US Slaps Sanctions On El Chapo's Sons, Announces $10 Million Reward
The US government on Monday sanctioned the fugitive sons of drug lord Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman, and announced a $10 million reward for information leading to their arrests.
Archivaldo Ivan Guzman and Jesus Alfredo Guzman, who lead the violent Los Chapitos faction of the Sinaloa Cartel, are accused of spearheading fentanyl trafficking into the US through secret labs in Mexico.
The sanctions freeze any property and financial interests linked to the brothers and extend to entities they directly or indirectly control. The brothers were also designated as targets under the State Department's Narcotics Rewards Programme, with a reward of up to $10 million bounty placed on each for information leading to their arrest or conviction.
The Trump administration alleges that Los Chapitos control secret drug laboratories in Sinaloa, Mexico, and have also secured access to fentanyl precursor chemicals and deployed brutal tactics to consolidate their grip on the illicit trade.
"We will continue to protect our nation by keeping illicit drugs off our streets and disrupting the revenue streams funding Mexico-based cartels' violent and criminal activity," said State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce in a statement. "Today's action further demonstrates the Trump Administration's unwavering commitment to eliminating cartels and ensuring the safety of the American people."
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described Los Chapitos as a "powerful, hyperviolent" faction of the Sinaloa Cartel, heavily involved in fentanyl trafficking into the US, as per The NY Post.
He said the sanctions are part of US President Donald Trump's directive to dismantle drug cartels and target their leaders, including El Chapo's sons, using every available tool to "stop the fentanyl crisis and help save lives."
El Chapo, once the world's most wanted drug trafficker, was convicted in 2019 on multiple conspiracy counts and is currently serving a life sentence at ADX Florence, a maximum-security prison in Colorado.
The crackdown follows the Trump administration's earlier decision to label the Sinaloa Cartel as both a Foreign Terrorist Organisation and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist group.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
36 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Terms of Trade: Economic dogma won't do the world any good
2025 is going to be the worst year for global GDP growth since 2008 barring the recessions of 2008 and 2020, the World Bank's latest estimates say. The Bank has also said that per capita income convergence between the global south (EDMEs in Bank's technical parlance) and the advanced economies has almost stalled if one were to take out India and China. This is going to have serious repercussions for poverty reduction and employment generation in parts of the world where the population is expected to grow the most in the future. China's population is already declining and India is now below replacement levels of fertility. That this is happening at a time when advanced economies are themselves growing at a slower rate speaks volumes about the nature of the crisis. In the advanced economies, the economic crisis has now reached a different stage where nothing seems to be working. The political aspiration for a break from the globalisation consensus has brought in regimes which can only think of banning movement of both goods and people. Both of these threaten to inflict a serious supply shock to these countries, especially the US, and will likely inflict more pain than gain for even the underclass. This is exactly why even union leaders are physically resisting government agents out to deport illegal foreign workers in places like California. How did we reach this quagmire and is there a way out of it? The institutions which are expected to take a lead in resolving this situation seem to be delivering homilies rather than actual solutions. The Bank's latest Global Economic Prospects which flagged the statistical trends described above, for example, prescribes a three-pronged way out of the crisis: more trade liberalisation, more fiscal discipline and more employment generation. If the advanced economies are feeling a political pressure to shut their doors to Global South's exports rather than have more of them and if the rich countries are going to be diverting their funding from things such as climate finance and other kinds of development assistance towards defence spending and tax breaks for their citizens and companies, how exactly are non-rich countries expected to even pursue trade liberalisation and fiscal prudence? What is more important to keep in mind, and the Bank's latest report does an extremely good job of flagging it, is that things weren't exactly great even before Trump threw his MAGA 2.0 spanner in the wheels of the global economy. The euphoria surrounding globalisation and its benefits started losing steam in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis which is now almost two decades behind us. Trump 2.0 and the rise of right-wing populism in many high-income counties is only a manifestation of this trend gaining political momentum. The key to solving this problem is not to prescribe do what we were doing before 2008 but to ask how 2008 happened? The root of the 2008 crisis lay in the state turning a blind eye to toxic financial innovation because it helped create demand without purchasing power (directly in the housing market and indirectly in the entire economy) in the world's largest economy, namely, the US. Too bad that the entire thing came crashing down. Everything else, the derailment of the income convergence journey of the Global South included, follows from there. While China managed to grow into an even bigger economic and technological giant (the latter is especially pronounced after the 2008 crisis) by making it a zero-sum game for a while, the situation seems to have become