By TX3DNews Staff
April 11, 2025 | McKinney, TX
The Department of Justice says he was one of MS-13âs top leaders on the East Coast. Federal agents said they found him with guns, ammo, and silencers. He was arrested with cameras rolling, and high-profile officials like Attorney General Pam Bondi called him a major win in the war on gang violence.
And then⌠they dropped the charges.
Last week, federal prosecutors moved to dismiss gun possession charges against Henrry Josue Villatoro Santos, a 24-year-old Salvadoran national arrested in Dale City, Virginia, on March 27. The reason? They want to deport him instead.
đ A High-Profile Arrest
The arrest was heavily promoted by the Trump administration. FBI Director Kash Patel and AG Bondi described Villatoro Santos as a âsignificant threatâ with connections to transnational gang activity. Officials said the bust was part of a broader effort to target MS-13 leadership operating inside U.S. borders.
But the federal charges filed â illegal possession of firearms by an undocumented immigrant â didnât exactly reflect that narrative. And with no murder or racketeering charges to back up the gang-leader label, the DOJ opted to let immigration officials handle it.
Which raises the question: If weâre not prosecuting him, are we really âdeporting criminalsâ? Or just deporting people we claim are criminalsâwithout proving it?
âď¸ Why Drop Charges?
On paper, itâs a simple strategy: speed over symbolism. Deporting someone is faster, cheaper, and carries fewer legal headaches than a long federal trial. Prosecutors avoid the risk of a not-guilty verdict or appeal. The administration still gets the press conference and headlines.
But this shortcut comes at a cost â namely, transparency.
Legal advocates have raised alarms that the government is bypassing due process and denying the public a real look at the evidence. If Santos really is a gang leader, why not prosecute him here? And if heâs not, why was the DOJ so eager to spotlight his arrest?
Santosâs attorney, Muhammad Elsayed, has asked the court to delay the dismissal to ensure due process, citing concern for his clientâs safety if returned to El Salvador. There, the government has used mass imprisonment and military-led crackdowns to combat gang violence, often without formal trials.
đ Politics or Policy?
To some, this case feels more like political theater than public safety. Arrest someone, label them as a top threat, then quietly remove them from the country â all before a judge or jury ever weighs in.
And thatâs where the bigger issue lies.
For years, weâve heard political leaders talk about âdeporting the bad guys.â But in this case, no one was convicted. No one even stood trial. Yet weâre supposed to accept that justice was served.
If the government can declare someone a threat, avoid prosecution, and remove them without letting a court weigh in, how do we know they got it right?
This isnât about defending criminals. Itâs about whether weâre skipping the trial and going straight to the headline. Because here in North Texas â and across the country â voters are paying attention. And theyâre asking fair questions:
- Why push for deportation instead of prosecution?
- Is this justice, or just expedience?
- And if due process matters, shouldnât it apply to everyone?
đ What It Means for TX-3
In a district like ours, where concerns about crime, immigration, and government accountability are front and center, this case hits all the buttons. Itâs a reminder that the big decisions donât just happen in Washington â they ripple right back to places like McKinney, Allen, and Princeton.
So the next time someone promises to âget tough on crime,â maybe ask how tough theyâre willing to get when it means following the law all the way through.
Sources: