Twenty bodies discovered in Sinaloa as Mexican cartel violence surges
The state prosecutor's office said on Monday that four of the victims had been decapitated and their bodies had been found hanging from a bridge on a main road near Culiacán, the state capital.
Another 16, one of whom had also been decapitated, were found inside a van parked beneath the bridge. The severed heads were found in a bag at the site.
The grisly finding comes at the end of the most violent month so far in a war between factions of the Sinaloa cartel, one of Mexico's most powerful drug-trafficking organisations, amid growing evidence that its main rival, the Jalisco New Generation cartel, has joined the conflict.
The war broke out on 9 September 2024, six weeks after the arrest of two of Mexico's most powerful crime bosses in El Paso, Texas.
Ismael 'El Mayo' Zambada, who founded the Sinaloa cartel with Joaquín 'El Chapo' Guzmán, was detained along with one of Guzmán's sons after a small plane touched down in the US. El Mayo accused El Chapo's son of betraying him and delivering him to US authorities. Now a faction led by El Mayo's son is waging war against another led by the two sons of El Chapo, who remain free in Mexico.
The Mexican government has piled thousands of soldiers into Sinaloa, but has proven unable to curb the violence. The last two months have been the most violent yet. Overall, the war has left nearly 3,000 dead or missing.
A message found alongside the bodies under the bridge indicated that the perpetrators belonged to La Mayiza, the faction led by El Mayo's son.
In the face of mounting losses, El Chapo's sons, known as Los Chapitos, have reportedly struck a deal with their one-time rival, the Jalisco cartel. The US Drug Enforcement Administration warned about the potential alliance in a report last month.
Such an alliance could shift the balance of power in a war that, until two months ago, seemed to be gradually reducing in intensity. It could also lead to a restructuring of the two groups' criminal empires, which extend not just across Mexico but the world.
US authorities have previously identified the Chapitos as key drivers in the trafficking of fentanyl, a potent synthetic opioid responsible for hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths in the US in recent years.
Under pressure from the Trump administration, Mexican authorities have striven to show greater action against fentanyl trafficking, especially in Sinaloa, with more lab busts, arrests and drug seizures.
According to US Customs and Border Protection data, fentanyl seizures at the border with Mexico have fallen by almost 30% this year compared to the same period last year.
The Trump administration has also designated the cartels as foreign terrorist organisations, while threatening the possibility of unilateral military action on Mexican soil, and recently accused three mid-sized Mexican banks of laundering drug money, cutting them out of the US financial system.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Federal court stops Trump's bid to ban asylum entry at Mexican border
A federal judge has ruled President Donald Trump 's executive order suspending asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border is unlawful. Federal District Judge Randolph Moss stated that the president cannot establish an alternative immigration system that bypasses existing congressional statutes. The ruling prevents the president from denying individuals the opportunity to apply for asylum and will take effect on July 16, allowing the administration two weeks to appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union and other immigrant advocacy groups successfully challenged the order, calling the decision 'hugely important'. The Trump administration, which has repeatedly attacked court rulings undermining its policies, is expected to appeal, despite recent significant drops in illegal border crossings.
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘A win for humanity': Trump's asylum ban at US-Mexico border ruled unlawful
A federal court has ruled that Donald Trump's proclamation of an 'invasion' at the US-Mexico border is unlawful, saying that the president had exceeded his authority in suspending the right to apply for asylum at the southern border. As part of his crackdown on immigration, Trump abruptly closed the southern border to tens of thousands of people who had been waiting to cross into the US legally and apply for asylum, signing a proclamation on the day of his inauguration that directed officials to take action to 'repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States'. In a ruling on Wednesday, US district judge Randolph Moss ruled in favor of 13 people seeking asylum in the US and three immigrants' rights groups who argued that it was unlawful to declare an invasion and unilaterally ban the right to claim asylum. Moss ruled that nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act or the US constitution 'grants the president or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the proclamation and implementing guidance'. He also asserted the constitution did not give the president the authority to 'adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated'. The ruling will not take effect immediately; rather Moss has given the Trump administration 14 days to seek emergency relief from the federal appeals court. But if Moss's ruling holds up, the Trump administration would have to renew processing asylum claims at the border. 'This decision is a win for human dignity and the rule of law. It sends a clear message: the government cannot use cruelty as a weapon against people fleeing violence,' said Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project – one of several immigrant rights groups that are plaintiffs in the case. 'Today's ruling makes clear three salient points that transcend immigration at the border and speak to who we are as Americans. First, we are a nation of laws. Second, the Trump administration's sweeping invocation of executive branch authority transgresses the bounds established by our constitution and our legislative branch. And third, the judicial branch is what stands between us and anarchy,' said Javier Hidalgo, legal director at the immigrant rights group Raices. 