DOJ: Fourteen indicted, 11 arrested in Seattle-area drug trafficking case tied to CID encampments
Fourteen people were indicted and 11 arrested as part of a sweeping federal drug trafficking investigation targeting narcotics distribution in Seattle's Chinatown-International District and surrounding homeless encampments, according to Acting U.S. Attorney Teal Luthy Miller at a press conference in Seattle.
The indictments, announced in late May and followed by coordinated arrests last week, stem from an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation led by the FBI, Seattle Police Department, and Drug Enforcement Administration.
Officials say the defendants trafficked large quantities of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl from California into Western Washington.
'This trafficking group was a major supplier of deadly drugs to the International District and other communities throughout the Seattle area,' said David F. Reames, Special Agent in Charge of the DEA Seattle Field Division. 'The fentanyl powder and pills our team seized in this case could have yielded enough lethal doses to kill everyone in Seattle twice.'
The 14 individuals are charged in two separate indictments. Seven are accused of conspiring to distribute cocaine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and heroin, while the other seven face charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine.
Octavio Salazar Palma, 33, of Federal Way, WA
Luis Soto Lara, 47, of Vancouver, WA
Juan Ramirez Recinos, 41, of Burien, WA (fugitive)
German Juarez-Otanez, 34, of Bothell, WA (fugitive)
Alexander Emilio Cozza, 42, of Seattle
Marco Antonio Bobadilla, 33, of Pacific, WA
Isai Gamboa Pacheco, 55, of Everett, WA
Daniel Ibarra Loera, 31, of Kent, WA
Jose Garcia Corona, 61, of Seattle
Leonardo Rojas Cruz, 53, of Federal Way, WA
Oscar Omar Serrano Serrano, 31, of Algona, WA
Juan Lopez Roblero, 43, of Tukwila, WA
Giovanni Antonio Garduno Garcia, 46, of Issaquah, WA
Sang Su, 44, of Seattle (U.S. citizen, fugitive)
Investigators executed 16 search warrants on May 29 across Washington, Oregon, and California, including locations in Federal Way, Everett, Issaquah, Kent, and Seattle.
Authorities seized more than seven kilograms of cocaine, 18 kilograms of methamphetamine, 57,000 fentanyl pills, 17 firearms, and $353,000 in cash.
Seattle Police Chief Shon F. Barnes said the group 'preyed on the homeless and drug addicted' and 'terrorized people living and working in the Chinatown-International District and South Seattle.' He praised the coordinated work of detectives and federal agencies.
The case builds on previous charges filed in January 2025, when five Washington-based individuals connected to the same trafficking operation were indicted.
Since then, law enforcement expanded its efforts beyond Washington, tracking the drug supply chain to sources in Oregon and Southern California.
In March 2025 alone, the investigation led to the seizure of 100 pounds of meth, 111 kilos of cocaine, 19 kilos of fentanyl powder, 250,000 fentanyl pills, and four kilos of heroin—an estimated street value of nearly $3 million.
The suspects face a range of federal charges that, in some cases, carry mandatory minimum prison sentences of 10 years.
Officials are still working to determine the citizenship status of several defendants.
'This investigation draws from the resilience of our communities,' said Acting Special Agent in Charge Carrie Nordyke of IRS-Criminal Investigation in Seattle. 'Illegal drug trafficking devastates lives and affects us all.'
The investigation involved multiple agencies, including Homeland Security Investigations, IRS-Criminal Investigation, the Washington National Guard Counterdrug Program, Oregon State Police, and the Clark County Sheriff's Office. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Casey Conzatti and Brian Wynne are prosecuting the case.
