US sanctions six top leaders of Venezuela gang Tren de Aragua
The Treasury Department said that Tren de Aragua is a threat to public safety throughout the Western world, and is involved in the illicit drug trade, extortion, human smuggling and trafficking, money laundering, sexual exploitation of women and children, and other criminal conduct.
'Today's action highlights the critical role of leaders like Niño Guerrero and his lieutenants in Tren de Aragua's efforts to increase its destabilizing influence throughout the region,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement on Thursday.
'The Trump Administration will not allow Tren de Aragua to continue to terrorize our communities and harm innocent Americans,' Bessent added. 'In line with President Trump's mandate to Make America Safe Again, Treasury remains dedicated to dismantling Tren de Aragua and disrupting the group's campaign of violence.'
Tren de Aragua, which originated in Venezuela, was designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department on Feb. 20.
Apart from Guerrero Flores, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctioned Yohan Jose Romero, Josue Angel Santana Pena, Wilmer Jose Perez Castillo, Guerrero Flores's wife Wendy Marbelys Rios Gomez and Felix Anner Castillo Rondon.
Thursday's sanctions will block all property and interests in property of the six individuals. Also, any entities owned directly or indirectly at a 50 percent rate or more will be blocked.
Jose Romero, a close lieutenant of Guerrero Flores, has been responsible for Tren de Aragua's illegal mining efforts in Venezuela, along with providing the criminal gang with military-grade weapons, according to the Treasury Department.
The State Department, through the Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program, is offering up to $5 million for information that leads to the arrest or conviction of Guerrero Flores.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
32 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Pakistan "Playing With Fire" on Nuclear Threat, Says Former Indian Official
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A threat by the army chief of nuclear-armed Pakistan to "take half the world down" if the country faces a threat to its existence is reckless and dangerous, India's former deputy national security advisor told Newsweek. "I think it's one man's decision to engage in saber-rattling. And frankly, he doesn't sound like a victorious general — he sounds more like someone who is playing with fire and has some personal grievance or deep-seated problem with India," Pankaj Saran said in an interview. Why It Matters The comments show the heightened tension between India and Pakistan after their most intense clash in decades in May following a deadly attack on tourists in Kashmir which India blamed on Pakistan despite its denials. What To Know Field Marshal Asim Munir spoke on Sunday at a gathering of the Pakistani community in Tampa, Florida, according to Pakistani news portal ARY News. He was quoted as saying "We are a nuclear nation; if we think we are going down, we'll take half the world down with us," according to Indian ThePrint news site. Munir also threatened to destroy any dam India builds on the Indus River, on which India suspended a water-sharing treaty after the April 22 Pahalgam attack in Kashmir. Army jawans stand guard and security forces patrol near the encounter site in Lidwas Meadows of Dara, Srinagar district, India, on July 28, 2025. Army jawans stand guard and security forces patrol near the encounter site in Lidwas Meadows of Dara, Srinagar district, India, on July 28, 2025. Photo by BASIT ZARGAR/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images "Obviously, he feels emboldened enough to make these statements sitting in the United States... in a friendly country like the U.S. So how much license he thinks he can get, or is getting from the Americans, and how much tacit support there is, is a question mark that is being asked in India," Saran said. "This is unnecessary, unprovoked, and uncalled for. There is no real logical reason for all of this to be happening. It's important for the Americans to see through what he's doing, because if we continue down this path, it is not going to help American interests in the region or Indian interests," he said. India's Ministry of External Affairs described the comments as "nuclear blackmail." Pakistan's army and foreign ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Saran's remarks. The Pakistani army chief's comments in the United States come at a moment of strain between Washington and New Delhi. On August 6, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 50% tariff on Indian imports over New Delhi's continued purchase of Russian oil. This follows Trump's repeated claims that he personally brokered the May 2025 India–Pakistan ceasefire. India says it was a bilateral decision. What Happens Next The fact that Munir made the remarks in the United States, where he has been received twice in two months, is likely to further deepen the annoyance with Washington in India, the world's most populous nation. India is already strengthening its ties with China, long seen as a shared adversary with the United States, as well as with Russia.
