How have Soros-funded groups influenced elections and public policy outcomes in the U.S. and Europe?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
George Soros and the Open Society network have funneled billions into civil-society grants, policy advocacy and political giving; OSF says Soros donated over $32 billion to its work and the network spends about $1.5 billion a year globally [1] [2]. Investigations and trackers show Soros-linked nonprofits and PACs steered at least hundreds of millions into U.S. political and advocacy groups (e.g., reported $140M through affiliated nonprofits in 2021 and large midterm donations), and targeted local races such as dozens of district attorney contests where Soros-linked spending reportedly influenced outcomes [3] [4] [5].
1. Funding at scale: philanthropy versus political spending
Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) presents itself as the largest private funder of groups working on justice, human rights and democratic governance and reports that Soros has given more than $32 billion to that work [1] [6]. At the same time, reporters and watchdogs document large flows from Soros-affiliated nonprofits into U.S. political advocacy: CNBC reported a nonprofit financed by Soros donated roughly $140 million to political groups in 2021 and that Soros personally gave large sums in 2022 [3]. OpenSecrets shows Soros Fund Management and family foundations make direct contributions that are publicly reportable, while other affiliated 501(c) and dark‑money fiscal sponsor pathways distribute grant dollars that can reach electoral or advocacy actors [7] [8] [9].
2. Influence on elections: targeted races and reported win rates
Multiple sources attribute measurable effects to Soros‑linked spending in U.S. contests. News outlets and local reporting document sustained investment in prosecutor races and in state-level offices: one report says Soros‑backed PAC money touched more than 60 district attorney campaigns and that the PAC “reportedly has won 77% of those elections,” while national coverage describes “tens of millions” used to swing dozens of DA races [4] [5]. OpenSecrets pages list contributions by Soros entities and show Soros family foundations made direct political contributions in recent cycles, though OSF itself characterizes much of its work as grantmaking and advocacy [10] [1].
3. Policy outcomes: advocacy, litigation and local prosecutorial priorities
Soros-funded networks pursue policy change by grants, research, advocacy and strategic litigation — methods OSF publicly describes — and those activities intersect with electoral influence when grantees push for reforms that align with funded candidates’ agendas [11] [1]. In the U.S., a stated objective of some Soros-supported efforts has been to elect prosecutors committed to alternatives to incarceration, reducing cash bail, and addressing police misconduct; reporting links that strategy to shifts in local criminal‑justice priorities where Soros‑aligned candidates prevailed [5] [4]. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive causal map tying every donation to a specific nationwide policy change; they document patterns of funding and correlated shifts in local prosecutorial policy [5] [4].
4. Europe: civil‑society strengthening, backlash, and strategic retreat
In Europe OSF historically financed civil‑society groups, independent media, universities and Roma-rights work; OSF documentation and Reuters note active programs and sizeable regional spending—OSF reported expenditures for Europe and Central Asia and Reuters covered strategic changes including limits on some EU-focused funding [11] [2]. That presence provoked organized pushback from populist governments — notably Viktor Orbán’s Hungary — which framed OSF grantees as political actors and drove a partial retreat or retooling of OSF strategy in Europe [12] [2]. ForeignPolicy and Reuters both document that OSF’s footprint in Central and Eastern Europe has been politically contested, and that the foundation announced staffing and strategy shifts in response [12] [2].
5. Critics and defenders: competing narratives in the public record
Criticism from conservative outlets and politicians portrays Soros as a shadowy financier directing electoral and prosecutorial outcomes; organizations such as Media Research Center and other right‑leaning groups have run campaigns asserting broad political control and negative public‑safety effects [13] [14]. Conversely, OSF and mainstream outlets frame Soros’s gifts as philanthropic support for democratic institutions and legal rights and note lawful grantmaking practices; OSF’s leadership has said they will defend grantees’ rights and pursue legal remedies if targeted [1] [15]. Investigative reporting in outlets like The Washington Post documents the scale and local consequences of Soros‑linked political spending while also noting controversies and backlash [5].
6. Limits of the record and what sources don’t say
Public records and the provided reporting document large sums and clear patterns of grantmaking and political donations, but they do not establish that every policy outcome attributed to Soros was the direct result of his spending; several sources note intermediary actors, fiscal sponsors and legal constraints that complicate attribution [9] [8]. Available sources do not provide a single authoritative tally of all Soros‑linked electoral spending across every cycle; they present snapshots (e.g., 2021 $140M figure, 2022 midterm donations) and case studies (DA races, secretary of state efforts) rather than a total causal ledger [3] [4] [16].
Conclusion: The record shows a dual reality—Soros’s network is a major global funder of civil society and policy advocacy (OSF cites $32B given and ongoing multi‑hundred‑million dollar activity), and investigative and campaign‑finance reporting documents significant political spending that has influenced local and state contests in the U.S. while provoking strong political backlash in Europe [1] [3] [5] [2]. Sources disagree sharply on motives and effects; critics depict a political machine reshaping governance, while defenders emphasize philanthropic democracy‑building and lawful grantmaking [13] [1] [15].