls to Prosecute George Soros: What Was Alleged, What the Justice Department Examined and What Has Not Been Proven
A viral social media graphic says people are calling for billionaire philanthropist George Soros to be prosecuted for “funding,” but the sentence ends before explaining exactly what he allegedly funded, who is demanding prosecution or whether any criminal charge has actually been filed.
The incomplete wording creates a dramatic impression without supplying the legal context necessary to evaluate it.
There have indeed been prominent calls to prosecute Soros. In August 2025, President Donald Trump publicly said that George Soros and his son, Alex Soros, should face charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO.
Trump accused them of supporting violent protests across the United States. Some of his political allies and conservative commentators made similar demands.
The Justice Department later directed federal prosecutors to consider possible investigations involving the Soros-funded Open Society Foundations. Reported areas of examination included racketeering, arson, wire fraud and material support for terrorism.
Those developments make the general claim that “people are calling for George Soros to be prosecuted” true.
They do not establish that Soros committed a crime.
As of September 29, 2026, the publicly available sources reviewed for this article do not show that George Soros has been indicted or convicted in connection with the allegations described in the graphic.
A call for prosecution, an instruction to investigate and a formal criminal charge are three very different things.
Who Called for Soros to Be Prosecuted?
The most prominent demand came from President Trump.
On August 27, 2025, Trump wrote on Truth Social that George Soros and Alex Soros should be charged under RICO because of what he characterized as their support for violent protests throughout the United States.
Trump’s statement did not identify a particular financial transaction that he claimed directly funded violence. Nor did it publicly present documents demonstrating that either Soros knowingly financed criminal activity.
Reuters reported that Trump offered no evidence with the accusation.
The Open Society Foundations rejected the allegation. The organization said it supports lawful and peaceful civil-society activity and condemns terrorism.
Other conservative figures have long accused Soros of using his wealth to influence American politics, prosecutor elections and activist organizations. Some of those criticisms concern publicly disclosed political spending and grants. Others extend much further, alleging hidden control over protests or political disorder.
Those different claims should not be merged together.
Funding a political campaign, a criminal-justice organization or a lawful protest group is not automatically evidence of financing violence.
To establish criminal responsibility, prosecutors would need evidence connecting particular people, payments and intentions to specific illegal acts.
What Is RICO?
RICO is a federal law adopted in 1970 to combat organized criminal enterprises.
The law is frequently associated with Mafia prosecutions, but it can apply to other alleged criminal organizations when prosecutors establish the required pattern of unlawful conduct.
A RICO case generally requires more than showing that a wealthy donor funded organizations with political objectives.
Prosecutors must identify an enterprise and demonstrate a pattern of qualifying crimes, known as predicate acts. Depending on the case, those acts may include fraud, bribery, extortion, money laundering, arson or other specified offenses.
They must also connect the defendant to the enterprise and the alleged criminal conduct.
Political disagreement is not a RICO offense. Supporting an unpopular cause is not racketeering. Donating to an organization that later becomes associated with an unlawful incident does not automatically make the donor criminally responsible.
Intent and knowledge matter.
If a donor knowingly directed money toward arson, assault or terrorism, that could create serious legal exposure. If the donor financed lawful advocacy and had no knowledge of independent criminal conduct, the legal analysis would be completely different.
That is why a social media statement demanding RICO charges cannot substitute for evidence.