Federal investigators executed a major raid Thursday on a Soros-funded voter mobilization organization in Ohio as part of an ongoing fraud investigation, marking the latest effort by the Trump administration to crack down on alleged election-related misconduct.

According to reports from MS Now, FBI agents raided the headquarters of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative (OOC) on June 11 and conducted interviews with individuals connected to the organization across the state. Some of those contacted reportedly received subpoenas or were asked to surrender electronic devices.

Sources familiar with the matter later told CBS News that the law enforcement activity was connected to a fraud-related investigation.

The operation represents another significant step in President Donald Trump’s broader push to investigate allegations of voter fraud and election integrity violations. Conservatives have long argued that such cases were not aggressively pursued by previous administrations and have welcomed increased federal scrutiny of organizations involved in voter registration and mobilization efforts.

The Ohio Organizing Collaborative is a nonprofit organization that works closely with Democratic Party-aligned causes in Ohio, focusing on voter registration, turnout efforts, and ballot initiatives. The group has received substantial financial support from major liberal donor networks, including organizations tied to billionaire George Soros.

While federal authorities have remained tight-lipped about the details of the investigation, the Department of Justice emphasized that the search warrants were approved through the normal judicial process.

“Search warrants are authorized by a judge, and anything said by any organization or others in the media is unfounded speculation, as the target of any investigation is not privy to the search warrant affidavit until after indictment,” a DOJ official told Fox News.

Financial disclosures show OOC has become a major force in Ohio politics. The organization reported more than $10 million in revenue during 2024 and has spent heavily on ballot initiatives and political campaigns.

Last year alone, OOC spent $250,000 opposing a Republican-backed effort related to abortion policy in Ohio and another $300,000 fighting a GOP redistricting initiative.

The group’s financial backing comes from a network of prominent Democratic-aligned organizations, including the Soros family’s philanthropic entities, the New Venture Fund, the Tides Foundation, and major labor unions such as the American Federation of Teachers and the Service Employees International Union.

Records show the Soros family’s Foundation to Promote Open Society provided approximately $1.9 million to OOC between 2019 and 2020. In addition, the Open Society Action Fund contributed $1 million to OOC’s affiliated organization in 2021 and another $1 million in 2023.

OOC leaders have sharply criticized the investigation, accusing the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents.

The organization has faced controversy before. In 2017, a paid canvasser associated with OOC pleaded guilty for his role in a fraudulent voter registration scheme, a case that continues to draw attention amid the current federal investigation.

OOC board member Prentiss Haney questioned the timing of the operation.

“How can they distract and intimidate civil rights leaders and voters and community leaders who are helping people get registered to vote, and create a national spectacle about it?” Haney told MS Now.

“That is the only reason why they would choose to do that, do it now, in the middle of a contested political election in the state. There’s no other reason. They have no evidence of that,” Haney added.

The investigation also comes after President Trump publicly criticized George Soros and his son, Alexander Soros, earlier this year.

“George Soros, and his wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to ‘BREATHE,’ and be FREE. Soros, and his group of psychopaths, have caused great damage to our Country! That includes his Crazy, West Coast friends. Be careful, we’re watching you! Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump added.

As federal investigators continue their work, the raid is likely to intensify the national debate over election integrity, political activism, and the role of powerful donor-funded organizations in American elections.

Maine Democratic Senate nominee Graham Platner is facing renewed scrutiny after a series of resurfaced social media posts revealed a pattern of inflammatory comments that critics say raise serious questions about his judgment, temperament, and fitness for public office.

The latest controversy involves a Reddit comment allegedly posted by Platner under the username “P-Hustle” in response to a story about a teenage girl who had attempted suicide following the death of a family member.

The original post featured a photograph showing a teenage girl hanging from an upper-story window while fellow students worked to pull her back to safety.

“A girl at my old high school tried jumping from a window because her cousin died the day before,” the caption read. “These students saved her. I have hope.”

According to screenshots that have circulated online, the account linked to Platner responded with a remark that many have described as shocking and insensitive.

“Someone clearly isn’t trying hard enough,” the account wrote.

The comment has generated widespread criticism and has become the latest addition to a growing list of controversial online statements tied to the Democratic candidate.

Platner, 41, has already faced mounting questions over other posts that surfaced during the campaign, including comments regarding Hamas, American military veterans, and sexually explicit remarks he allegedly made online over a number of years.

The latest revelations come as Republicans seek to portray Platner as an extreme and deeply flawed candidate heading into one of the most closely watched Senate races of the 2026 election cycle.

Another resurfaced post from 2021 involved a discussion about adult entertainers and military veterans. After another user suggested pornography performers should receive the same level of recognition often afforded to veterans, Platner reportedly replied with a crude joke.

“Thank you for your cervix,” he posted.

Additional reports indicate that Platner’s Kik messaging profile featured a partially nude photograph of himself, further fueling criticism surrounding his online conduct.

Maine House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham did not hold back in his assessment of the growing controversy.

“Graham Platner is clearly a person with deep and disturbing psychological issues that predate his military service and continue to this day,” Faulkingham told The Post.

The candidate has also come under scrutiny for a 2017 post involving a graphic comment about masturbation and portable toilets.

“I still have to jerk off every time I sit in a portashi–er….that blue water smell conditioned me,” the Democrat posted.

Perhaps even more controversial are comments Platner allegedly made regarding military combat footage and acts of terrorism.

One resurfaced post dates back to 2014 and involved footage shared on the Reddit forum r/combatfootage showing Hamas terrorists attacking Israeli soldiers and attempting to abduct one of them during a deadly encounter.