one where it is no longer tenable from at least the US's perspective. Also Read: GDP numbers a cause for worry So, what is to be done? Three key contradictions need to be worked upon. There is no doubt that free trade has created a large consumer surplus in terms of goods and services being produced or offered in the most cost-effective locations. However, the distribution of this surplus within the advanced countries needs to be examined far more critically than it has been so far. Trying to handle this contradiction by an ad infinitum reiteration of a doctrinaire defence of free trade is tantamount to asking the working class in the first world to accept that it should travel in the boot of a more expensive car and be happy about the car being better whereas it used to be on the passenger seat in a cheaper car before globalization took away their jobs. The best way to solve this problem is perhaps not to force companies to relocate production back to the rich countries. This is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What is more important is to rejig the surplus sharing arrangement between companies who are benefitting from such relocation and the workers who are now just consumers without stable and well paying jobs. This is one place where the MAGA coalition (although not necessarily Trump) actually has some valid points such as going after vested interests in American capitalism. The third, and perhaps the most provocative of the lot, is actually outside the realm of the economic. This was appropriately flagged in Gerard Baker's Free Expression column in the Wall Street Journal this week. 'The (Trump) Musk divorce is symbolic of the tension at the heart of the new Republican coalition. Mr. Trump's working- and middle-class multiethnic alliance is driving the highly successful cultural counter revolution on the border, race, sex and national security. But those same voters are none too keen on Mr. Musk's free-market approach to trade, migration, taxes and spending,' he wrote. Also Read: Riding high on the growth momentum The problem is best explained by borrowing from economic theory. Keynes, who is rightly considered the biggest modern economist in the world, earned this place because he convinced the world and policy making economists that their belief in the Say's Law (supply creating its own demand) was wrong. While economists learnt this lesson almost a century ago, politicians across the world, more so in the advanced world seem to be fixated on a Say's law of liberalism which is making them believe that ethnic, racial or other cultural tensions including a backlash against woke politics can be taken care of by pretending that they do not exist. The fight against the Say's law of economics – which is what the dogmatic defenders of globalisation are selling us – cannot be fought without getting rid of the misplaced belief in what can be described as Say's law of liberalism. Can the world get a politician who can take on both these dogmas? This is what will determine our fate in the days to come.
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Stop playing politics': Jairam Ramesh flags three 'setbacks' from US; Congress demands parliament session
PTI file photo Congress Rajyasabha MP Jairam Ramesh said on Thursday that India's diplomacy received three setbacks from the United States. He urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to call an all-party meeting to discuss the issue. "Yesterday, Indian diplomacy received three huge setbacks at the hands of the United States. It raises severe, serious questions on the US policy", Ramesh said. He first slammed US central command chief General Michael Kurilla, calling Pakistan a "phenomenal partner" in the fight against terrorism. "Pakistan is where Osama bin Laden was found hiding for 10 years. He was killed on the 2nd of May 2011 in Abbottabad. 'Pakistan is a phenomenal counterterrorism partner ' is a bizarre statement from the top American general," Ramesh told news agency ANI. — ANI (@ANI) Asif Munir getting an invitation to the US army day on June 14th, is another setback for India, Ramesh said. "This is the same Aasim Munir who, a few days before the April 22 brutal terrorist attack at Pahalgam, used the most incendiary and provocative language, going back to the 1940s, talking of the two-nation theory. I think that gave oxygen and led to the terror attacks," he said. On 17 April, Munir told a gathering of expatriates in Islamabad that Pakistanis were different from Hindus. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo He reaffirmed Pakistan's stance on Kashmir, describing it as the country's "jugular vein." The third setback, Ramesh said, was the US state department spokesperson reiterating that US president Trump brought about engagement between India and Pakistan. She repeated what president Trump has been saying, and talked about Marco Rubio's role, the Congress leader said. This comes even as India has categorically denied US' role in the ceasefire between India and Pakistan in line with the Shimla Agreement and India's foreign policy principle, which maintains that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, where no third party involvement is allowed. Underlining the significance of taking political parties into confidence, Ramesh said, "The Prime Minister has met all the MPs who have gone on delegations. He should call the opposition parties, take them into confidence. He should have a special session of parliament. These are challenges. We have to sit together. We have to have a collective response, a collective will," he said. The Congress has been calling for a special parliament session since the launch of Operation Sindoor. The inclusion of opposition members in the Operation Sindoor delegation was not sufficient, according to Ramesh. "The Prime Minister should stop playing politics, focus on governance, and involve opposition parties as institutions, not just individuals — the anchor of our system is political parties, not individuals," Ramesh said.
