Death. That’s What the DOJ Wants for Three MS-13 Gangbangers Who Allegedly Killed Informant

The Justice Department under the current administration is taking a hard-line approach to violent gang crime, seeking the death penalty for three MS-13 suspects accused of murdering a government informant in South Los Angeles; the case highlights immigration issues, prosecutorial priorities, and a broader Republican argument for restoring consequences to deter violent offenders.

I often criticize soft-on-crime policies because they erode public safety and signal that criminal behavior can proceed without serious consequences. Cities across America have seen surging violence where accountability has been downgraded, and many conservatives argue that restoring firm consequences is essential to reversing that trend.

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice, led in this matter by Acting United States Attorney General Todd Blanche and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, is signaling a stark position: violent gang members who target informants will face the severest penalties. That stance reflects a return to the principle that certain crimes warrant the ultimate punishment to protect witnesses and deter organized crime.

Essayli announced the charges and framed them in unambiguous terms about accountability and deterrence. The defendants face federal counts that carry the possibility of capital punishment, underscoring the administration’s willingness to use all available tools against murderous gangs.

“Make Consequences Great Again” has been the author’s mantra, and in this case the DOJ’s actions align with that sentiment. Behavioral science shows that consequences shape behavior, and when violent actors face decisive punishment, it can change incentives for would-be criminals.

The indictment lists three defendants and specific charges, including murder in aid of racketeering and conspiracy to retaliate against a witness or informant. Those charges are serious federal offenses tied to organized crime statutes designed to dismantle groups that rely on terror and intimidation to function.

Dennis Anaya Urias, 27, Grevil Zelaya Santiago, 26, and Roberto Carlos Aguilar, 31, all of South Los Angeles, are charged with one count of murder in aid of racketeering and two counts of conspiracy to retaliate against a witness or informant. These defendants have been in federal custody since May 2025 and are scheduled to go to trial on July 21.

The defendants come from different immigration backgrounds, and that detail fuels debate around border security and enforcement. According to the charging documents, two of the suspects are foreign nationals, one with a green card and two identified as being in the country unlawfully.

Those immigration facts are not incidental in the larger argument being made by law-and-order conservatives: porous borders and inadequate enforcement can contribute to criminal networks exploiting the system. This case is presented by proponents of stricter immigration and enforcement policies as an example of the consequences of lax control.

Urias and Aguilar are Salvadoran nationals. Urias has a green card. Aguilar is an illegal alien. Santiago is an illegal alien from Honduras.

According to court documents, Urias and Santiago fatally shot the victim at a grocery store in South L.A. on February 18, 2025. The victim’s status as a government cooperator was well known by MS-13 and made the victim subject to a “green light” order that made him a target for murder by MS-13 members.

Approximately one hour before the victim’s death, he had what appeared to be a chance encounter with Aguilar inside the grocery store. Following that encounter, Aguilar set in motion a series of events that led to Urias and Santiago murdering the victim.

Prosecutors emphasize protecting cooperators because witness intimidation and retaliation are basic tools that enable organized crime to operate with impunity. If informants are not safeguarded by a justice system willing to punish retaliation harshly, cooperation dries up and investigations collapse.

Essayli’s public messaging leaves little room for ambiguity about the administration’s posture toward violent criminals who target witnesses. The stated position is a deterrent aimed at signaling that those who take life in service of a gang enterprise will face the gravest consequences under federal law.

Thugs and terrorists will find no shelter under this administration. If you take someone’s life, then you will forfeit your own.

The article’s author disclaims any appetite for bloodshed but argues that this firm approach is a necessary response to recurring tragedies such as high-profile, senseless murders that shake communities. Those incidents are used to justify tougher prosecutorial choices and the reassertion of law-and-order principles.

Acting AG Blanche has been in the role only briefly, yet his early actions in cases like this indicate a willingness to prioritize violent crime prosecutions. For Republicans and other backers of strict enforcement, that signals a corrective course after years of prosecutorial restraint in many jurisdictions.

Editor’s Note: The American people overwhelmingly support President Trump’s law and order agenda.

The case will proceed to trial with federal prosecutors seeking the most serious available penalties, and it will test both the facts of the alleged murder-for-retaliation scheme and the broader policy choices of a Department of Justice intent on restoring consequences for violent crime.