Multiple U.S. attorney’s offices are gearing up to investigate a grant-making group tied to billionaire Democrat donor George Soros, signaling a bold move by the Trump administration to scrutinize influential progressive networks.
According to the Daily Mail, a directive from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s office has instructed prosecutors in at least six major jurisdictions to explore charges against the Open Society Foundations, ranging from racketeering to material support for terrorism. This push comes alongside reports of looming indictments for former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, two figures long in Trump’s crosshairs.
The directive, obtained by the New York Times, was sent to offices in California, New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Detroit, and Maryland. It’s a clear signal that the Justice Department under Trump is not shying away from targeting political adversaries with serious legal firepower.
Aakash Singh, a lawyer in Blanche’s office, pointed to a recent report by the conservative watchdog Capital Research Center as the foundation for these probes. The report alleges that Soros’s group has funneled over $80 million into entities linked to terrorism or extremist violence, including a Palestinian human rights organization flagged by Israel in 2022 as a front for terrorist activity.
Prosecutors have been asked to assess whether these claims hold enough weight to justify criminal cases. The directive also pushes for swift submission of investigative plans, suggesting the administration wants results without delay.
Open Society Foundations has fired back, calling the accusations politically motivated and a direct attack on civil society. Their statement to the Daily Mail claimed, “Our activities are peaceful and lawful,” but such assurances may ring hollow to those skeptical of their sprawling influence on progressive causes.
President Trump has made no secret of his disdain for Soros, previously stating the billionaire donor “should be put in jail.” After the tragic political assassination of Charlie Kirk earlier this month, Trump doubled down, telling NBC News that Soros is “a bad guy” who deserves harsh consequences.
Back in August, Trump took to social media, urging charges against Soros and his son under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law typically reserved for dismantling organized crime. It’s a striking comparison that underscores the depth of his frustration with the financier’s political machinations.
The Open Society Foundations, for their part, warn that such actions threaten everyone’s rights, stating, “When power is abused to take away the rights of some people, it puts the rights of all people at risk.” Yet, when vast sums of money flow to questionable causes, it’s fair to ask whether accountability, not persecution, is the real goal here.
Simultaneously, the Justice Department is closing in on James Comey and Letitia James, with indictments reportedly imminent. Trump, who fired Comey in 2017, has long accused the former FBI director of misconduct, and sources indicate charges for lying to Congress about a leak tied to the Russia investigation could drop in the coming days.
Letitia James, meanwhile, has been a persistent thorn in Trump’s side with multiple legal actions against him and his businesses in New York. Now, grand juries in the Eastern District of Virginia may soon weigh indictments against her for suspected mortgage fraud in the state.
Trump has pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi to move quickly on both cases, reflecting a broader strategy to confront those he views as abusing their positions against him. While critics may cry retaliation, supporters argue it’s high time for powerful figures to face the same scrutiny they’ve wielded against others.
This flurry of legal activity under Trump’s Justice Department raises big questions about the intersection of politics and law enforcement. Targeting a major Democratic donor like Soros, alongside high-profile opponents like Comey and James, suggests an administration unafraid to wield its authority against what it sees as a biased progressive establishment.
Yet, the risk of overreach looms large, and the backlash from groups like Open Society Foundations highlights the delicate balance between justice and perceived vendettas.
Still, for many frustrated with years of unchecked influence peddling, these investigations feel like a long-overdue push for fairness in a system too often tilted by wealth and connections.
