Disgraced former US Rep. George Santos to begin serving his 7-year fraud sentence
The New York Republican pleaded guilty last summer to federal wire fraud and aggravated identity theft charges for deceiving donors and stealing people's identities in order to fund his congressional campaign.
He must report to federal prison before 2 p.m. It's unclear where he'll serve his time, though a federal judge has recommended that Santos be housed in a facility in the Northeast.
Santos and his lawyers repeatedly declined to comment to The Associated Press, and the federal Bureau of Prisons said it doesn't discuss the status of inmates until they're officially in custody.
In a Thursday interview with Al Arabiya, a Saudi state-owned news organization, Santos said he'll serve his sentence in a minimum-security prison 'camp' that he described as a 'big upgrade' from the medium-security lockup he was initially assigned to.
The ever-online Santos, who turned 37 on Tuesday, also hosted a farewell party for himself on the social media platform X on Thursday night.
'Well, darlings…The curtain falls, the spotlight dims, and the rhinestones are packed,' he wrote in a post afterwards. 'From the halls of Congress to the chaos of cable news what a ride it's been! Was it messy? Always. Glamorous? Occasionally. Honest? I tried… most days.'
In April, a federal judge declined to give Santos a lighter two-year sentence that he sought, saying she was unconvinced he was truly remorseful. In the weeks before his sentencing, Santos said he was 'profoundly sorry' for his crimes, but he also complained frequently that he was a victim of a political witch hunt and prosecutorial overreach.
Santos was elected in 2022, flipping a wealthy district representing parts of Queens and Long Island for the GOP. But he served for less than a year and became just the sixth member of the House to be ousted by colleagues after it was revealed he had fabricated much of his life story.
During his winning campaign, Santos painted himself as a successful business owner who worked at prestigious Wall Street firms when, in reality, he was struggling financially.
He also falsely claimed to have been a volleyball star at a college he never attended and referred to himself as 'a proud American Jew' before insisting he meant that he was 'Jew-ish' because his Brazilian mother's family had a Jewish background.
The cascade of lies eventually led to congressional and criminal inquiries into how Santos funded his campaign and, ultimately, his political downfall.
Since his ouster from Congress, Santos has been making a living hosting a podcast called 'Pants on Fire with George Santos' and hawking personalized video messages on Cameo.
He has also been holding out hope that his unwavering support for President Donald Trump might help him win a last-minute reprieve.
The White House said this week that it 'will not comment on the existence or nonexistence' of any clemency request.
In media appearances this month, the former lawmaker wasn't shy about sharing his morbid fears about life behind bars.
'I'm not trying to be overdramatic here. I'm just being honest with you. I look at this as practically a death sentence,' Santos told Tucker Carlson during an interview. 'I'm not built for this.'
On social media, his recent musings have sometimes taken a dark turn.
'I'm heading to prison, folks and I need you to hear this loud and clear: I'm not suicidal. I'm not depressed. I have no intentions of harming myself, and I will not willingly engage in any sexual activity while I'm in there,' he said on X. 'If anything comes out suggesting otherwise, consider it a lie … full stop.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Florida set to execute man for killing wife, 2 kids in new state death sentence record for 1 year
STARKE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida man convicted of killing his wife and two children with a machete in 1994 is set for execution Thursday, which would be the ninth death sentence carried out in 2025 to set a new state record for a single year. A 10th execution is scheduled for Aug. 19 and an 11th on Aug. 28. A death warrant signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis directs that 60-year-old Edward Zakrzewski be executed by lethal injection at 6 p.m. Thursday at Florida State Prison near Starke. Zakrzewski's final appeal for a stay was rejected Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court. The highest previous annual total of recent Florida executions is eight in 2014, since the death penalty was restored in 1976 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Florida has executed more people than any other state this year, while Texas and South Carolina are tied for second place with four each. Zakrzewski, an Air Force veteran, was sentenced to die for the 1994 slayings of his 34-year-old wife, Sylvia, and their children Edward, 7, and 5-year-old Anna, at their home in Okaloosa County in the Panhandle. Trial testimony showed he committed the killings after his wife sought a divorce, and he had told others he would kill his family rather than allow that. Sylvia was attacked first with a crowbar and strangled with a rope, testimony shows. Both children were killed with the machete, and Sylvia was also struck with the blade when Zakrzewski thought she had survived the previous assault. Opponents of the execution point to Zakrzewski's military service and the fact that a jury voted 7-5 to recommend his execution, barely a majority of the panel. He could not be executed with such a split jury vote under current state law. The trial judge imposed three death sentences on Zakrzewski. The Action Network, which organized an anti-execution petition, asked people to call DeSantis' office and read a prepared script urging a stay of execution for Zakrzewski. 