Since Charlie Kirk’s death, the number of right-wing politicians, commentators, and other political figureheads calling for people on “the left” to be punished for political violence has grown. One example people have jumped to is a bill proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz that would purportedly criminalize left-wing protests as violations of federal RICO laws. (“RICO” comes from the RICO Act, or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, though has come to refer to all legal actions taken as a result of this act; despite being an acronym, “RICO” is generally accepted as the correct form for all references to the results of the act, rather than the act itself.) This article means to fact-check some of the major claims that have been floating around. I will be using the PolitiFact rating system (True, Mostly True, Half-True, Mostly False, False, Pants on Fire) as my standard throughout this piece.
Claim: Cruz introduced this bill as a response to Kirk’s death.
Rating: False.
Cruz did introduce this bill, but he introduced it on July 22, 2025. The amendment is garnering new publicity following Kirk’s death.
Claim: The bill would make protesting a crime under RICO statutes.
Rating: Half-True.
This does not directly criminalize protesting; however, it does have concerning implications for protests, given the legal standard of “riot”.
RICO requires several elements, including “at least two or more acts of racketeering activity”, which is fairly particularly defined. You can read Title 18 of the U.S.C., Part 1, Chapter 96, Sec. 1961(1), for more information if you want. The text is actually fairly straightforward, but I’m not copying that all into this article. Suffice to say, most of the acts in here can be best understood as “crimes you would expect to see in a thriller movie about the mafia”. However, Sec. 1961(1)(B) cross-references to other sections of the U.S.C. and the crimes found there. The proposed amendment would add a reference to Chapter 102 Sec. 2101 of this same title and part of the U.S.C., “Riots.”
It is the definition of “Riots” contained within this section that is the source of most concern regarding Cruz’s amendment. This definition includes that three or more individuals cause “damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual”, which is probably what most people think of when they hear the word “riot”. However, it also allows for a “clear and present danger” of this damage, or “a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence” of people who have “the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats” to cause either this damage or injury or the clear and present danger of this damage or injury. This is where the concern for Cruz’s RICO amendment comes from. What determines a “threat” in this case is at best undefined, so if at least one person not affiliated with a protest said they were afraid that it could become a riot, that might be sufficient. This could even be applied to peaceful protests, if someone thought it would develop violently.
Claim: Anyone involved with a protest that was considered a riot under RICO could be charged.
Rating: True.
Those charged under RICO must be part of an enterprise, but this doesn’t need to be a formal or legal entity. An enterprise includes “any union or group of individuals associated in fact”. It is entirely possible that anyone attending a protest, coordinating it behind the scenes, providing support through groups like street medic organizations or legal observer programs, or otherwise involved could be considered part of a “union or group of individuals associated in fact”. This does not mean it would happen or that charges against people with different levels of association would be equally successful. However, the claim that it could happen is true.
Claim: Because targeted groups like Antifa or Black Lives Matter are not formal groups, RICO could not be brought.
Rating: False.
See above. The “enterprises” do not need to be formal organizations. In fact, when Donald Trump and several others were charged with RICO violations related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election (most of whom were later convicted), there was no formal organization. It can make RICO harder to prove, but there is substantial precedent that it is unnecessary for charging or conviction.
Claim: A protester could serve 20 years in prison for protesting.
Rating: Mostly True.
This requires the caveat that the protest be considered a riot under RICO. However, someone convicted of criminal RICO can serve up to 20 years in prison.
Claim: Cruz introduced this bill to target left-wing organizations.
Rating: Mostly True.
As far as I can tell, Cruz has not used the words “left-wing”, “liberal”, “progressive”, “leftist”, or other similar words to describe the targets of this bill. However, in an interview with Fox News, he listed Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and anti-ICE and pro-open border “riots”, which are consistently left-wing groups, as the intended targets for this amendment. He has not recommended this to be used towards political violence from right-wing groups. The press release from his office when the bill was introduced also described the targets as “adversaries”, which in a political context, could easily be read as “left-wing”.
That said, co-sponsor and fellow Texas Senator John Cornyn said this would “crack down” on “lawless behavior” from “radical left-wing groups.” Co-sponsor Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville said that “Democrats don’t like that [Trump won] – so they are rioting in the streets and violently attacking law enforcement officers. This cannot stand.” Both statements were included in Cruz’s office’s press release about the proposal of the bill. While Cruz may not have explicitly stated as much, other co-sponsors have done so.
All factors considered, this appears to be true in practice, though not in language.
Claim: The federal definition of rioting is “a public disturbance involving acts of violence.”
Rating: Mostly False.
