social medium platform

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Friday that he had commuted the sentence of former U.S. Rep. George Santos, who is serving more than seven years in federal prison after pleading guilty to fraud and identity theft charges.

Joseph Murray, one of Santos’ lawyers, told the Associated Press late Friday that the former lawmaker was released from the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, N.J., around 11 p.m. and was greeted outside the facility by his family.

The New York Republican was sentenced in April after admitting last year to deceiving donors and stealing the identities of 11 people — including his own family members — to make donations to his campaign.

He reported to FCI Fairton on July 25 and was housed in a minimum-security prison camp with fewer than 50 other inmates.

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump posted on his social media platform. He said he had “just signed a Commutation, releasing George Santos from prison, IMMEDIATELY.”

“Good luck George, have a great life!” Trump said.

Santos’ account on X, which has been active throughout his roughly 84 days in prison, reposted a screenshot of Trump’s Truth Social post Friday.

During his time behind bars, Santos has been writing regular dispatches in a local newspaper on Long Island, N.Y., in which he mainly complained about the prison conditions.

In his latest letter, he pleaded to Trump directly, citing his fealty to the president’s agenda and to the Republican Party.

“Sir, I appeal to your sense of justice and humanity — the same qualities that have inspired millions of Americans to believe in you,” he wrote in the South Shore Press on Monday. “I humbly ask that you consider the unusual pain and hardship of this environment and allow me the opportunity to return to my family, my friends, and my community.”

Santos’ commutation is Trump’s latest high-profile act of clemency for former Republican politicians since retaking the White House in January.

Like Santos, Trump has been convicted of fraud. He was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts in a case related to paying hush money to a porn actor. He is the only president in U.S. history convicted of a felony.

In granting clemency to Santos, Trump was rewarding a figure who has drawn scorn from within his own party.

After becoming the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress in 2022, Santos served less than a year after it was revealed that he had fabricated much of his life story.

On the campaign trail, Santos had claimed he was a successful business consultant with Wall Street cred and a sizable real estate portfolio. But when his resume came under scrutiny, Santos eventually admitted he had never graduated from Baruch College — or been a standout player on the Manhattan college’s volleyball team, as he had claimed. He had never worked at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

He wasn’t even Jewish. Santos insisted he meant he was “Jew-ish” because his mother’s family had a Jewish background, even though he was raised Catholic.

In truth, the then-34-year-old was struggling financially and faced eviction.

Santos was charged in 2023 with stealing from donors and his campaign, fraudulently collecting unemployment benefits and lying to Congress about his wealth.

Within months, he was expelled from the U.S. House of Representatives — with 105 Republicans joining with Democrats to make Santos just the sixth member in the chamber’s history to be ousted by colleagues.

Santos pleaded guilty as he was set to stand trial.

Still, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) urged the White House to commute Santos’ sentence, saying in a letter sent just days into his prison term that the punishment was “a grave injustice” and a product of judicial overreach.

Greene was among those who cheered the announcement Friday. But Rep. Nick LaLota, a Republican who represents part of Long Island and has been highly critical of Santos, said in a post on social media that Santos “didn’t merely lie” and his crimes “warrant more than a three-month sentence.”

“He should devote the rest of his life to demonstrating remorse and making restitution to those he wronged,” LaLota said.

Santos’ clemency appears to clear not just his prison term, but also any “further fines, restitution, probation, supervised release, or other conditions,” according to a copy of Trump’s order posted on X by Ed Martin, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney.

As part of his guilty plea, Santos had agreed to pay restitution of $373,750 and forfeiture of $205,003.

In explaining his reason for granting Santos clemency, Trump claimed the lies Santos told about himself were no worse than misleading statements U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal — a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration —had made about his military record.

Blumenthal apologized 15 years ago for implying that he served in Vietnam, when he was stateside in the Marine Reserve during the war. The senator was never accused of violating any law.

“This is far worse than what George Santos did, and at least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!” Trump wrote.

Marcelo writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Michael R. Sisak in New York and Susan Haigh in Connecticut contributed to this report.

Venezuelan model, influencer and businesswoman Isabella Ladera is suing her former boyfriend, Brandon De Jesus Lopez Orozco, more famously known as Colombian singer Beéle, after a private sex video shared between the two was leaked to the public.

Ladera filed her lawsuit in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court on Sept. 15, alleging invasion of privacy, sexual cyberharassment under Florida Statute §784.049, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.

In a press release issued Thursday, Ladera stated: “No one should take advantage of another’s vulnerability to make money or create content. This is not entertainment; it is a crime, and the only thing it leaves behind are scars.”

According to court documents obtained by The Times, Ladera and Beéle began a romantic relationship after connecting on Instagram in December 2023. At Beéle’s request, the couple recorded intimate videos on their personal phones. Ladera deleted her copies and urged Beéle to delete his as far back as May 2024, but he allegedly refused. The couple eventually broke up, and in June 2025, Ladera began hearing that screenshots of their videos were circulating.