All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Trump and Musk need to reconcile for the sake of America's future
Editor's note: This essay is adapted from a tweet shared by the author. At first impression, it makes no sense that Musk would start firing away at the (admittedly imperfect) budget bill, or escalate to DefCon 1, by tweeting nonsense about impeachment, the Epstein files, or disengaging his successful space efforts from the U.S. agenda to stay preeminent in space. After all, he and Trump have roughly the same enemies—the Left, that is now delighted at their quarrel—and the same general aims: to repeal the progressive cultural project, to restore meritocracy in lieu of DEI, to strive to ensure the U.S. is globally preeminent economically and militarily, to unfetter the economy, and to limit government intrusion. It is an irony of our checks and balances that an elected president, with majorities in both branches of Congress, still does not govern without compromise with hundreds of representatives and senators. Trump's task is now further complicated because, perhaps for the first time in U.S. history, he is also the daily target of a systemic attack by legions of cherry-picked, lower-court, liberal federal district judges, who find their five-minutes of liberal fame by issuing fiats not for their regional jurisdictions, but for all 340 million Americans everywhere. Musk, on the other hand, as the richest man in the world and CEO of his companies, can rule more by directives, in a way a president, the most powerful man in the world, simply cannot. What the White House may have wanted in the bill, and what it could reasonably achieve, were not always synonymous. Moreover, Musk knows that his nemesis is the Left, not MAGA, much less Trump himself. Trump was sincerely awed by Musk's rocketry and his rescue of the astronauts. He befriended Musk because he admired his competence, similar candor, and even his eccentricities—and saw what his talents were doing and could do for the country. Musk, in turn, was moved by Trump's defiance after nearly having his head blown off, and likewise, was appalled by what the Left had done to the border, in the blue-city downtowns, in Kabul, and anywhere subject to their anti-Midas touch. Musk knows that the leftwing California coastal commission tried to curtail his rocket launches, out of spite. The state bureaucracies drove Tesla out. Democrats tried to ruin him for his valuable work with DOGE. If the Democrats win the House, they will go after both Musk and Trump with endless subpoenas and nihilist Mueller-like investigations. (Musk should redirect right now to strategize with Republican House members about how to ward off a Democratic takeover). Tesla started bleeding because of a systematic leftwing effort to terrorize Tesla drivers, dealerships, and charging stations, and a Democratic-media-backed PR campaign to demonize the brand—all because Musk had aligned himself with Trump. So, Musk knows that Trump treated him fairly and gave him more latitude than any private presidential adviser since the friendship between the liberal Harry Hopkins (who moved into the White House) and FDR. What will likely follow? Hopefully a social media truce—followed by intermediaries restoring the friendship but spelling out the limitations and constraints on each that will result in a new less volatile, less intense, but more sustainable and mutually beneficial relationship for themselves and the country. Trump is now engaged in high-stakes diplomacy with some of the toughest, slyest, and meanest leaders in the world such as Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and the Iranian lunatic theocrats. He cannot afford to reach out to Musk and thereby appear to his enemies that he backs down. But if Musk reaches out and wishes to look ahead and not nurse wounds, Trump can certainly be magnanimous and to his credit, signal that he holds no grudges for what was said in the heat of passion, as he too looks forward to where and when he can help and be helped by Musk in the many areas where their aims are similar. The sane tech crowd, and most of the MAGA base, want an end to this aberrant Trump-Musk eruption. Over half the country concurs. Do not be fooled that the suicidal impulses of Democrats have neutered them. Instead, we are witnessing an unprecedented, unhinged Democrat effort to use lawfare, big Democrat donors, street theater, congressional disruptions, potty-mouth videos, the administrative state, the legacy media, and discredited pollsters to stop the Trump agenda. It will only intensify as the midterms near. Unity, not discord, is needed now—and quickly.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
As his trade war faces legal pushback, Trump has other tariff tools he could deploy
WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs are facing legal headwinds for the first time — but he has other tools he could deploy in his quest to realign global trade. A federal appeals court is still deciding whether there will be a stay on Trump's universal tariffs enacted through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the duties were unlawful last month. IEEPA is a national security statute that gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. It had never previously been used for tariffs. Trump declared emergencies at the United States' northern and southern borders linked to the flow of fentanyl and migrants in order to hit Canada and Mexico with economywide tariffs. He later declared an emergency over trade deficits to impose his retaliatory "Liberation Day" duties on most nations. The trade court found Trump exceeded presidential powers by using IEEPA to broadly implement the duties. The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision and the White House said it would take the case to the Supreme Court. Following the ruling, White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said he was confident the court ultimately would decide in Trump's favour. Hassett said that if it doesn't, "we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make American trade fair again." While the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress, Greta Peisch, the former general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said it passed laws over the last century that allow the president some control in certain situations. Trump is now looking to use those laws — some of them for the first time. The president may be considering Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It allows a president to hit countries with tariffs of up to 50 per cent if the country "is treating products of the United States disfavourably, compared to products of another foreign country," said Peisch, a partner at Wiley Rein in Washington, D.C. Section 338 has never been used by a president before and Peisch said it might be difficult for the administration to make a case for it. Trump also might look to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to take trade actions if an investigation finds a trading partner's policies are unreasonable and discriminatory. Trump used this law during his first administration to impose tariffs on some Chinese imports and European Union goods. But Section 301 requires country-by-country investigations of trade policy before a tariff can be imposed — investigations that could take weeks or months and would include a period for public comment. That certainly would slow down Trump's efforts to target the world with tariffs. If the president is looking for speed, Peisch said, he might try to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — another law that has never before been used. Section 122 allows a president to implement tariffs of up to 15 per cent to address large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits. But those duties can only stay in place for a maximum of 150 days before they need Congressional approval to continue. That reduces Trump's leverage if his goal is to pressure countries to sign trade deals — those countries could simply decide to wait the president out. Trump also has said tariffs will help pay down the deficit; the short-term Section 122 power is unlikely to work as a long-term revenue strategy. Ultimately, Peisch said, none of the replacement statutes could easily build Trump's universal tariff wall around the United States. "Nothing is a great fit without a lot of work," she said. "So I think it's potentially going to be a challenge." This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025. Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
Trump got what he needed out of Elon Musk
In his role as head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk spent several months gleefully subjecting parts of the government he doesn't like to an array of metaphorical power tools. 'We spent the weekend feeding USAID [United States Agency for International Development] into the wood chipper,' he wrote on X in February, after pushing to illegally withhold billions of dollars appropriated by Congress to fight famine, care for sick people, and vaccinate children against deadly diseases. 'Could have gone to some great parties. Did that instead.' A few weeks later, Musk celebrated his accomplishments to date by taking the stage at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference while triumphantly waving a chainsaw overhead. 'This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy,' he yelped, just in case the reference was too subtle for anyone in attendance. 'CHAINSAW!' On the one hand, Musk's efforts set up some of his businesses to make a bunch of money, and delighted Republican politicians whose idea of 'wasteful' spending is anything that does not make hedge fund executives or car dealership owners wealthier. On the other hand, his White House tenure shaved billions of dollars off his net worth, made it genuinely embarrassing to own a Tesla, and transformed Musk into one of the most reviled political figures in the country. Now, as Musk leaves the Trump administration and returns to the private sector—and as the two men engage in oafish public meltdowns on their respective social media platforms—the question of whether DOGE was, on balance, 'worth it' for Musk sort of depends on what happens to his portfolio over the next quarter or so. Already, Musk has embarked on a miniature image rehabilitation tour, framing himself in time-honored reactionary tradition as a tragic victim of his own success. In a soft-lit interview with The Washington Post, he said that DOGE had become the 'whipping boy for everything,' and bemoaned the 'uphill battle' he faced for simply 'trying to improve things in D.C.' In an interview with Ars Technica, Musk admitted that he 'probably did spend a bit too much time on politics,' and expressed eagerness to get back to the business that really matters: presiding over failed SpaceX launches. As a result, many retrospectives on Musk's time at DOGE read like obituaries, both for the organization and the movement it represents. In a recent Reuters profile, for example, a former DOGE staffer predicted that it would 'fizzle out' without Musk, and analogized the remaining employees to 'kids joining a startup that will go out of business in four months.' But