Power Grab/Fire anyone who can stop him
The Justice Department told prosecutors in at least seven states to prepare investigations of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations
The September 22, 2025 directive listed possible charges including material support for terrorism and racketeering. It followed calls by Trump and Vice-President Vance to investigate Soros after Charlie Kirk’s killing.
What happened
After the September 10, 2025 killing of Charlie Kirk, Trump told Fox News that George Soros should be investigated for racketeering. Vice-President Vance blamed “left-wing extremism” and named Soros-funded groups.
On September 22, Aakash Singh, a senior official in Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s office, sent a directive to U.S. attorney’s offices in at least seven states. They included California, New York, Illinois, Michigan and Maryland, plus Washington, D.C. The letter told prosecutors to prepare investigations of the Open Society Foundations. The New York Times first reported it.
The letter listed charges to consider: material support for terrorism, arson, wire fraud and racketeering. It cited a Capital Research Center report. The Justice Department said it would “investigate organizations that conspire to commit acts of violence.” Open Society called the directive a “politically motivated attack on civil society.” As of December 2025 no investigation or charge had been publicly confirmed.
Who benefited
Trump and the movement around him gained a federal criminal process aimed at the largest funder of liberal civil-society groups in the country. The directive turned a long-running campaign talking point about Soros into a Justice Department workstream.
Who wanted something
Trump publicly demanded a racketeering investigation. Vance and Stephen Miller framed left-wing nonprofits as a terror network after Kirk’s death. Blanche’s office issued the instruction itself rather than waiting for a predicate from field offices.
Who lost out
The Open Society Foundations and thousands of grantees, including human-rights and voting-rights organizations, now carry the risk of federal investigation for lawful advocacy. Career prosecutors were told to build cases from the top down. Open Society said it “unequivocally condemn[s] terrorism.”
Why it matters
Political leadership chose the target and listed the crimes, then asked prosecutors to find the evidence. In a criminal investigation that order normally runs the other way. The directive signaled that funding opposition advocacy could be treated as a terrorism matter.