17 members of a cartel kingpin's family were escorted into California from Mexico. Why?
MEXICO CITY — Key pillars of the Trump administration's policy toward Mexico involve large-scale deportations and a crackdown on cartels.
But reports in the Mexican media suggest that U.S. authorities recently orchestrated the secret, cross-border move of at least 17 relatives of Mexico's most notorious drug kingpin — Joaquín 'El Chapo' Guzmán — to California.
Various social media sites have circulated images purporting to show El Chapo's kin lugging rolling suitcases as they waited to enter the United States last week at the San Ysidro border crossing connecting Tijuana and San Diego.
In a radio interview on Tuesday, Omar García Harfuch, Mexico's security chief, confirmed that the move took place.
He characterized the transfer of El Chapo's relatives as part of a 'negotiation' between the U.S. Justice Department and representatives of one of El Chapo's sons, Ovidio Guzmán López, who faces drug-smuggling and other charges in federal court in Chicago.
Ovidio Guzmán was initially arrested in 2109 in an operation that sparked gun battles paralyzing the city of Culiacán, prompting then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to order him freed in a bid to end the violence. He was rearrested in 2023 in a second bloody operation that left at least 29 dead, including 10 Mexican soldiers. Mexico extradited him to the United States in September 2023 to face drug trafficking charges.
He plans to change his not guilty plea to guilty, according to court papers, but the terms of his potential plea deal remain publicly unknown. A court hearing is set for July 9 in federal court in Chicago.
'As we saw in the news, Ovidio begins a negotiation with the Department of Justice of the United States and it's evident that, [with] his family going to the United States, it's because of that negotiation,' García Harfuch told Mexico's Radio Formula.
The current whereabouts of the El Chapo relatives could not be determined. It was not clear if they were under some form of protective custody.
There has been speculation in Mexico that, in exchange for a reduced prison term and other concessions, Ovidio Guzmán could agree to testify for the government in drug cases. Such 'cooperation' agreements, experts say, routinely include protection for the relatives of potential witnesses.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Monday that the reports had blindsided her — she learned of it from news accounts — and that her government was seeking clarification from Washington.
A Justice Department spokeswoman, Nicole Navas, declined to comment. Ovidio Guzmán's New York-based attorney, Jeffrey Lichtman, did not return messages.
El Chapo, who was convicted in 2019 of running a vast drug network, is serving a life sentence at a so-called supermax prison in Colorado.
The accounts about El Chapo's relatives entering San Diego originated with Luis Chaparro, a Mexican journalist who specializes in stories about the convicted drug trafficker.
On Monday, Chaparro, citing 'sources,' reported on his YouTube channel that 17 of El Chapo's relatives —including his ex-wife, various nephews and nieces, a grandson, a daughter and a son-in-law — entered U.S. territory in San Ysidro at about mid-day on May 9 and were met by FBI agents. They carried more than $70,000 in cash, reported Chaparro, who said at least one sniper watched over the group as they turned themselves in to U.S. authorities.
Among the group was Griselda López, El Chapo's former wife and the mother of Ovidio and his elder brother, Joaquín Guzmán López, who is also in U.S. custody facing drug charges.
There has been widespread speculation in the Mexican press that Ovidio Guzmán and his elder brother may seek a plea deal and possibly agree to testify against Ismael Zambada García, a co-founder, with El Chapo, of the notorious Sinaloa cartel.
Zambada has said he was kidnapped by Joaquín Guzmán López last summer and flown into the custody of U.S. agents outside El Paso, Texas. Zambada is reportedly in plea negotiations with U.S. authorities to avoid a potential death penalty.
Zambada's arrest has sparked a bloody turf war splitting the Sinaloa cartel. Backers of Zambada are fighting supporters of El Chapo's sons, known as Los Chapitos, for control of the storied criminal organization. Heading Los Chapitos, authorities say, are two of El Chapo's other sons, both wanted men who have remained in Mexico and avoided arrest and possible extradition to the United States.
Contributing were staff writer Keegan Hamilton in Los Angeles and special correspondents Cecilia Sánchez Vidal and Liliana Nieto del Río in Mexico City.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rapid City man gets 25-years for dealing meth
RAPID CITY, SD (KELO) — A federal judge on Friday sentenced a Rapid City man, tied to a Mexican drug cartel, to 25-years in prison. 38-year-old Guillermo Calderon pleaded guilty in March to Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance. Prosecutors say Calderon was the leader of the conspiracy that trafficked significant amounts of methamphetamine to Rapid City and Pine Ridge from Mexican cartel operatives. Authorities in Iowa arrested Calderon in January 2024, while he was allegedly driving 20-pounds of meth into South Dakota. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Four indicted in drug cases
Jun. 6—CANTON — A St. Lawrence County grand jury on Tuesday handed up four indictments for drug possession. Jeyson Infante, 27, of Massena, was indicted by a St. Lawrence County Grand Jury on two counts third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance and evidence tampering. He allegedly possessed cocaine with intent to sell it on April 7 in Massena. He is represented by attorney Nicole Duve. Three people were indicted as co-defendents in a methamphetamine case. Richard Bell, 55, of Massena, was indicted on one count of second-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, three counts third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance and one count second-degree criminally using drug paraphernalia. On May 23 in Morristown, he allegedly possessed methamphetamine with intent to sell and cutting agents. He is represented by the St. Lawrence County Public Defender's Office. Kay Bullock, 44, an inmate at St. Lawrence County Correctional Facility, was indicted on one of count second-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, three counts third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, and one count second-degree criminally using drug paraphernalia. On May 23 in Morristown, she allegedly possessed methamphetamine with intent to sell. She does not have an attorney, according to court documents. Anthony Moselle, 55, an inmate at St. Lawrence County Correctional Facility, was indicted on one count second-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, three counts third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, and one count second-degree criminally using drug paraphernalia. On May 23 in Morristown, he allegedly possessed methamphetamine with intent to sell. He is represented by attorney Brian Barrett.


CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.