Let us not pretend for even a moment that George Santos is a one-off. He is not a glitch in the system. He is the system—when it is entirely devoid of shame, accountability, or even the most basic grasp of reality. The Department of Justice is reportedly proposing a seven-year sentence. On paper, that looks serious. In practice, it is laughably inadequate. This man mocked the democratic process completely. He abused every lever of public trust available to him. He did so with the smug confidence of a snake oil salesman. He even believes he is the victim for getting caught.

Santos has admitted guilt in a slew of federal crimes: wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, lying to the Federal Election Commission, and theft of public funds, to name a few (United States v. Santos, 2024). This was not a single lapse in judgment or a momentary failure of character. This was a coordinated and methodical scheme. It stretched across years. During this time, he doubled down on lies even after they were exposed. He lied to donors. He lied to the government. He lied to voters. And then he lied about the lies.

Seven years? That is barely one for every type of fraud he committed. It is much less for every life he negatively impacted. He siphoned off funds and abused unemployment benefits during a pandemic. This pandemic left thousands struggling to survive. This was not a case of poor decision-making under pressure. It was the deliberate weaponization of public office for personal gain.

Let us talk specifics. Santos fabricated nearly every element of his biography: education, employment, religion, ethnicity, and personal tragedy. He claimed to be a Jewish descendant of Holocaust survivors. In reality, he is Catholic with no traceable Jewish lineage (Kasulis Cho, 2023). He claimed to be a graduate of Baruch College and NYU. He was not. He claimed to have worked for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. He did not. He even claimed that his mother died in the 9/11 attacks. She did not. All of this might have been laughable if it had not been a successful con on the American electorate.

But the grift did not stop at résumé-padding. Santos funneled campaign donations into personal spending. This spending included high-end designer purchases. It also included luxury vacations and OnlyFans subscriptions (Department of Justice, 2024). He defrauded unemployment insurance programs for over $24,000 during a time when honest Americans were waiting weeks for assistance. He fabricated donation numbers to the FEC and stole identities to commit financial crimes. He had no bottom. And that is precisely why seven years is not enough.

Here is the kicker: Santos is not a first-time offender. He previously confessed to check fraud in Brazil. Yes, another country had to deal with his nonsense first. Yet he still managed to get elected to Congress (Bogel-Burroughs, 2023). He had open criminal matters abroad. Despite this, he was allowed to take office in the United States. This is a failure of borderless proportions. He should never have been elected. He should not have been eligible to run without a full investigation.

When the Department of Justice proposed the seven-year sentence, they likely followed the federal sentencing guidelines to the letter. Those guidelines account for the monetary value of the fraud. They consider the number of victims. They also address the abuse of a position of trust and the level of premeditation. But the guidelines are not written in stone tablets carried down from Mount Sentencing. Judges have discretion. They have leeway. And in cases involving ongoing criminal conduct, deception spanning multiple years, and prior convictions, the federal bench is allowed—no, encouraged—to issue an upward departure (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2023).

There is ample precedent for judges to depart upward from standard sentencing ranges when the crimes display extraordinary deceit, prolonged duration, or abuse of political office (United States v. Morgan, 2011). Santos checks all those boxes with a Sharpie. He then forges a new list of boxes to check just to be thorough. The notion that his actions do not justify an exceptional sentence is absurd.

An upward departure is not only legally defensible—it is morally necessary. Santos defrauded a nation, and that fraud metastasized through campaign coffers, COVID relief funds, and federal forms. It is not hyperbole to call him a political parasite. He took everything he could from every system he touched. And then he had the gall to cast himself as a victim of cancel culture when accountability came knocking. This is not remorse. This is strategy. He is still running a con, only now the audience is the judiciary.

The judge in this case should reject the proposed seven-year sentence as a starting point. It should be treated as a baseline for further escalation. Pursuant to Section 5K2.7 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, sentences can be increased if the offense caused “a significant disruption of a governmental function” (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2023). Santos not only disrupted, he contaminated. His presence in Congress undermined public confidence in electoral integrity, campaign finance, and legislative honesty. That is not just disruption. That is demolition.