Using the P-Hustle account, Platner reportedly commented:

“Looks like an all around well executed and successful small unit raid to me.”

The remark has drawn criticism from supporters of Israel and national security advocates who argue that it appeared to praise a terrorist operation against Israeli troops.

Another resurfaced comment targeted Purple Heart recipient Pfc. Ted Daniels, whose combat footage became widely known after he survived being shot multiple times during a Taliban attack in Afghanistan.

Daniels was severely wounded but ultimately survived the engagement, earning recognition for his service and sacrifice.

In a 2019 discussion about the footage, Platner allegedly wrote:

“Dumb motherf–ker didn’t deserve to live. At least his stupidity and fat a– wheezing are available for all future infantrymen to witness and hold in contempt.”

The comments have generated outrage among veterans and military supporters, many of whom view the remarks as deeply disrespectful toward a wounded American servicemember.

The controversy comes at a particularly sensitive time for Platner’s campaign as he prepares to challenge Republican Sen. Susan Collins in November. Democrats view the Maine race as one of their best opportunities to gain ground in the Senate, but the continued emergence of controversial online posts threatens to overshadow the campaign and provide Republicans with additional ammunition.

So far, the resurfaced comments have fueled broader questions about whether Platner’s online history reflects isolated incidents from years ago or reveals a consistent pattern of behavior that voters should consider before casting their ballots.

As the Senate race intensifies, it is likely that additional scrutiny will be directed toward Platner’s digital footprint, with both parties recognizing that the outcome in Maine could play a significant role in determining control of the U.S. Senate.

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major victory for investment firms and a significant setback for activist hedge funds this week, ruling that shareholders cannot use a key provision of federal law to launch private lawsuits seeking to unwind investment contracts.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not create an implied private right of action allowing shareholders to sue for rescission of contracts they claim violate the law.

The ruling in *FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.* overturns a previous decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that had opened the door for activist investors to challenge corporate actions through private litigation.

The case centered on efforts by Saba Capital, a well-known activist hedge fund, to challenge actions taken by several closed-end investment funds. The dispute arose after certain funds adopted protections designed to prevent activist investors from gaining outsized control over fund operations and forcing changes that management argued were not in the best interests of long-term shareholders.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered a forceful defense of the principle that Congress—not courts—determines who has the authority to enforce federal statutes.

“Congress, not the Judiciary, decides who may enforce the law,” Barrett wrote.

“The Investment Company Act designates the Securities and Exchange Commission as its primary enforcer and expressly permits shareholders and issuers of securities to enforce two of its provisions,” she continued.

“We must decide whether another provision of the Act impliedly empowers private parties to sue for rescission of any contract that allegedly violates the Act. The answer is no,” Barrett added.

Joining Barrett in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

The dispute originated when Saba Capital challenged decisions by several investment funds, including entities affiliated with FS Credit Opportunities and BlackRock. The funds had adopted provisions under Maryland’s Control Share Acquisition Act, which restricts voting power for large shareholders who acquire significant ownership stakes.

Supporters of such measures argue they help protect funds from hostile takeovers and activist campaigns designed to generate short-term profits at the expense of long-term investors.

Saba argued that the voting restrictions violated Section 18(i) of the Investment Company Act and sought rescission under Section 47(b). Lower courts had sided with the hedge fund based on prior precedent in the Second Circuit.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected that interpretation.

Barrett emphasized that Section 47(b) discusses remedies available once parties are already properly before a court, rather than creating a new legal right for private individuals to initiate lawsuits.

“Section 47(b)’s wording thus presupposes that parties are already before the court and directs the court’s use of its remedial authority. It says not a word about individual rights,” Barrett explained.

The decision reflects the Roberts Court’s broader commitment to textualism—a judicial philosophy that focuses on the actual language enacted by Congress rather than allowing courts to create new legal rights not expressly provided by lawmakers.

The ruling also reinforces the Securities and Exchange Commission’s role as the primary enforcement authority under the Investment Company Act.

“Private litigants sometimes sue to enforce statutes that lack comparable language,” Barrett noted while rejecting the notion that courts should infer additional causes of action where Congress did not explicitly provide them.

The implications of the decision extend far beyond this particular dispute. Legal experts say the ruling will affect a wide range of investment vehicles, including closed-end funds, mutual funds, business development companies, and other investment structures that collectively manage trillions of dollars in assets.

Supporters argue the decision will provide greater stability for investors by preventing activist hedge funds from using federal courts to pressure companies into restructurings, liquidations, board shakeups, or other actions designed to boost short-term returns.

Industry groups quickly welcomed the outcome. The Investment Company Institute praised the decision, arguing that it preserves the Investment Company Act’s carefully designed regulatory framework and prevents an explosion of private lawsuits that could create uncertainty throughout the industry.

Attorneys representing the funds described the ruling as a major victory for the registered investment fund industry and one that removes a powerful legal weapon previously available to activist investors.

For millions of Americans who invest through retirement accounts, pension funds, and diversified investment portfolios, supporters say the decision promotes predictability and long-term stability by allowing professional regulators—not private litigants—to serve as the primary enforcers of federal investment laws.

The ruling also continues a broader trend at the Supreme Court of limiting judicially created causes of action and reinforcing the principle that Congress must clearly authorize private lawsuits if it intends for them to exist.

For businesses, investment managers, and market participants, the decision provides additional clarity regarding who can enforce federal securities laws and further underscores the Court’s view that policy decisions belong to lawmakers, not judges.