Sanctioning The Los Chapitos Faction Of The Sinaloa Cartel And Its Mazatlan Network
June 9, 2025
The United States is committed to disrupting the illicit manufacture and trafficking of fentanyl, a leading cause of death of people aged 18 to 49 in the United States, as well as associated violence. Today, the United States is sanctioning Los Chapitos, a powerful faction of the Mexico-based Sinaloa cartel, along with its two fugitive leaders, Archivaldo Iván Guzmán Salazar and Jesús Alfredo Guzmán Salazar, who are sons of the incarcerated Sinaloa Cartel leader known as 'El Chapo.' Los Chapitos is at the forefront of trafficking fentanyl into the United States. Both Iván and Alfredo are designated as targets under the Narcotics Rewards Program with reward offers up to $10 million each for information leading to their arrests and/or convictions.
The United States is also designating a regional network of Los Chapitos associates and businesses based in Mazatlan, Mexico. This network engages in drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, and money laundering. Today's action follows the recent designation of the Sinaloa Cartel as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT).
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. Today's action further demonstrates the Trump Administration's unwavering commitment to eliminating cartels and ensuring the safety of the American people.
The United States took today's sanctions actions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14059 and 13224, as amended.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Far North Mayor Moko Tepania Undecided On Future As Parliament Calls Grow
A high-profile Northland mayor has yet to decide if he'll seek a second term, with multiple political parties trying to convince him to run for Parliament instead. Far North Mayor Moko Tepania said he would make the call about seeking re-election in the next few weeks after talking it over with whānau. Tepania confirmed he'd also been shoulder-tapped by a number of parties about entering national politics - but said he wasn't considering a tilt at Parliament "at this point". Tepania was just 31 when he was elected Northland's youngest mayor in 2022. He was also the Far North's first Māori mayor. The Kaikohe-based te reo teacher, who entered local politics as a councillor in 2019, said he was still considering whether to contest the mayoralty for a second time. "It's such a big decision, so it's not one I want to take lightly ... and it's not one that I can make on my own, because if I run again, and I get it, it's not just me that's going to be carrying the responsibilities of being there, but it's also my whānau by extension. So it's something that we are still giving careful consideration to." Tepania said he decided to run for mayor in 2022 around the same time of year, Matariki and Puanga. "It's a really good time to plan ahead, so I'm looking forward to making a decision in the next couple of weeks. If that decision is yes, Far Northerners are going to have me 110 percent for not only the campaign but, if successful, as mayor for the next three years." Asked if he was considering a run at Parliament, Tepania said he would do it only if he was in "a position of power to see transformative change for the people of the Far North". "Yes, I've been shoulder-tapped by a number of parties, but I wouldn't be looking to go to Wellington at this point. I wouldn't close any doors, of course. But for me, this decision is about the people of the Far North and whether or not I will run to be the mayor again." One thing Tepania didn't have to mull over was his support for Māori wards. He was already campaigning for retention of the district's four-seat Ngā Tai o Tokerau ward, with its future to be decided in a government-mandated referendum held alongside the local elections in October. While Māori wards had failed to win majority support in past polls - including in the Far North in 2015 - he believed this time would be different, because during the past three years Far Northerners had seen the "incredibly positive benefits" for council decision-making and communities. Tepania said it was "really unfortunate" that only the Māori ward was subject to a binding poll, and none of the council's 16 other wards or community board subdivisions. Nominations for the upcoming local elections opened on 4 July and a list of candidates confirmed so far had been expected on 7 July. However, the Far North District Council said publication had been delayed because Election Services had to check the candidates' eligibility first. In 2022, veteran councillor Ann Court led the race to be Far North mayor in the initial election-night count, but Tepania pulled ahead as special votes were counted. The final result put Tepania on 7805 votes to Court's 7362. Court served as deputy mayor when both Wayne Brown and John Carter were mayors. She told RNZ she would not contest the mayoralty but would seek re-election as a councillor. Former Horowhenua Mayor Michael Feyen, who now lives in the Far North, has previously stated he wanted to put his hat in the ring. Feyen confirmed to RNZ he would stand for the council but had yet to decide on the mayoralty. He has been a city councillor in Palmerston North and was a candidate for the New Zealand Loyal Party in the 2023 general election. Northland has two other mayoral contests to look forward to, at least one of which will see a changing of the guard. In the Kaipara District, Mayor Craig Jepson said he would seek re-election only as a councillor representing his home town of Mangawhai. He called on his supporters to back deputy mayor Jonathan Larsen as his successor. Jepson made national headlines early in his term by removing karakia from council meetings. His council was also the first in the country to abolish its Māori ward following a law change in 2024. High-profile iwi and business leader Snow Tane has also put his hand up for the Kaipara mayoralty. Currently general manager of Dargaville-based Te Roroa Development Group, Tane's previous career was in supermarket management. In the Whangārei District, sitting mayor Vince Cocurullo confirmed to RNZ he would seek another three-year term. First-term councillor Marie Olsen has also stated she would contest the mayoralty. Earlier this year a Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll found Tepania was the most popular mayor in New Zealand and Jepson the third most popular, despite their diametrically opposing positions. However, the poll had a large margin of error due to the small sample sizes. Tepania had a 39 percent approval rating, with an almost 5 percent margin of error, while Jepson had a 35 percent approval rating with an almost 10 percent margin of error. Nominations for the mayoralty, council and community boards close at noon on 1 August. Candidates will be announced on 8 August. Voting in the postal ballot will take place between 9 September and 11 October, when preliminary results will be announced.
