US offering $10M reward for information leading to El Chapo's fugitive sons' arrests
US offering $10M reward for information leading to El Chapo's fugitive sons' arrests
Show Caption
Hide Caption
El Chapo's family crosses into US in controversial border entry
Over a dozen relatives of Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman have entered the US, sparking debate and confusion over the approval process.
Aljazeera - AJ+
The United States is offering a $10 million reward for information leading to the arrest or conviction of two men, the sons of infamous Mexican drug lord "El Chapo," who prosecutors alleged brutally tortured and killed some of their rivals by waterboarding, electrocuting and feeding them alive to tigers.
The announcement from the U.S. Treasury Department came after U.S. officials on June 9 imposed sanctions on Archivaldo Ivan Guzman Salazar and Jesus Alfredo Guzman Salazar, the fugitive sons of incarcerated and former Sinaloa Cartel boss Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman.
The sons of "El Chapo" are credited by American authorities with rebuilding their father's international drug empire since his 2017 extradition and 2019 incarceration.
The U.S. Government, in its reward announcement, also sanctioned "Los Chapitos," a "powerful, hyperviolent faction" of the Sinaloa Cartel, which made hundreds of millions of dollars by flooding the country with fentanyl. Los Chapitos-controlled labs are responsible for introducing the drug in counterfeit pills manufactured by the Sinaloa Cartel and trafficked to the U.S., officials said.
Gunmen linked to the Sinaloa Cartel were also involved in the Oct. 18, 2024, killing of former U.S. Marine Nicholas Quets in Sonora, Mexico, according to the department.
In a released statement, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said Los Chapitos is at the forefront of fentanyl trafficking into the United States
'At the Department of the Treasury, we are executing on President Trump's mandate to completely eliminate drug cartels and take on violent leaders like 'El Chapo's' children," Bessent said. "Treasury is maximizing all available tools to stop the fentanyl crisis and help save lives.'
Hot car death: Toddler left in vehicle for over 9 hours dies, father charged with murder
2 of El Chapo's sons incarcerated, cartel allegedly fed victims to tigers
El Chapo's other sons, Joaquin Guzman Lopez and Ovidio Guzmán López, were incarcerated in the U.S. as of June 10.
Ovidio Guzmán López, also known as "El Ratón," was extradited to the United States in 2023 to face federal charges alleging he and his brothers facilitated illicit fentanyl trafficking and production. Ovidio Guzmán López was first arrested in Mexico in 2019, but was released after cartel members attacked civilians in Culiacán. He was arrested again in 2023 in an operation that led to 30 more deaths.
Several relatives of El Chapo recently entered the U.S. in what a Mexican official last month said is part of negotiations over Ovidio Guzmán López's trafficking case.
The cartel's security forces "often torture and kill their victims," and they have fed some of their victims, dead and alive, to "tigers belonging to the Chapitos," former U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said amid the release of a 65-page indictment.
Ovidio Guzmán López is slated to appear in federal court in July to enter a change of plea after previously pleading not guilty to charges in his case. The records obtained by USA TODAY do not include details about a potential plea agreement.
Last month, Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Fitzpatrick, for the Northern District of Illinois, where the case is being prosecuted, declined to comment to USA TODAY on the entry of family members and the terms of Guzmán López's plea.
That same month, Jeffrey Lichtman, an attorney representing Guzmán López, told Reuters. "We have no completed agreement yet but hope to in the future."
Anyone with information about the case or the whereabouts of El Chapo's sons is asked to call 911. They are considered armed and dangerous and should not be approached.
Natalie Neysa Alund is a senior reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at nalund@usatoday.com and follow her on X @nataliealund
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
15 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Istanbul mayor boycotts court hearing in one of many cases that could see him banned from politics
ISTANBUL (AP) — Istanbul's imprisoned opposition Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu and his lawyers boycotted a court hearing Thursday, claiming a late change of venue was 'unlawful.' Thursday's case, which was over comments Imamoglu made over the prosecution of other officials from his Republican People's Party, or CHP, is one of numerous criminal allegations Imamoglu faces. The mayor was arrested in March alongside other prominent politicians as part of investigations into alleged corruption and terror links. His arrest triggered the largest street protests Turkey has seen in more than a decade. A conviction in any of the cases could see Imamoglu banned from holding or running for public office. Imamoglu is regarded as the main challenger to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan 's 22-year rule and was officially nominated as his party's presidential candidate following his imprisonment. Turkey's next election is due in 2028 but could come sooner. In a statement, the CHP said neither Imamoglu nor his legal team would attend Thursday's hearing due to a change in venue through 'unlawful procedures.' Imamoglu, in a post from jail, described the hearing as 'irregular' and said it 'does not comply with the principles of the trial. I refuse to be a part of such a process and therefore I will not attend this hearing.' CHP Istanbul Provincial Chairman Ozgur Celik posted on X that the hearing had been moved from Caglayan courthouse in central Istanbul to Silivri prison 24 hours beforehand. Imamoglu is being held at the prison, west of Istanbul. Prosecutors have requested a prison sentence of two to four years and a political ban on charges of 'attempting to influence' an expert witness in the case. The hearing was adjourned to Sept. 26. Officials from CHP-controlled municipalities have faced waves of arrests this year . Many people in Turkey consider the cases to be politically driven , according to opinion polls. Erdogan's government insists the courts are impartial and free from political involvement. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
15 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Australia's defense minister downplays concerns over Pentagon review of multi-billion submarine deal
BANGKOK (AP) — Australia's defense minister dismissed concerns Thursday that a deal between the U.S., Australia and Britain to provide his country with nuclear-powered submarines could be in jeopardy, following a report that the Pentagon had ordered a review. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles told Sky News Australia that he had known about the review of the deal 'for some time,' saying that it was a 'very natural step for the incoming administration to take.' He noted that the UK's government also reviewed the deal, the centerpiece of a three-way alliance known as AUKUS after it was elected, and that his own government had looked at it as part of its own review of Australia's entire defense posture. 'I think an incoming government having a look at this is something that they have a perfect right to do and we welcome it and we'll work with it,' he said. The deal, worth more than $200 billion, was signed between the three countries in 2021 under then President Joe Biden, designed to provide Australia, one of Washington's staunchest allies in the region, with greater maritime capabilities to counter China's increasingly strong navy . The deal also involves the U.S. selling several of its Virginia-class submarines to Australia to bridge the gap as the new submarines are being jointly built. In January, Australia made the first of six $500 million payments to the U.S. under the AUKUS deal, meant to bolster American submarine manufacturing. Marles met with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of a defense conference in Singapore less than two weeks ago, and told reporters afterward that he had come away with 'a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.' 'AUKUS is on track and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it,' he said. 'We are very optimistic.' Hegseth's address to the defense forum made multiple mentions of cooperation with Australia but no reference to AUKUS, however, though he did later mention the deal when he was taking questions. Hegseth did urge allies in the Indo-Pacific to increase their defense spending, and underscored the need for a 'strong, resolute and capable network of allies and partners' as the U.S. seeks to counter China. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Indianapolis Star
17 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes.
