U.S. Federal Courts
Justice Department files new 23 count indictment against Santos
Congressman’s ex-campaign treasurer plead guilty last week

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Breon Peace announced Tuesday that new a 23-count superseding indictment was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, charging Republican New York Congressman George Santos with additional criminal counts in the ongoing cases against him.
Last May Santos was indicted on 13 criminal counts of fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds and making false statements.
Today’s announcement follows the Justice Department’s announcement last week of a guilty plea from the Long Island-based ex-campaign treasurer for Santos, Nancy Marks, who was a top financial official on Santos’ congressional campaign.
According to CBS News, Marks pleaded guiltyĀ last Thursday to one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the U.S., which included wire fraud, falsifying records and identity theft, according to court documents.
In pleading guilty to the criminal information, Marks admitted that she and the then candidate had added nonexistent donations from his friends and family in order to falsely inflate his campaign’s fundraising totals to qualify for help from the Republican National Committee.Ā
“Marks did so for the purpose of making the Campaign Committee appear more financially sound than it was,” according to the court documents.
Marks admitted in those same court documents to falsely attesting that Santos had made a $500,000 loan to his campaign when he had not done so, in order to make his campaign seem more financially successful than it was.
In today’s announcement by the U.S. attorney, Santos was hit with with one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the U.S., two counts of wire fraud, two counts of making materially false statements to the Federal Election Commission, two counts of falsifying records submitted to obstruct the FEC, two counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of access device fraud, in addition to the seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the U.S. House of Representatives that were charged in the original indictment.Ā
He is due back in federal court in Central Islip, N.Y. on Oct. 23.
Santos Allegedly Filed Fraudulent Fundraising Reports with the FEC to Obtain Financial Support for His Campaign and Repeatedly Charged the Credit Cards of Campaign Contributors Without Authorization
āAs alleged, Santos is charged with stealing peopleās identities and making charges on his own donorsā credit cards without their authorization, lying to the FEC and, by extension, the public about the financial state of his campaign. Ā Santos falsely inflated the campaignās reported receipts with non-existent loans and contributions that were either fabricated or stolenā stated Peace.Ā āThis office will relentlessly pursue criminal charges against anyone who uses the electoral process as an opportunity to defraud the public and our government institutions.ā
āSantos allegedly led multiple additional fraudulent criminal schemes, lying to the American public in the process.Ā The FBI is committed to upholding the laws of our electoral process.Ā Anyone who attempts to violate the law as part of a political campaign will face punishment in the criminal justice system,ā stated FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Smith.
āThe defendant ā a Congressman ā allegedly stole the identities of family members and used the credit card information of political contributors to fraudulently inflate his campaign coffers,ā stated Donnelly. Ā āWe thank our partners in the U.S. Attorneyās Office and the FBI as we work together to root out public corruption on Long Island.ā
As alleged in the superseding indictment, Santos, who was elected to Congress last November and sworn in as the U.S. representative for New Yorkās 3rd Congressional District on Jan. 7, 2023, engaged in two fraudulent schemes, in addition to the multiple fraudulent schemes alleged in the original indictment.
The party program scheme
During the 2022 election cycle, Santos was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in New Yorkās 3rd Congressional District.Ā Nancy Marks, who pleaded guilty on Oct. 5, 2023 to related conduct, was the treasurer for his principal congressional campaign committee, Devolder-Santos for Congress. Ā
During this election cycle, Santos and Marks conspired with one another to devise and execute a fraudulent scheme to obtain money for the campaign by submitting materially false reports to the FEC on behalf of the campaign, in which they inflated the campaignās fundraising numbers for the purpose of misleading the FEC, a national party committee, and the public.
Specifically, the purpose of the scheme was to ensure that Santos and his campaign qualified for a program administered by the national party committee, pursuant to which the national party committee would provide financial and logistical support to Santosā campaign.Ā To qualify for the program, Santos had to demonstrate, among other things, that his congressional campaign had raised at least $250,000 from third-party contributors in a single quarter.