Let us not ignore the political implications. Santos’ lies were not apolitical. He exploited identity and pushed marginalized narratives to curry favor with voters. He claimed both Jewish ancestry and LGBTQ+ identity. Simultaneously, he repeated right-wing talking points that demonize both groups. That kind of duplicity is not just offensive; it is dangerous. It creates a feedback loop where marginalized communities are used as campaign props and discarded at convenience. He is not just a liar. He is an opportunistic saboteur of vulnerable identities for personal benefit.

The impact of Santos’ deception extends well beyond the confines of his district. The public sees someone like Santos elected and allowed to serve. This happens despite clear evidence of fraud. It sends a message. The message is: you can cheat the system and still succeed—at least until the press catches on. This is corrosive. It undermines civic engagement, voter participation, and faith in democratic institutions. That kind of damage needs a serious punishment. It needs more than just a slap on the wrist or a seven-year federal vacation with white-collar amenities.

One might argue that incarceration alone will not restore public trust, and that is true. But letting Santos off with a sentence that barely scratches the surface of his misconduct would do more damage. Public trust cannot be restored if the public believes that justice is not applied evenly. This concern is especially strong when it comes to those with money, connections, or media savvy. Every American who has ever stood in line at the DMV knows that rules are supposed to apply. Those who filled out a FAFSA form or struggled with rent during the pandemic understand this as well. Santos shredded the rulebook and then scammed his way into a job where he could rewrite it.

Justice must be more than procedural. It must be proportional. The seven-year sentence might satisfy the spreadsheet, but it does not satisfy the moral ledger. Santos did not merely break the law—he disfigured the very idea of public service. A harsher sentence, fully justified under existing guidelines, would not be vindictive. It would be restorative. It would send a strong message to the next would-be grifter. Congress is not your playground. The American people are not your marks.

Ultimately, a man who built his career on lies should face a full accounting of the truth in court. He should not walk away with anything less. And that truth demands more than seven years. It demands the maximum penalty allowable within the bounds of justice and judicial discretion. Let the sentence reflect the seriousness of the harm. Let it be a warning. Let it be just.
Here is a strong, clear call to action that can be used at the end of your post or as a standalone message to mobilize readers:

Speak Up—Because Silence Helps No One

George Santos deserves more than a symbolic slap on the wrist for defrauding the American people. If you believe this, now is the time to make your voice heard. Judges do not operate in a vacuum. They consider community input. This is especially true in high-profile cases that undermine the public’s trust in government. Whether you are from his district or not, this affects all of us. Corruption in one branch of our democracy corrodes the entire system.

Let the court know that a seven-year sentence is not enough. Urge the judge to pursue the full extent of the law. Ask them to consider a substantial upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. The damage Santos caused is significant. It affected faith in public institutions, vulnerable communities, and American voters. This demands a sentence that reflects the magnitude of his betrayal.

Send your letter, email, or official statement to the sentencing judge:

The Honorable Joanna Seybert
U.S. District Judge
Eastern District of New York
Alfonse M. D’Amato Federal Courthouse
100 Federal Plaza
Central Islip, NY 11722
United States

Docket Number: United States v. George Anthony Devolder Santos, Case No. 2:23-cr-00324-JS

You do not have to be a lawyer. You do not need to be a political scientist. You only need to be someone who believes in accountability. Tell the court what his actions meant to you and why real justice matters.

One letter might not change a sentence. But thousands? That becomes a movement.

Would you like a formatted letter template that others can use or adapt?

References

Bogel-Burroughs, N. (2023, May 10). George Santos was charged with fraud in Brazil. Why did it take so long to prosecute? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/us/george-santos-brazil-fraud.html

Department of Justice. (2024, March 22). Former Congressman George Santos pleads guilty to wire fraud, identity theft, and more. https://www.justice.gov

Kasulis Cho, R. (2023, January 18). George Santos falsely claimed Jewish heritage, prompting outrage from Jewish leaders. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/01/18/george-santos-jewish-heritage

United States Sentencing Commission. (2023). Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Chapter Five, Part K. https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines

United States v. Morgan, 635 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 2011)

United States v. Santos, No. 1:23-cr-00324 (E.D.N.Y. 2024)