At the federal level, this is the definition of “civil disorder” under Chapter 12, Sec. 232. The actual definition does not require acts of violence, as discussed above; a threat is sufficient. This does appear to be the definition of rioting for some states.
Claim: FBI Director Kash Patel said that this would make prosecuting protesters easier.
Rating: Mostly True*.
During a Congressional oversight hearing, co-sponsor and Missouri Senator Josh Hawley asked, “[W]ould it aid your ability to prosecute these matters [leftist riots] if Congress passed into law the Stop Funders Act, and if rioting was added to the list of predicate offenses for RICO?” Patel responded, “Yes.” The line between rioters and protesters was blurred during the questioning, however.
I’m giving this an asterisk because the underlying claim (that it would make these prosecutions easier) is also worth fact-checking. From what I can find, legal experts are split. It would undoubtedly make some prosecutions easier. However, people like Jeffrey Grell (a RICO expert who teaches law courses and has written books on the subject) have pointed out that a RICO case is extremely difficult to bring. In many cases, if a conviction were the only goal, lesser charges (such as regular rioting or disruption of the peace) are more practical. RICO would only be used to get a longer sentence.
Claim: RICO already covers rioting.
Rating: Half-True.
This is true in the strictest sense of the term. There are actions under RICO (including certain types of robbery, arson, and obstruction of law enforcement) that could be counted as racketeering activity, and are also things that might happen in some riots. Furthermore, it’s technically possible that someone could be charged for rioting under existing RICO statutes. Earlier, I mentioned that RICO requires a “predicate act”. This predicate does not need to be an instance of “racketeering activity”. If a prosecutor believed they had a strong case that (as an example) people were engaging in illegal financial transactions in order to cause political instability via rioting, the riots could be a predicate act for a RICO case on purely financial crimes. The riots in this case would not need to be damaging.
Claim: Trump has threatened to use this to prosecute people who protested him.
Rating: True.
During a dinner at a restaurant, a series of protesters chanted “Trump is the Hitler of our time! Free D.C.! Free Palestine!”, shouting only a few feet from Trump. Trump said that he “asked [Attorney General] Pam [Bondi] to look into that in terms of RICO, bringing RICO cases – criminal RICO, because they should be put in jail” in the White House afterwards. He also alleged that the woman leading the protest was a “mouthpiece” and “paid agitator”. There are legitimate questions about how close these protesters got to the president and why the Secret Service didn’t have them move back, but that does not change that Trump did do this.
Claim: There is more left-wing motivated political violence than right-wing motivated political violence.
Rating: False.
Research is fairly consistent that people on the political far right are more likely to commit political violence (“Far-Left versus Far-Right Fatal Violence: An Empirical Assessment of the Prevalence of Ideologically Motivated Homicides in the United States.” Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society 22 (2), Celinet Duran, 2021) and are more likely to be comfortable with and/or supportive of political violence (“Are Right-Wing Americans Really More Tolerant of Political Violence?” The Palgrave Handbook of Left-Wing Extremism, Vol. 2, George Hawley, 2021). This is particularly pronounced when analyzing data from the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), hosted by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). START is an independent research consortium dedicated to understanding what causes political violence and terrorism, and GTD is considered one of the most thorough records of all incidents internationally that meet certain standards for terrorism. It also heavily catalogues the impetuses for this violence, including politically-motivated extremism.
There is some research to suggest that this strongly correlates to the strength of populist belief, suggesting that this is the underlying determiner for political violence (“Are right-wing populists more likely to justify political violence?” European Journal of Political Research 64(1), Miku Matsunaga, 2024). Other researchers have argued that the stronger correlation is willingness to accept authoritarian systems or ideologies (“Left Wing Extremism,” ISD Explainers, Jakob Gruhl). Finally, there is some evidence that the strongest correlator is religious extremism (“A comparison of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and the world”, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences 119(30), Katarzyna Jasko, et al., 2022; “Terrorism and Right-Wing Extremism: The Changing Face of Terrorism and Political Violence in the 21st Century: The Virtual Community of Hatred”, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 65(2), Jerrold Post, 2015). In all cases, the argument is that the third factor (populism, sympathy to authoritarianism, or religious extremism) is the main motivator of political violence, and is simply more common on the right than on the left.
That said, there is data to suggest political violence on the far-left is increasing at a faster rate than the far-right. It still is in the minority of all political violence, but it is becoming more common. It’s a relatively recent shift, but does go to show that this issue is not wholly one-sided (Duran).
Overall, the effective result is fairly consistent that political violence on the far right is more common than the far left. However, there are questions about why that suggest it’s not due to left- or right-wing views (at least not directly). And there is evidence that this is shifting, though it’s unclear when (or if) it might become more common on the left than the right.