'The Trump administration's prerogative is once again found to be unlawful. It is increasingly clear where the illegality lies, and it is not with the immigrant families upon whom this administration is inflicting unfathomable harm.' People fleeing persecution and danger in their home countries would still be subject to a slew of other measures that have restricted access to legal immigration pathways. But the ruling would require the homeland security department to offer people at the southern border at least some way to seek refuge in the US. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion For now, crossings at the US-Mexico border have dropped sharply since the administration cut off legal pathways to enter and ramped up the active military presence in the region. But many who had journeyed to the border – fleeing extreme violence, authoritarianism and poverty in Central and South America, as well as Africa and Asia – remained stranded on the Mexican side, holding out hope in shelters for migrants. Others have dispersed into Mexico, seeking work or residency there. Advocates have warned that many of the migrants left in the lurch by Trump's abrupt asylum ban have been put in vulnerable and dangerous situations. The plaintiffs in the case challenging Trump's ban had fled persecution in Afghanistan, Ecuador, Cuba, Egypt, Brazil, Turkey and Peru. Some have already been removed from the US. The district court ruling comes after a landmark supreme court decision last week in a case challenging Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship. On Friday, the country's highest court ruled to curb the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding the president's policies. But because the case challenging Trump's asylum ban was filed as a class-action lawsuit, it is not affected by the higher court's restriction. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff and an architect of the Trump administration's immigration policy, on social media criticized the case for trying to 'circumvent' the supreme court ruling, even though the lawsuit had been filed as a class action months ago. He said the ruling created 'a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States'.
The Independent
7 hours ago
- The Independent
Judge blocks Trump's asylum ban at southern border saying he exceeded authority
A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's order suspending asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border. In a day-one executive order, Trump declared the situation at the southern border constitutes what he called an invasion of America. The president said he was 'suspending the physical entry' of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decides it is over. Federal District Judge Randolph Moss has now blocked that order, writing, 'the President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted.' Moss added that neither the Constitution nor immigration law gives the president 'an extra-statutory, extra-regulatory regime for repatriating or removing individuals from the United States, without an opportunity to apply for asylum' or other humanitarian protections. The order will take effect July 16, giving the Trump administration two weeks to appeal. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the merits of the case, called Moss's ruling a 'hugely important decision.' 'Not only will it save the lives of families fleeing grave danger, it reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers,' Gelernt said in a statement. The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to a request but an appeal is likely. The president and his aides have repeatedly attacked court rulings that undermine his policies as judicial overreach. The ruling comes after illegal border crossings have plummeted. The White House said Wednesday that Border Patrol made 6,070 arrests in June, down 30 percent from May. On June 28, the Border Patrol made only 137 arrests, a sharp contrast to late 2023, when arrests topped 10,000 on the busiest days. Arrests dropped sharply when Mexican officials increased enforcement within its own borders in December 2023 and again when then-President Joe Biden introduced severe asylum restrictions in June 2024. They plunged more after Trump became president in January, deploying thousands of troops to the border under declaration of a national emergency. Trump and his allies say the asylum system has been abused. They argue that it draws people who know it will take years to adjudicate their claims in the country's backlogged immigration courts during which they can work and live in America. But supporters argue the right to seek asylum is guaranteed in federal law and international commitments — even for those who cross the border illegally. They say asylum is a vital protection for people fleeing persecution — a protection guaranteed by Congress that even the president doesn't have the authority to ignore. People seeking asylum must demonstrate a fear of persecution on a fairly narrow grounds of race, religion, nationality, or by belonging to a particular social or political group. In the executive order, Trump argued the Immigration and Nationality Act gives presidents the authority to suspend entry of any group that they find 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' Groups which work with immigrants — the Arizona-based Florence Project, the El Paso, Texas-based Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Texas-based RAICES — filed the lawsuit against the government, arguing the president was wrong to equate migrants coming to the southern border with an invasion. They also argued Trump's proclamation amounted to the president unilaterally overriding '... the immigration laws Congress enacted for the protection of people who face persecution or torture if removed from the United States.' But the government argued that because both foreign policy and immigration enforcement fall under the executive branch of government, it was entirely under the president's authority to declare an invasion. 'The determination that the United States is facing an invasion is an unreviewable political question,' the government wrote in one argument.