The leak was confirmed Sept. 7, when one video went viral via WhatsApp and was later uploaded to social media platforms like X, exposing Ladera to public humiliation, reputational damage and harassment, according to her suit.

Celebrity sex tape scandals are nothing new to the public. The first huge and infamous one was Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson’s honeymoon video, which shocked audiences when it surfaced in 1995 and arguably helped cement the notion of private content as highly exploitable public fodder.

Later cases, like “Celebgate” — in which hackers leaked intimate content from A-list celebrities in 2014 — highlighted how vulnerable people could be online, no matter how rich or famous. Over time, these incidents prompted lawmakers to strengthen protections for victims, moving away from the informal term “revenge porn” and toward the framework better known now as image-based sexual abuse.

In May, President Trump — alongside the first lady — signed the “Take It Down Act” into law, making it a federal crime to “knowingly publish” or threaten to publish intimate images without a person’s consent, including AI-generated “deepfakes.” Websites and social media companies are required to remove such material, including duplicate content, within 48 hours after a victim makes the request.

Under Florida law, victims of nonconsensual sharing of sexually explicit material have specific rights. Florida Statute §784.049 criminalizes the distribution of sexual images without consent, allowing victims to pursue criminal charges against the offender. Additionally, victims can file civil claims for invasion of privacy, emotional distress, or negligence if the offender failed to protect or delete intimate content. Remedies may include statutory or compensatory damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

Though Florida provides these protections, they are generally more narrow than in states like California, particularly in terms of civil recourse and the ability to hold online platforms accountable.

Experts say states such as California offer more comprehensive protections for victims of IBSA. Roxanne Rimonte of C.A. Goldberg, a California-based law firm specializing in harassment cases, explained that California provides both criminal and civil remedies, making it easier for victims to hold offenders accountable.

“California is one of the states that provides a civil cause of action for victims of nonconsensual pornography, in addition to criminal statutes,” Rimonte said. “Victims have the right to pursue both legal and monetary remedies, and the law even accounts for AI-generated images or online platforms that knowingly promote illegal content.”

Rimonte also highlighted a key difference in legal frameworks: the intent requirement. While some states require proof that the offender intended to cause emotional distress — a difficult burden for victims — California focuses on intent to distribute.

“As long as someone intended to distribute or publish intimate content, that satisfies the intent element,” Rimonte said. “This makes it much more straightforward for victims to seek justice.” By comparison, Florida’s statutes can leave victims with fewer avenues, particularly for civil recourse, leaving them reliant on criminal prosecution that may be slow or inconsistent.

The public nature of Ladera’s case only amplifies the harm. Celebrities and public figures often face more severe consequences when private content is leaked, Rimonte noted.

“Unlike private individuals, celebrities tend to experience more severe harms from the wider exposure of their content,” she said. “Media outlets tend to sensationalize IBSA cases involving public figures, which re-traumatizes victims and magnifies the social and reputational consequences.”

In Ladera’s case, false narratives have circulated online suggesting she leaked the videos herself, further complicating her emotional and public ordeal.

Ladera’s lawsuit also highlights broader gaps in protections for victims nationwide. In many cases, enforcement is inconsistent, civil remedies can be expensive and time-consuming, and tech platforms often evade accountability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields websites from liability for user-generated content. Experts suggest that reforms should include clearer federal guidance, improved civil remedies and stronger requirements for platforms to act when illegal content is shared.

“Victims deserve a legal system that doesn’t re-traumatize them while seeking justice,” Rimonte said. “Focusing on the intent to distribute rather than intent to cause harm is one example of how legislation can better support survivors.”

As for Beéle, he has denied any involvement in the dissemination of the video. On Sept. 9, his legal team issued a statement asserting that he did not leak or distribute the material and is himself a victim of nonconsensual exposure. His representatives also announced that legal actions have been initiated in both Colombia and the United States to identify and prosecute those responsible for sharing the video.

Beéle has not commented personally, instead sharing the statement via his official Instagram account and urging media outlets and social media users to refrain from sharing the material.

As Ladera’s case unfolds, it underscores the continued tension between technology, privacy and accountability. While social media has made it easier for people to connect, it has also made personal content more vulnerable to exploitation. For Ladera, the legal battle is about reclaiming control over her personal life and sending a message that privacy violations have consequences.

In a statement to The Times, Ladera’s legal team underscored that her case is not just about one individual, but about a wider epidemic of digital exploitation. They noted that while Ladera is a public figure, countless women across Florida and beyond suffer similar violations of privacy at the hands of malicious actors.

The lawsuit, they emphasized, seeks not only to secure justice for Ladera — but to send a strong message that the unauthorized dissemination of intimate content will face serious legal consequences.

“Let it be absolutely clear,” said lead attorney Pierre Hachar, Jr., “that any past, present, or future acts of this nature, whether by these defendants or others, will be met with the same unwavering resolve and addressed to the fullest extent of the law.”