talking about DOGE in the past tense is wrong for several reasons. First, Musk's actions will continue to inflict pain and suffering long after Trump has left the White House. One expert estimates that Musk's cuts to USAID have already resulted in about 300,00 preventable deaths, most of them children. Even if the $180 billion that DOGE says it has cut is a generous overestimate, people still died because Elon Musk decided it would be fun to cosplay as the president for a few weeks. Second, Musk's efforts to pillage the federal government will not end the moment he leaves town. A recent Washington Post analysis estimated that Musk's companies are propped up by $38 billion in government funding. Although Trump has threatened to stop doing business with Musk during their ongoing posting war—much, much more on that below—SpaceX in particular is integral to the modern U.S. space program, parts of which would grind to a halt without the (non-exploding versions of) Musk's rockets. Reluctant though Trump may be to keep paying out on these contracts, it would presumably be even more embarrassing for him to leave NASA without a viable in-house method of retrieving astronauts from space. Finally, DOGE was not and was never going to be a one-off effort to, as the conservative activist Grover Norquist once put it, make the government small enough to 'drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.' For decades, Republicans, at the behest of their corporate donors, have pushed the idea that government should be run like a business, and insisted that the legitimacy of any government expenditure depends on the associated return on investment. Only if elected officials do something about the scourges of wasteful spending, inefficient regulation, and dastardly bureaucracy, the argument goes, can America ever hope to reach its full potential. But Republicans face the same basic challenge every time they try to follow through on this promise: Although voters theoretically support the idea of making government more efficient, the real-world cuts Republicans would make to effectuate that goal are wildly unpopular. Normal people don't want to gut the National Park Service or the U.S. Postal Service, for example. They don't support making it easier for big banks to rip off consumers, and they definitely don't like GOP politicians threatening to take Sesame Street off the air. By outsourcing much of this unseemly work to Musk and DOGE, Republican lawmakers found a possible solution to their vexing PR problem: a method of speed-running some of the more controversial aspects of their policy agenda, but without having to cast costly votes to implement it. Now Musk is learning the hard way that although he was using the Republican Party to enrich himself, the Republican Party was using him, too. Republican lawmakers are attempting to pass Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' a budget reconciliation bill that would result in some 10.9 million fewer people with access to health insurance by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Although the bill would cut some $1.3 trillion in federal spending over a decade, it's still projected to add an additional $2.4 trillion to the national debt over that same period, thanks to a cool $3.7 trillion in tax cuts. Musk at first described himself as 'disappointed' by the bill's price tag, which he said 'undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.' When his opinion failed to persuade the White House (or Republican leadership on Capitol Hill) to change course, Musk began lashing out, calling the 'Big Ugly Bill' a 'disgusting abomination,' and vowing to help 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' by voting for it. He then went on to call for Trump's impeachment, threaten to start a new political party, link Trump to the late Jeffrey Epstein, and otherwise mock the president as a hypocritical, spineless ingrate who would have lost the 2024 election in humiliating fashion if not for Musk's generous infusions of cash. As it turns out, when you just spent four months torpedoing your brand in pursuit of a shared ideological goal, watching your purported allies immediately abandon it can be a frustrating experience. In one sense, this constitutes a 'split' with Trump, in that Musk is indeed trashing the signature policy initiative of a president whose candidacy he supported to the tune of more than a quarter-billion dollars. But it is also evidence that Musk never fully grasped the nature of his relationship with Trump in the first place: While he was out there taking the (well-deserved) reputational hits for doing all the slashing and burning that Republicans wanted to see, GOP lawmakers were preparing to do what they always do: abandon this fiscal responsibility song and dance at their earliest convenience, and enact more tax cuts that will disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. When he took the gig at DOGE, Musk imagined himself as a revolutionary, uniquely positioned to identify and cut 'wasteful' spending by virtue of the power in the Republican Party that he believed he'd rightfully purchased. But Musk believed so strongly in his abilities that he forgot that the GOP does not care about saving public resources, but about redirecting that money to its political allies instead. Even if this iteration of DOGE 'fizzles out,' there will be another DOGE before long, because Republicans will never stop looking for ways to slash programs that help vulnerable people, and there will always be someone like Musk who is willing do their dirty work in exchange for the chance to line his pockets.