To create the public appearance that his campaign had met that financial benchmark and was otherwise financially viable, Santos and Marks agreed to falsely report to the FEC that at least 10 family members of Santos and Marks had made significant financial contributions to the campaign, when Santos and Marks both knew that these individuals had neither made the reported contributions nor given authorization for their personal information to be included in such false public reports.
In addition, understanding that the national party committee relied on FEC fundraising data to evaluate candidatesā qualification for the program, Santos and Marks agreed to falsely report to the FEC that Santos had loaned the campaign significant sums of money, when, in fact, Santos had not made the reported loans and, at the time the loans were reported, did not have the funds necessary to make such loans.Ā These false reported loans included a $500,000 loan, when Santos had less than $8,000 in his personal and business bank accounts.Ā
Through the execution of this scheme, Santos and Marks ensured that Santos met the necessary financial benchmarks to qualify for the program administered by the national party committee.Ā As a result of qualifying for the program, the congressional campaign received financial support.
The credit card fraud scheme
In addition, between approximately December 2021 and August 2022, Santos devised and executed a fraudulent scheme to steal the personal identity and financial information of contributors to his campaign. He then charged contributorsā credit cards repeatedly, without their authorization.Ā Because of these unauthorized transactions, funds were transferred to Santosā campaign, to the campaigns of other candidates for elected office, and to his own bank account.Ā
To conceal the true source of these funds and to circumvent campaign contribution limits, Santos falsely represented that some of the campaign contributions were made by other persons, such as his relatives or associates, rather than the true cardholders.Ā Santos did not have authorization to use their names in this way.
For example, in December 2021, one contributor (the ācontributorā) texted Santos and others to make a contribution to his campaign, providing billing information for two credit cards.Ā In the days after he received the billing information, Santos used the credit card information to make numerous contributions to his campaign and affiliated political committees in amounts exceeding applicable contribution limits, without the contributorās knowledge or authorization.
To mask the true source of these contributions and thereby circumvent the applicable campaign contribution limits, Santos falsely identified the contributor for one of the charges as one of his relatives.
In the following months, Santos repeatedly charged the contributorās credit card without the contributorās knowledge or authorization, attempting to make at least $44,800 in charges and repeatedly concealing the true source of funds by falsely listing the source of funds as Santos himself, his relatives and other contributors.Ā
On one occasion, Santos charged $12,000 to the contributorās credit card, ultimately transferring the vast majority of that money into his personal bank account.
The charges in the superseding indictment are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
The governmentās case is being handled by the Officeās Public Integrity Section, the Long Island Criminal Division, and the Justice Department Criminal Divisionās Public Integrity Section.
U.S. Federal Courts
Second federal lawsuit filed against White House passport policy
Two of seven plaintiffs live in Md.

Lambda Legal on April 25 filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people who are challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s passport policy.
The lawsuit, which Lambda Legal filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, alleges the policy that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers “has caused and is causing grave and immediate harm to transgender people like plaintiffs, in violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection.”
Two of the seven plaintiffs ā Jill Tran and Peter Poe ā live in Maryland. The State Department, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the federal government are defendants.
“The discriminatory passport policy exposes transgender U.S. citizens to harassment, abuse, and discrimination, in some cases endangering them abroad or preventing them from traveling, by forcing them to use identification documents that share private information against their wishes,” said Lambda Legal in a press release.
Zander Schlacter, a New York-based textile artist and designer, is the lead plaintiff.
The lawsuit notes he legally changed his name and gender in New York.
Schlacter less than a week before President Donald Trump’s inauguration “sent an expedited application to update his legal name on his passport, using form DS-5504.”
Trump once he took office signed an executive order that banned the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers. The lawsuit notes Schlacter received his new passport in February.
“The passport has his correct legal name, but now has an incorrect sex marker of ‘F’ or ‘female,'” notes the lawsuit. “Mr. Schlacter also received a letter from the State Department notifying him that ‘the date of birth, place of birth, name, or sex was corrected on your passport application,’ with ‘sex’ circled in red. The stated reason was ‘to correct your information to show your biological sex at birth.'”
