Trump calls for prosecution of Soros and his son under RICO

Trump demands prosecution of Soros and his son, and the case remains a post

According to the fact-check circulating in the thread, on August 27, 2025, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that he wants George Soros and his son prosecuted under RICO law for financing violent protests. That check cites Reuters reports about the message. The evidence, however, is nowhere to be found. And confirmed arrests? None. The entire gap between what is demanded and what happens fits in three words: so far, nothing.

What the demand says and what backs it up

The accusation relies on RICO law, the statute the United States uses to pursue incivil organizations. The fact-check message circulating in the thread confirms the central fact: **the post exists**, the request for prosecution has been made, and there is no evidence to support it. Nor is there any charge, arrest warrant, or open case that has been made public.

A social media post does not open a case or sustain one. What it does do is set a narrative, and that narrative is already circulating on its own: the tweet spreading the news claims Trump “could make history by finishing off Maduro and Soros in a month.”

Why is a speculator like Soros called a “red”?

Because years ago the label stopped describing an economic position and came to designate a side. Soros is the opposite of a wage earner: fund manager, currency speculator, philanthropist through his foundations. One of the most repeated analyses in the discussion points precisely to that contradiction: **the man accused of subverting the order is one of the purest expressions of financial capitalism**. “A red is a worker, a union. Employers aren’t red,” one of the comments sums up.

The confusion is not innocent. It serves to lump together the union activist, the grassroots militant, and the large fortune that finances political causes. When that is the framework, any discussion about money and power becomes a sarracena duel where nothing needs to be proven.

The precedent nobody wants to repeat

Here is the credibility problem. Those who trinc the previous term remember the full script: Pizzagate, the QAnon plot, the promises to jail the political rival. There were loud announcements, lists of names, and maximum anticipation. The result, according to the most repeated summary, was **a bluff of considerable dimensions**.

That record explains why much of the conversation does not debate whether Soros is good or bad, but whether this will lead to anything. The honest answer, as of today, is that it’s unknown. And that uncertainty is the only solid ground on which one can write.

Scott Bessent and the trail leading to Soros

The name that has circulated most in the background is not Soros. It is **Scott Bessent**, whom one of the voices in the thread places with a professional past in Soros’s own orbit. From there comes the hypothesis that comment raises: whoever knows the house from the inside knows where to look, and whoever worked for the accused has information others don’t.

The reading has its logic and its risk. Working for someone proves nothing about intentions, but it does describe a network of relationships that is rarely explained when the debate is framed in terms of sides. “It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he were the one behind this campaign,” says one of the voices raising that hypothesis.

The background noise: Epstein and the dispute with Melania Trump

While the Soros matter is being discussed, the focus shifts again and again to the Epstein case. Jeffrey Epstein’s death in prison on August 10, 2019, during Trump’s term, returns to the conversation every time new documents are published. In parallel, according to the EFE dispatch dated August 14, **Melania Trump threatened to sue Hunter Biden** for linking her to Epstein in remarks.

The documents and cross-accusations remain unresolved. Some argue that all this is a maneuver to divert attention, while others respond that, with the FBI having had the complete information for years, no related accusation was ever formalized. Neither reading has been closed.

Where the analysis gets stuck

Two opposing narratives remain, and one fact that does not move. One narrative says this is the beginning of a long-awaited cleanup. The other says it is the umpteenth announcement with no consequences. Until a confirmed judicial action appears, both versions rest on the same thing: a post on Truth Social and each person’s interpretation of it.