'Florida does not need the death penalty to be safe. This execution will not make us safer, it will simply add another act of violence to an already tragic story. Justice does not require death,' the script reads in part. Zakrzewski's lawyers have filed numerous appeals over the years, all of which have been rejected. Twenty-six men have died by court-ordered execution so far this year in the U.S., and 11 other people are scheduled to be put to death in seven states during the remainder of 2025. Florida was also the last state to execute someone, when Michael Bernard Bell died by lethal injection on July 15. DeSantis also signed a warrant for the 10th execution this year for Kayle Bates, who abducted a woman from an insurance office and killed her more than four decades ago. Wednesday night, DeSantis issued a death warrant for Curtis Windom, 59, convicted of killing three people in the Orlando area in 1992. His execution is scheduled for Aug. 28.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries. Paul Wiseman, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
We're Lying to Ourselves About Taxes, Spending, and the Debt
Having extended most of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and added even more tax breaks, Congress is once again punting on the central fiscal question of our time: What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for? Yes, the "Big Beautiful Bill" avoided a massive tax increase and includes pro-growth reforms. It also adds to the debt—by how much is debatable—and that's before we get to the budgetary reckoning of Social Security and Medicare's impending insolvency. Against that backdrop, it's infuriating to see a $9 billion rescission package—one drop in the deficit bucket—met with cries of bloody murder. The same can be said of the apocalyptic discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill's reduction in Medicaid spending. In spite of the cuts, the program is projected to grow drastically over the next 10 years. In fact, the reforms barely scratch the surface considering its enormous growth under former President Joe Biden. Maybe we wouldn't keep operating this way—pretending like minor trims are major reforms while refusing to tackle demographic and entitlement time bombs ticking beneath our feet—if we stayed focused on the question of what, considering the cost, we're willing to pay for. Otherwise, it's too easy to continue committing a generational injustice toward our children and grandchildren. That's because all the benefits and subsidies that we're unwilling to pay for will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation, or both. That's morally and economically reprehensible. Admitting we have a problem is hard. Fixing it is even harder, especially when politicians obscure costs and fail to recognize the following realities. First, growing the economy can, of course, be part of the solution. It creates more and better opportunities, raising incomes and tax revenue without raising tax rates—the rising tide that can lift many fiscal boats. But when we're this far underwater, short of a miracle produced by an energy and artificial intelligence revolution, growth alone simply won't be enough. Raising taxes on the rich will fall short too. Despite another round of loud calls to do so, like those now emanating from the New York City mayoral campaign, remember: The federal tax code is already highly progressive. Here's something else that should be common knowledge: Higher tax rates do not automatically translate to more tax revenue. Not even close. Federal revenues have consistently hovered around 17 percent to 18 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for more than 50 years—through periods of high tax rates, low tax rates, and every combination of deductions, exemptions, and credits in between. This remarkable stability is no fluke. It reflects a basic reality of human behavior: When tax rates go up, people don't simply continue what they've been doing and hand over more money. They work less, take compensation in nontaxable forms, delay selling assets, move to lower-tax jurisdictions, or increase tax-avoidance strategies. Meanwhile, higher rates reduce incentives to invest, hire, and create or expand businesses, slowing growth and undermining the very revenue gains legislators expect. It's why economic literature shows that fiscal-adjustment packages made mostly of tax increases usually fail to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio. Real-world responses mean that higher tax rates rarely generate what static models predict as we bear the costs of less work, less innovation, and less productivity leading to fewer opportunities for everyone, rich or poor. If the underlying structure of the system doesn't change, no amount of rate fiddling will sustainably result in more than 17-18 percent in tax collections. Political dynamics guarantee further disappointment. When Congress raises taxes on one group, it often turns around and cuts taxes elsewhere to offset the backlash. Then, when the government does manage to collect extra revenue—through windfall-profits taxes, inflation causing taxpayers to creep into higher brackets, or a booming economy—that money rarely goes toward deficit reduction. It gets spent, and then some. It's long past time to shift the conversation away from whether tax cuts should be "paid for." Instead, ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have. I suspect that most people aren't willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does, and that more would feel this way if they understood our tax-collection limitations. That points toward the need to cut spending on, among other things, corporate welfare, economically distorting subsidies, flashy infrastructure gimmicks, and Social Security and Medicare. Until we align Congress' promises with what we're willing and able to fund, we'll continue down this dangerous path of illusion, denial, and intergenerational theft—as we cope with economic decline. COPYRIGHT 2025 The post We're Lying to Ourselves About Taxes, Spending, and the Debt appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