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
What is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation? Israel-backed aid group blames Hamas for attacking workers; UN warns aid distribution is being militarised
A deadly attack on aid workers in southern Gaza has drawn sharp condemnation from a US- and Israel-backed relief group, which accused Hamas of targeting its Palestinian staff as they travelled to distribute humanitarian aid, reports the New York Times. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which began operating in late May, said a bus carrying around two dozen of its workers came under fire on Wednesday night. At least five people were reportedly killed and others wounded, with some possibly taken hostage. 'We condemn this heinous and deliberate attack in the strongest possible terms,' the group said in a statement. 'These were aid workers. Humanitarians. Fathers, brothers, sons, and friends, who were risking their lives every day to help others.' The group is run by American contractors but is backed by Israeli authorities. It said it held Hamas "fully responsible" for the killing of its "dedicated workers who have been distributing humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people." It urged the international community to speak out against the assault. 'Tonight, the world must see this for what it is: an attack on humanity,' the foundation added. The GHF has previously accused Hamas of threatening its staff and obstructing aid delivery. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like เทรด CFDs ด้วยเทคโนโลยีเทรดสุดล้ำ และ รวดเร็วกว่า IC Markets สมัคร Undo On Saturday, it reported that it was 'impossible to proceed' with its distribution because of Hamas interference. In turn, Hamas has rejected the accusations and questioned the group's neutrality, calling the foundation 'nothing more than a propaganda front for the Israeli occupation army.' Violence near aid sites has also been reported. Earlier on Wednesday, shootings in central Gaza left several dead and dozens injured, according to health officials and emergency workers. The incidents occurred near a distribution centre run by the GHF. The Israeli military said it had fired warning shots at potential threats before dawn but denied daytime fire on civilians. The Palestine Red Crescent Society blamed Israeli gunfire for some of the casualties. 'Most victims had injuries from shell fragments, although some also had bullet wounds,' said spokesperson Nebal Farsakh. The actual death toll remains unclear. GHF said its centre was closed at the time of the early morning shooting and it could not confirm what had occurred, but it did reopen later that day. The organisation has asked the media not to confuse its operations with military activity. 'Do not confuse the public by reporting on GHF operations in the same breath as Israeli military operations far removed from distribution sites,' it said. The group's origins have added to the controversy. GHF's close association with Israeli authorities has led to criticism from international humanitarian bodies. The United Nations and others have accused Israel of militarising aid distribution and said the foundation undermines the independence expected of humanitarian groups. Israel has long accused Hamas of looting aid meant for civilians. However, the UN says there is no clear evidence of systematic diversion by the militant group. It has instead pointed to broader lawlessness and the impact of Israel's 80-day aid blockade earlier this year, which led to extreme food shortages and a collapse of basic services. The foundation has vowed to continue working. 'Despite this heinous attack, we will continue our mission to provide critical aid to the people of Gaza,' it said.
