Which specific district attorney races appear on the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund’s list of Soros‑affiliated prosecutors and what evidence links them to Soros funding?
Executive summary
The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF) has published a public “Soros map” and accompanying reports that list scores of district attorneys it describes as “Soros‑affiliated,” and it names specific high‑profile prosecutors such as Kim Foxx, Marilyn Mosby, George Gascon, Larry Krasner, Chesa Boudin and Andrew Warren among those tied to Soros‑funded networks [1] [2] [3] [4]. LELDF’s evidence rests largely on tracking substantial campaign spending and organizational affiliations involving PACs and advocacy groups where George Soros or Soros‑funded entities are recorded as major donors, rather than on direct, uniform one‑to‑one donations to every named candidate [3] [1].
1. What LELDF lists as “Soros‑affiliated” and which DA races are named as examples
LELDF’s interactive map and reports present a roster of prosecutors it identifies as “Soros‑affiliated,” and press coverage of that work repeatedly cites a handful of named, high‑profile DAs on the list: Chicago’s Kim Foxx, Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby, Los Angeles County’s George Gascón, Philadelphia’s Larry Krasner and former San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin are among the specific names referenced in LELDF material and subsequent reporting [2] [5] [3] [4]. State and local outlets summarizing LELDF’s work have also highlighted other named prosecutors such as Tampa’s Andrew Warren and New York’s Alvin Bragg in related discussions of the map and report [6] [4].
2. The evidence LELDF uses to link DA races to Soros funding
LELDF describes its evidentiary approach as tracking “substantial campaign support” from groups funded by Soros and affiliations with advocacy organizations that Soros supports, plus direct PAC spending where Soros or his network is the primary donor; the report states that spending is attributed to “Soros‑funded or controlled” groups when Soros is the primary (majority) donor to that PAC in an election cycle [3]. LELDF’s online mapping project frames the broader claim as $50 million over a decade to elect “social justice” prosecutors and documents individual contests where Soros‑linked PACs and nonprofit networks funneled money or coordinated support [1].
3. Quantities and patterns LELDF reports — scale, timing, and turnover
LELDF’s materials and coverage of them emphasize scale and electoral turnover: the group reports multi‑million dollar expenditures over numerous races and has tallied dozens of prosecutors it calls Soros‑affiliated, with media summaries noting that 21 such prosecutors were replaced by “tough‑on‑crime” successors since 2022 and earlier updates saying 12 left office in a single year as LELDF revised its totals [2] [5] [6]. The longer LELDF report “Justice for Sale” analyzed ten prosecutor contests from 2018–2021 and concluded that Soros‑related entities represented the single largest source of campaign funds across those contests, totaling $13 million in that sample [3].
4. How to interpret “linked” — direct donations vs. network spending
LELDF’s public methodology makes clear that many of the “links” it cites are mediated: they often involve third‑party PACs, nonprofit advocacy groups or coalition statements coordinated by organizations that receive major Soros contributions, not necessarily a direct check from Soros to a candidate’s campaign [3] [1]. That distinction is central to assessing the strength of the claim: LELDF treats majority‑funded PACs and recurring organizational affiliations as sufficient evidentiary grounds to label a prosecutor “Soros‑affiliated,” which is a broader standard than direct, itemized donations to a candidate’s campaign committee [3].
5. Caveats, disputes and the reporting limit
Public reporting based on LELDF’s materials documents named examples and describes the methodology, but the provided sources do not publish a complete, standalone master list of every DA race with a line‑by‑line audit in this set of documents, so a definitive roster beyond the cited examples requires consulting LELDF’s full interactive map and underlying disclosures directly [1] [3]. The evidence LELDF uses—the predominance of Soros funding in certain PACs and the role of Soros‑funded advocacy networks—is explicit in its reports, but readers should note that “affiliated” in LELDF’s usage often denotes networked support rather than uniform direct contributions to each named candidate [3].