Newsweek
34 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How To Protect Users' Privacy from Tech Corporations
The concept of privacy is foundational to our constitutional democracy. The Fourth Amendment prevents unlawful searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment prevents self-incrimination. The First Amendment prevents the government from compelling Americans to make disclosures. Some states, like Montana, explicitly list the right to privacy in their constitutions. Although our right to privacy is well established when it comes to government interference in our lives, that is unfortunately not the case when it comes to the companies that know every intimate detail about us. With the allure of free services, we routinely provide our most intimate selves to multi-billion-dollar tech firms that, in turn, make an enormous profit off the data they pilfer. They know everything about us. What we like to eat. When we sleep. Where we live. Where we are. Our beliefs. Our fears. Curiously, they claim our age confounds them, but let's set that aside. A recent Pew survey shows that 73 percent of Americans feel they have little or no control over how companies utilize their personal information. They're right. We sign privacy policies that are filled with so much legal jargon that they may as well be unintelligible to the average person, and presto! Our data is now the company's data, along with our digital selves. The problem is that companies sell our data, not just to third-party advertisers, but also to those who use our data to create fake images, curate biased newsfeeds, conduct elaborate scams, and even engage in espionage. BATH, UNITED KINGDOM - FEBRUARY 09: In this photo illustration 12-year-boy looks at his phone on February 9, 2025 in Bath, England. BATH, UNITED KINGDOM - FEBRUARY 09: In this photo illustration 12-year-boy looks at his phone on February 9, 2025 in Bath, short, we are not in control. Americans are right to be concerned. And with the advent of AI, this problem will only get worse. Our current system is unsustainable. We need to address it through a national privacy framework. Even though many states, like California and Texas, have passed comprehensive privacy laws, we still need federal action to ensure we hold these companies accountable. Currently, tech behemoths view privacy violations as a mere cost of doing business, with penalties akin to a parking violation relative to their bottomless coffers. To demonstrate how little help some privacy laws have been to consumers, let's get specific. Consumers sued Apple earlier this year under California's privacy law for sharing recorded conversations of personal health information with their physicians to ad companies. Apple's surveillance and recordings covered conversations spanning a little over a decade. The case settled. So, what was the total cost of Apple giving advertisers an inside perspective on doctor-patient relationships? A meager $95 million, which accounts for about nine hours' worth of Apple's annual profit. And consumers won't see about a third of that, as it's reserved for the lawyers. The reality is that if Big Tech companies cared about user privacy, they would protect it. For instance, Google, Amazon, and Apple can stop lowering their privacy protocols to cater to autocratic regimes, such as the Chinese Communist Party, that seek to use their platforms to spy on consumers. Even better, companies can stop manipulating the privacy settings on users' devices and third-party services, which is already illegal. Apple describes user privacy as a "human right," but it treats user privacy less as a fundamental human right and more as a license to collude with its fellow Big Tech firms to monetize every facet of its users' data, lives, and privacy. It's no wonder 85 percent of people want more to be done to protect user privacy. We need government intervention here. The good news is that the desire to pass a privacy law is widely bipartisan. Indeed, 20 states across the political spectrum have passed comprehensive privacy laws. A national privacy framework should do the following: First, define goals and stay targeted at accomplishing those goals. One of the primary problems with previous attempts at passing meaningful privacy laws has been that bills attempt to do too much all at once. We have seen the most success in legislation that has clearly articulated goals with targeted solutions to both pass through both houses and be an effective law. Overly sweeping privacy laws have the unintended consequence of entrenching incumbents. That's what we've seen in the E.U.'s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR should be a cautionary tale for the U.S. because, as the European Centre of Economic Policy Research found, privacy regulations without market guardrails can seriously exacerbate Big Tech's competition issues. Second, enforcement matters, and attorney general enforcement is preferred. As indicated earlier in the case involving Apple, private right of actions don't do much to deter Big Tech companies, given their seemingly endless teams of lawyers and budgets. Agency actions or AG enforcement are far more effective. For instance, the Texas attorney general recently secured a nearly $1.4 billion settlement against Google for violating Texas's privacy law. As should be obvious, that $1.4 billion only covers the people of Texas. Contrast that with the Apple case, where only $95 million covered the entire state of California. Third, the broader the federal statute, the more important preemption will become. That's because targeted legislation is less likely to run into differing state regimes, whereas 20 states have now passed some form of comprehensive privacy legislation. A privacy framework should be clear on what it is preempting and should reserve rights for state attorney general enforcement. That means developing basic definitions (e.g., "personal information"), creating data rights, and specifying what specific data management practices are to be prohibited. In sum, we need Congress to act now more than ever to preserve what's left of our digital selves. Joel Thayer is president of the Digital Progress Institute and an attorney based in Washington, D.C. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Tariffs on China Set to Rise Sharply Tuesday if No Deal Is Reached
A trade truce between the United States and China is set to expire on Tuesday if the two countries do not extend the time for talks or reach a last-minute agreement that would prevent President Trump from reimposing sharply higher tariffs on Chinese imports and the Chinese retaliating against American goods. Top economic officials have been working to finalize a provisional agreement to extend the truce that was reached during meetings in Sweden last month. After the talks, Mr. Trump's advisers were optimistic that the president would sign off on the arrangement, but thus far he has not publicly granted China an extension. If the tariffs snap back into place, it would escalate a trade war between the world's two largest economies that rattled global markets earlier this year. With the clock ticking, Mr. Trump on Sunday night called on China to quadruple its purchases of American soybeans and noted that doing so would help reduce America's trade deficit with China. 'China is worried about its shortage of soybeans,' Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social in a message directed to Xi Jinping, China's leader. 'Our great farmers produce the most robust soybeans.' The United States and China have held three formal rounds of trade talks this year, after Mr. Trump started ratcheting up tariffs on Chinese imports. U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods ultimately reached 145 percent, and China curbed the exports of rare earth magnets that are critical to American manufacturers. In an effort to de-escalate the tension, a 90-day truce was reached under which the U.S. reduced its China tariffs to 30 percent while China lowered its tariffs on U.S. goods to 10 percent and agreed to export the magnets. Following talks in Sweden in late July, Mr. Trump's economic advisers exuded optimism that another 90-day extension would be granted. Jamieson Greer, the United States Trade Representative, said that U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports could increase to 80 percent in the absence of an agreement, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed that possibility, suggesting that only technical details needed to be addressed. The scope of the talks have broadened beyond tariffs. Mr. Bessent has said that he was pressing his Chinese counterparts on American concerns about China's excess manufacturing capacity and its purchases of oil from Russia and Iran. American and Chinese officials have been negotiating over U.S. export controls of microchips that China needs to power artificial intelligence systems. Despite the Trump administration's national security concerns over the trade in semiconductors and other products, it has taken a transactional approach to negotiations. Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices are expected to pay the United States 15 percent of the money they generate from selling A.I. chips to China, as part of a highly unusual financial agreement with the Trump administration. The trade talks with China have been on a separate track from negotiations that the Trump administration has been having with other trading partners. This month, the United States announced a flurry of trade deals, with Japan, South Korea and the European Union making big U.S. investment commitments in exchange for lower tariff rates. At the same time, Mr. Trump continues to deploy tariffs as a tool to address virtually any diplomatic issue. Last week, he doubled tariffs on goods from India, to 50 percent, in part because India refused to curb purchases of Russian oil. The Trump administration has so far refrained from imposing such tariffs on China, which also buys Russian crude. Vice President JD Vance said on Fox News on Sunday that tariffs on China linked to Russian oil purchases are 'on the table,' but that Mr. Trump has yet to make a decision on the matter because of the complexity of the relationship. Washington and Beijing reached a broad trade agreement during Mr. Trump's first term that included commitments from China to buy billions of dollars worth of U.S. farm products. However, China didn't follow through on that agreement as the Covid-19 pandemic set in, and relations between the two countries frayed. Mr. Trump has maintained that he is open to meeting with Mr. Xi, but said last week that he would only do so if the two countries reached a trade pact. 'He asked for a meeting, and I'll end up having a meeting before the end of the year most likely, if we make a deal,' Mr. Trump said of Mr. Xi on CNBC last week. 'If we don't make a deal, I'm not going to have a meeting.'
