WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a dramatic political escalation that has already set off fierce debate across Washington, former New York judge and Fox News host Jeanine Pirro has announced plans to introduce a new bill that would classify secret political funding of nationwide protests as organized crime under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act — a statute historically used to prosecute mafia leaders and large criminal networks.

Pirro claims the proposal, if passed, would specifically target billionaire financier George Soros, whose global network of foundations and philanthropic initiatives has long been a lightning rod for controversy. The bill, she says, would allow U.S. authorities to freeze bank accounts linked to foreign or covert funding of political activism — a move she argues is essential to protecting American sovereignty.

“This isn’t about free speech,” Pirro declared in a televised Fox News interview unveiling the plan. “This is about foreign-influenced money funneled through dark channels to manipulate the will of the American people. If someone is secretly funding unrest across multiple states, that’s not philanthropy — that’s organized corruption.”

A Legislative Shockwave

Pirro’s proposed legislation marks one of the most aggressive efforts yet to tie private political funding to criminal racketeering statutes. Under the bill, any individual or organization proven to have secretly financed protests or advocacy movements with the intent to influence public policy could face federal prosecution. Assets linked to such efforts could be seized or frozen pending investigation.

Her supporters describe the measure as a necessary “anti-dark-money” safeguard. Critics, however, are warning that the bill represents a dangerous expansion of federal power and could criminalize political donations and legitimate activism.

“This would be a seismic shift in how the government defines criminal activity,” said constitutional law professor Michael Levin. “RICO was never intended to target political behavior. To apply it here would stretch the law far beyond its original purpose.”

The RICO Angle: From Mafia to Political Donors?

Enacted in 1970, the RICO Act was originally designed to dismantle organized crime syndicates by allowing prosecutors to pursue leaders of criminal enterprises even when they did not personally commit illegal acts. Extending it to encompass political funding, experts say, would be legally unprecedented.

Pirro argues that Soros’s alleged financial influence over protests and activist networks fits the definition of an “organized enterprise” when such funding is coordinated across multiple states and aims to “destabilize democratic order.”

“We are talking about systemic corruption — a multistate, coordinated effort to manipulate political outcomes,” Pirro said. “That’s exactly what RICO was created to prevent.”

Soros’s representatives have consistently rejected such accusations, describing them as politically motivated attacks that misrepresent decades of philanthropic work through the Open Society Foundations, which supports democracy, justice reform, and human rights projects around the world.

Support and Opposition on Capitol Hill

Pirro’s announcement has split Congress along sharply partisan lines. Republican lawmakers praised the move as a long-overdue step toward transparency in political financing.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued a statement applauding the initiative:

“For too long, dark money has shaped our political landscape without accountability. Judge Pirro’s proposal is a courageous step toward protecting American democracy from foreign influence.”

Democrats, meanwhile, have condemned the bill as an authoritarian overreach designed to intimidate donors and stifle dissent. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called it “an attempt to criminalize philanthropy and silence voices that challenge entrenched power.”

Civil liberties advocates also warn that the legislation could pose a grave threat to First Amendment protections. “The idea that political advocacy could be treated as organized crime sets a chilling precedent,” said former federal prosecutor Susan Carver. “It risks turning legitimate activism into a criminal act.”

Public Reaction and Political Implications

Reaction among the public has been swift and polarized. Online petitions supporting Pirro’s bill have drawn hundreds of thousands of signatures, while opponents accuse her of exploiting public fear to advance a political agenda. Conservative commentators have hailed the measure as a “game-changer” in curbing foreign interference, while liberal groups have vowed to challenge it in court if enacted.

Political strategists say the proposal could have far-reaching implications for the 2026 midterm elections, potentially deterring large donors from contributing to advocacy groups or social movements out of fear of federal scrutiny.

“Even the perception that RICO might apply to political donations could chill fundraising nationwide,” said campaign strategist Karen Howard. “That’s a strategic advantage for those who want to curb grassroots activism.”

Legal and Constitutional Hurdles Ahead

Despite its political momentum among conservatives, experts predict the bill would face significant legal challenges. To secure a conviction under RICO, prosecutors must prove intent, coordination, and unlawful activity — a difficult standard in cases involving political or philanthropic funding.

“The government would have to show not only that money changed hands, but that it was done with criminal intent to incite unrest,” said Levin. “That’s a very high bar, and courts may reject such a broad interpretation.”

Even so, supporters argue that the threat of RICO enforcement could act as a powerful deterrent to undisclosed foreign influence — especially if it leads to the freezing of suspicious financial accounts linked to political unrest.

Soros’s Response and Broader Context

As of publication, George Soros has not issued an official statement regarding Pirro’s proposal. In past interviews, he has defended his charitable giving as a means of advancing open societies and democratic values, dismissing accusations of political manipulation as “baseless conspiracy theories.”

Still, Pirro’s proposal underscores the growing battle over the role of billionaire donors in shaping America’s political and social landscape. If passed, her bill would represent the first time RICO law has been explicitly applied to political finance — a precedent that could redefine the boundaries between activism, philanthropy, and criminal liability.

Conclusion

Jeanine Pirro’s bold legislative move has ignited one of the most intense debates in recent memory — one that touches on free speech, national security, and the power of money in American democracy. Whether her bill succeeds or not, it has already thrust the question of billionaire influence back into the national spotlight.

As both supporters and critics prepare for an inevitable legal and political showdown, one thing remains clear: the clash between Pirro and Soros could become a defining flashpoint in America’s ongoing struggle over money, power, and political freedom.