“I, like many transgender people, experience fear of harassment or violence when moving through public spaces, especially where a photo ID is required,” said Schlacter in the press release that announced the lawsuit. “My safety is further at risk because of my inaccurate passport. I am unwilling to subject myself and my family to the threat of harassment and discrimination at the hands of border officials or anyone who views my passport.”
Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.
Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an āXā gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.
Lambda Legal represented Zzyym.
The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.
Trump signed his executive order shortly after he took office in January. Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.
A federal judge in Boston earlier this month issued a preliminary injunction against the executive order.Ā The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge blocks Trump passport executive order
State Department can no longer issue travel documents with ‘X’ gender markers

A federal judge on Friday ruled in favor of a group of transgender and nonbinary people who have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive order that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.
The Associated Press notes U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick in Boston issued a preliminary injunction against the directive. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, in a press release notes Kobick concluded Trump’s executive order “is likely unconstitutional and in violation of the law.”
“The preliminary injunction requires the State Department to allow six transgender and nonbinary people to obtain passports with sex designations consistent with their gender identity while the lawsuit proceeds,” notes the ACLU. “Though todayās court order applies only to six of the plaintiffs in the case, the plaintiffs plan to quickly file a motion asking the court to certify a class of people affected by the State Department policy and to extend the preliminary injunction to that entire class.”
Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.
Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an āXā gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.
The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022. Trump signed his executive order shortly after he took office in January.
Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.
āThis ruling affirms the inherent dignity of our clients, acknowledging the immediate and profound negative impact that the Trump administration’s passport policy would have on their ability to travel for work, school, and family,ā said ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director Jessie Rossman after Kobick issued her ruling.
āBy forcing people to carry documents that directly contradict their identities, the Trump administration is attacking the very foundations of our right to privacy and the freedom to be ourselves,” added Rossman. “We will continue to fight to rescind this unlawful policy for everyone so that no one is placed in this untenable and unsafe position.ā
U.S. Federal Courts
Second judge blocks Trump’s anti-trans military ban
Federal courts in D.C. and Washington State have now issued injunctions

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Thursday became the second court to issue a nationwide injunction blocking the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order barring transgender people from military service.
The order in Schilling v. Trump from Judge Benjamin Hale Settle comes after Judge Ana Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blocked implementation of the ban earlier this month in Talbott v. Trump.
Friday was the date by which the Pentagon was to begin identifying and separating transgender service members from the armed forces, per Trump’s executive action.
The lead attorneys in Talbott v. Trump, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, shared statements about the injunction in a press release by NCLR.
āGiven the thousands of brave and decorated transgender servicemembers facing unthinkable harms as the result of this ban, we are heartened but not surprised by todayās decision,ā Levi said. “President Trump’s executive order and Secretary [Pete] Hegseth’s implementation represent a policy that cannot be constitutionally justified. Thousands of transgender servicemembers currently serving have clearly demonstrated they meet all military standards, with many deployed to critical missions worldwide, proving their capabilities beyond question.”
Levi continued, “These dedicated servicemembers and their families have earned our nation’s gratitude and respect, and the government has a responsibility to honor the commitments it has made to them. This is about keeping faith with Americans who have risked everything to defend our freedoms.”
āIn both Talbott and Shilling, it was abundantly clear to the court that it must act swiftly to protect our troops from an unconstitutional and indefensible ban that would disrupt the lives and dismantle the careers of thousands of transgender servicemembers and their families,” Minter said. “The harms associated with this ban are gut-wrenching.ā
Minter continued, āIn each of these cases, the government did not even attempt to claim that any evidence supported its position. There is no reason to discharge individuals who are serving capably and honorably.ā
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
D.C. police seek help in identifying suspect in anti-gay threats case
-
Virginia2 days ago
Youngkin calls on gay Va. GOP LG candidate to exit race over alleged ‘porn’ scandal
-
Opinions5 days ago
On Pope Francis, Opus Dei and ongoing religious intolerance
-
Commentary4 days ago
A conversation about queers and class