Trump Found George Soros's Weakness

The Trump administration wants to take down George Soros' huge empire. But it's loaded with money and influence. What's Trump's plan of attack? Stay tuned to find out. Welcome to America Uncovered, I'm Chris Chappell. Three people briefed on internal Treasury Department deliberations say the administration is preparing a sweeping audit of non-profits it believes have abused their tax-exempt status. And at the top of that list, George Soros' Open Society Foundations. Two of those sources say Treasury Secretary Scott Besson's inner circle is drafting a blueprint that could ultimately strip the foundation of its 501c3 status entirely—the designation that lets it collect tax-deductible donations and generally operate income tax free in the first place. This shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone. Back in October of last year, Besson kind of tipped his hand when he made an appearance on The Charlie Kirk Show. We have started to compile lists, put together networks, and there's a long record here. And we are going to, as they always say, follow the money. And he might not have to follow that money trail very far. Besson actually worked for Soros for almost 13 years, starting in the early 90s. If anyone knows where the proverbial bodies are buried, it's him. Though he will have some help. Besson also brought on Tony Safir, a former special operations veteran and tech executive, to spearhead the interagency task force doing the digging. Now before we get into how exactly Besson plans to pull this off, it's probably worth understanding how the George Soros Network operates. In 1993, George Soros created the Open Society Foundations. It's currently chaired by his son, Alex Soros. It's sitting on a roughly $23 billion endowment, and has spent more than $24 billion, largely in grants since it started. Those grants are the key word here. OSF doesn't run programs itself so much as fund the people who do. Money goes in, and it comes back out as grants to hundreds of smaller, mostly liberal non-profits working on immigration, criminal justice, media, academia, what have you. Some of those beneficiaries include Black Lives Matter, the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, and United We Dream Action, a group that actively works to frustrate the deportation of illegal migrants. So what's Besson's angle for going after the OSF's tax status? Well, it's something called Substantial Illegal Purpose. It goes back to 1984, when the Church of Scientology lost its tax exemption after a court found the organization had engaged in illegal activity. And to any Scientologists out there watching, I'm not saying that. I'm just telling you what the court said. I'm not a suppressive person. Please don't sue me. Hail Zinu! Anyway, the ruling established that a group can lose its charitable status if a substantial part of what it does is actually illegal, not just controversial. Trump actually used that phrase, Substantial Illegal Purpose, in a March 2025 executive order targeting public service loan forgiveness. He then used that idea to target Harvard University's tax-exempt status. That order was essentially setting up the language and the arguments the Treasury would use to go after these organizations, be they universities or today, the Soros Network. Now applying that logic to the Open Society Foundation's means, the Treasury has to argue that a substantial part of its grant-making crosses a line, legally speaking. And that's where those beneficiaries I named come in. The theory is that because Open Society funded groups tied to BLM protests, they're essentially funding riots. When they give money to United We Dream Action, they're funding the obstruction of federal law. Open Society isn't guilty of filing its paperwork wrong. The argument is that the groups it bankrolls are themselves engaged in illegal activities, and so the funding itself falls under Substantial Illegal Purpose. Now, that's a hard thing to prove. You're basically arguing about the underlying motivations of the people involved. But here's the thing, the Trump administration doesn't really need to succeed in order to stick it to George Soros. Samuel Handwerger, a University of Maryland tax policy professor and certified forensic accountant, laid out what he sees as the actual risks facing groups like the OSF. He said, "...if I were assessing real-world exposure for these organizations, I would rank it bank de-risking first, donor and grant-maker chill second, examination costs third, and actual revocation a distant fourth." In other words, the Open Society Foundation doesn't have to lose its 501c3 status, if that were even possible. The real risk is that banks and financial partners start treating OSF as a compliance risk. Donors get nervous and start pulling back. And OSF has to start spending money just to defend itself in endless government examinations. Every group downstream of OSF grants—from immigration groups, to legal aid shops, to media outlets—feel that squeeze long before the courts rules on anything. So that's the Trump administration's plan for dealing with the Open Society Foundations. But we're not quite done yet. You see, OSF is only one part of Soros' network. He actually has three separate legal vehicles that matter here, each operating under different rules and engaging in different kinds of activity. So obviously you've got OSF, whose charitable arm is the Open Society Institute, which is a 501c3. Legally speaking, it's considered a charitable organization. It receives tax-deductible donations and doles out money to NGOs. But by law, it's not allowed to fund political campaigns or PACs. That's where the Open Society Action Fund comes in. It's a 501c4. And unlike the foundations, it can lobby and run issue campaigns that charities legally can't. And finally, you have Democracy PAC, a political super PAC that funds other progressive PACs that support candidates through spending. This is how Soros' money winds up influencing, say, who your local district attorney is. Over the last decade, Soros-linked PACs have spent more than 40 million dollars electing progressive DAs all over the country. Think Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, Kim Fox in Chicago, George Gasson in LA, and of course Alvin Bragg in Manhattan, the guy whose job was to try and put Trump behind bars. The Law Enforcement and Legal Defense Fund did a study on 10 of these races and found that George Soros represented the single largest source of campaign funds, and in nearly all cases the overwhelming majority spent to elect these progressive prosecutors. In Krasner's race alone, Soros outspent the candidate himself five times over, funneling in nearly 1.7 million dollars. Gasson's race pulled in 4.7 million through the Soros-funded California Justice and Public Safety PAC. Alvin Bragg got over a million. And those were just some of the more high-profile races. At the time of that report, the US had at least 75 Soros-backed prosecutors currently in office. And those 75 prosecutors were estimated to represent over roughly a fifth of the entire country—or more than 72 million Americans. Geez, if you live in a major metro, you might want to check who your local DA is. But in any case, that money didn't come from the OSF, the charity. It came from Democracy PAC and its state-level offshoots. And that's a real problem for the Trump administration. Knocking out the Open Society Foundations doesn't touch the political vehicle. It doesn't touch the lobbying arm. It doesn't prevent Soros from putting his thumb on this country's elections. But like I hinted at earlier, the Trump administration doesn't have to take down these organizations all at once. This will be a war of attrition. And the administration has the tools. First, you've got the financial pain the government can inflict. Even if Soros wins in the courts, having to spend millions defending themselves in investigations after investigations means less money left over for the PACs. Second, there's that chilling effect we talk about, even if the foundations are the only target. That could send a ripple across the entire Soros ecosystem. Banks and individual donors will be left thinking, well, if the foundations are being targeted today, who's to say the Action Fund or Democracy PAC won't be next? It's just not worth the risk. And third, well, this one's more psychological than anything. Going after OSF first is just an opening move. It's the leg of the network that Trump and Besson think they can reach with the tools that currently exist. Win that fight, and you start building momentum. You establish precedent. And you create the political appetite needed to start going after the other two branches. Now there really isn't a mechanism for the administration to go after the other two branches of the network. But that doesn't mean they're safe forever. Laws change, legal theories get stretched into places nobody expected them to reach. Substantial illegal purpose itself started as a narrow ruling against the Church of Scientology in 1984. 40 years later, it's being aimed at a 23 billion dollar foundation. Every administration inherits the tools the last one built. Whatever precedent gets set here—whether OSF wins outright, settles quietly, or actually loses its exemption—becomes a playbook for the next administration. It's a fight that could take years, but as of right now, damage is already being done. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how long Soros can hold out. But what do you think? Leave your comments below. I do read as many as I can, but I read every comment on AmericaUncovered.tv, where you'll get access to thousands of episodes ad-free, plus a community chat, live streams, and more. Just click this button here or the link below. I'm Chris Chappell. Thank you for watching America Uncovered.