The Wren Collective and the Soros Prosecutor Pipeline

How activist-funded groups steer criminal justice policies behind closed doors

Sep 29, 2025

USA flag — Photo by Bonnie Kittle on Unsplash

In late September 2025, Minneapolis news reported that law enforcement leaders were publicly complaining about the new policy from Hennepin County attorney Mary Moriarty to abandon prosecution on felonies that are developed from “low-level” traffic stops.

The approach, recently adopted in Hennepin County, Minnesota, closely resembles measures previously implemented in cities such as Lansing and Ann Arbor, Michigan, as well as Berkeley, California. In these locations, the principal focus was to restrict law enforcement from pursuing minor traffic violations, including expired tags and equipment infractions. The rationale behind these policies was to limit officer-initiated stops for minor offenses or so-called pretextual stops pursuing other investigative opportunities.

From an enforcement standpoint, these strategies have been widely criticized. Minor traffic violations often serve as gateways for further investigative actions, enabling officers to uncover additional criminal activity. By curtailing enforcement of such infractions, agencies lose valuable opportunities to detect more serious offenses.

Unlike other areas, the decision in Hennepin County was not reached through consensus among city governments or law enforcement agencies. A significant and controversial element of the new policy is that felonies discovered because of a stop for a minor traffic violation—such as drug or weapons offenses—will not be prosecuted. This backward application of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine is viewed by some as misapplied, equating a healthy investigative process with one that is inherently tainted.

architectural photography of trial court interior view — Photo by David Veksler on Unsplash

Concerning Prosecutorial Trends

Many people have noticed that these controversial prosecutorial practices often originate from areas known for rampant crime. In these places, the invocation of George Soros’s name when discussing prosecutors who choose to deviate from traditional law enforcement is not merely rhetoric; for those living in such judicial circuits, the impact of these policies is a very real experience and not a matter to be taken lightly.

During the last years of my career, I worked in a judicial circuit with a Soros funded prosecutor. We, myself and others, in the law enforcement agencies, might discuss viable strategies like statutory sentence enhancements, but then catch ourselves mid-sentence realizing that we would have zero prosecutorial support.

Early in her term, our Soros funded elected prosecutor made the unilateral decision to take the stand opposing death penalty prosecution. The unfortunate time of that illegal decision was at the conclusion of a nine-day round-the-clock manhunt for the killer of one of our officers. More recently, her Soros funded successor made the decision to dismiss all cases where there was not a custodial arrest. Many misdemeanors in Florida require the officer to witness the offense to make a physical arrest.

Other jurisdictions have had it far worse: Krasner in Philadelphia, Bragg in Manhattan, Garza in Travis County (including Austin) Texas, Foxx in Chicago, Gardner in St. Louis, Gascón in Los Angeles, and Price in Oakland. Garza, called the prosecutor who won’t prosecute, has no trouble charging police officers for clear-cut cases of proper deadly force. While Josè Garza is a Democrat, he is also a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

In City Journal, Thomas Hogan writes:

“In Texas, a defendant charged with a felony must be indicted within 90 days or be automatically released on bond. This is hardly an onerous requirement—federal prosecutors must indict a defendant within 30 days after an arrest. Yet in 2024, Garza’s office missed the 90-day deadline 263 times. This means that some relatively low-level, first-time offenders were locked up but never charged, meaning they had effectively been jailed for no reason—circumstances exasperating even to Garza’s progressive supporters.”

Many of us naturally attributed some of these issues to being associated with ‘bleeding heart’ liberals who saw themselves as being compassionate and fair. In other words, people with different views on criminal justice but equally supportive and just.

Not in this case. It’s been revealed recently that many of these prosecutors’ offices have been influenced and funded by an organization called The Wren Collective which is itself a project of the Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs, a Calabasas, California-based far-left nonprofit. This group was originally formed as the American-Soviet Film Initiative in 1987. The mission was to promote ‘educational and cultural exchanges’ between Americans and Soviets through watching each other’s films. Likely it was a propaganda front to make Soviet Marxism appealing to Americans with Utopian ideals.

If that is the case, The Wren Collective appears to have become the justice policy arm of Social and Environmental Entrepreneurs (SEE.) A comprehensive report by the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund states the following:

While these district attorneys’ links to donor-affiliated groups like Fair and Just Prosecution and Vera Institute are publicly known, one little known and secretive consultancy, The Wren Collective LLC, exerts undue influence on the criminal justice policies of these district attorneys –controlling messaging, writing policies on everything from bail to police involved shootings, and even interfering in homicide and police misconduct cases. Wren offers its consulting services to prosecutors for “free” because it is funded by the same donors who bankrolled their client-prosecutors’ campaigns.

The Extent of Outside Influence on Prosecutorial Practices

The significance of these developments cannot be overstated. Recent investigations have revealed a startling pattern among Soros-backed prosecutors: rather than striving to uphold traditional liberal values, these officials are intentionally implementing leftist strategies designed to undermine the very institutions they are meant to protect. The policies adopted by these prosecutors are not the result of their own initiative or creative problem-solving; instead, they are crafted and dictated by The Wren Collective.

Collectivism—a term rooted in Marxist ideology—accurately describes the approach being taken. In this context, district attorneys who follow directives from groups like The Wren Collective are not acting as independent public servants. Rather, they function as instruments (puppets) controlled by a broader leftist agenda, raising serious concerns about their autonomy and the integrity of the institutions they oversee.

Even worse, it turns out that these policies that resulted in poor public safety outcomes are not well-intentioned plans that didn’t turn out well. Poor outcomes were the goal.

What can be done?

In the cases of New York, California, and Illinois, there is little that can be done. In some states, the governor has the power to move important cases from circuit to circuit based on a readily apparent public interest. Like the police leaders in Hennepin County, it is necessary to protest when prosecutors enact policies that nullify the law.

Every destructive action taken by rogue Soros prosecutors needs to be brought to the attention of the public by true and courageous law enforcement leaders. We need to ensure every voter know the intent and effect of their actions.

Now is the time to take this seriously - as if our country depends on it – because it does.

Please keep all peace officers in your prayers.

The Wren Collective and the Soros Prosecutor Pipeline

How activist-funded groups steer criminal justice policies behind closed doors

Concerning Prosecutorial Trends

The Extent of Outside Influence on Prosecutorial Practices

What can be done?

Discussion about this post