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
On Why The Regulatory Standards Bill Is A Hot Mess
When the politician pushing a controversial piece of legislation starts accusing his critics of derangement syndrome as David Seymour has done this week then any chance of a rational debate on the Regulatory Standards Bill has gone When the politician pushing a controversial piece of legislation starts accusing his critics of 'derangement syndrome' – as David Seymour has done this week – then any chance of a rational debate on the Regulatory Standards Bill has gone out the window. Seymour's tantrum confirms the fears held by constitutional experts (and by many of the public) that Seymour is unfit to wield the powers conferred on him by this legislation. The Bill is a hot mess. That may be intentional. Is it a genuine power grab on behalf of corporates and foreign investors? Or is it a toothless rollcall of libertarian platitudes? Or is it something in between…say, a shot across the bow of the courts meant to chill their enthusiasm for upholding any environmental right or consumer protection that the business sector is known to oppose? For Seymour, reaching clarity on any of this may be irrelevant. After all, the politics of polarisation consciously generates fear and heat and anger; its what turns society into rival tribes, for the purposes of divide and rule. As with the Treaty Principles Bill, stirring up the liberal Establishment is one of the main goals of the exercise. In other words, it doesn't really matter if the Regulatory Standards Bill gets passed, for not. For ACT, it will have served its purpose if it merely becomes a media circus, in which Seymour gets to tread the parliamentary sawdust once more as the ringmaster, while the rest of the public cheers and jeers. That's how politics-as-performance works. It is never mainly meant to be a politics of substance. If it works out that way, that's only a bonus. Seeing red at red tape All along, Seymour's tendency to equate 'regulation' with ' red tape' has signalled the ideological bias behind his pet project. The Regulatory Standards Bill happens to be targeted at the body of environmental, consumer, workplace and Treaty-based regulations that have been developed since the 1970s to meet the needs of a modern, pluralistic society. No doubt, regulations are annoying and bothersome to the narcissists in our midst, but most of the time, those rules exist for a reason. They make society more liveable, for the majority of us. A social safety net is a hindrance only to the sort of people who never have to rely on it. Back to the Future Unfortunately, this means that the public has to explain patiently to the likes of Seymour, Federated Farmers and BusinessNZ that central government should respond (a)when extreme weather conditions driven by climate change wreak havoc on communities and households (b) when rivers and lakes get polluted for profit (c) when fishing stocks are driven to the brink of collapse (d) when our rate of workplace fatalities exceeds those in comparable countries (d) when predatory pricing is rife at banks and supermarkets and (e)when Māori health statistics continue to deteriorate… etc etc. You get the picture. Telling monolithic sectors of the economy that they have to act responsibly in the public good isn't socialism; its how a viable social democracy works. If anything we need more forms of co-ordinated action by central and local government to address the inequities in society. Instead, the coalition government seems to be intent on unloading the cost and responsibility onto individuals, households and communities. It seems to be intent on atomising society, not on bringing it together. Needless to say, this political philosophy – it relies a lot on stoking fear and greed, division and resentment – prepares us badly for the social and environmental challenges that New Zealand is facing over the next 25 years. In that respect, the Regulatory Standards Bill is a real throwback. It is as retro as the acid-wash jeans and shoulder pads fashionable during the mid 1980s high summer of neo-liberal thinking. And because the political worldview of Seymour (and his corporate sponsors) seem to be frozen in that primitive period of mid-1980s market economics, there's a historical dimension missing entirely from the draft Bill. Basically, there are no criteria for discerning' good' regulation from 'bad' regulation, beyond the whims and prejudices of the people chosen (by Seymour) to administer the legislation. What could possibly go wrong? While this may not be apparent to the ACT Party, regulation isn't just about red tape and bureaucracy getting in the way of the buccaneers of the boardroom. For the century preceding the 1980s, regulators working in tandem with government, business and (to a lesser extent, unions) created the rules that have governed market competition. Capitalism thrived under this regime. In a recent essay in Washington Monthly, Phillip Longman spelled out just how far into the engine room of the economy those regulations reached. The majority of the public were employed, housed and fed by these egalitarian rules, to an extent that free market economics has failed miserably to match. Here's Longman, listing some of those beneficial regulations: Which kind of banks could operate here and how much interest could they charge, or pay? What rates could railroads or airlines set for transporting various types of cargo or passengers over different distances? How much profit could investors in electric utilities or telecommunication companies make, and what customers were they required to serve, and at what prices? Point being, these rules were the product of a collaborative process, not the result of a deliberately divisive one. It was a process that did not toss the lessons of the past onto a regulatory bonfire: Working with industry, federal lawmakers and regulators hashed out rules that determined who could enter and exit different key sectors, what terms of service they could impose and with whom they could merge. During America's century-long rise as a capitalist superpower, such market rules fit together to form an increasingly sophisticated and pervasive system. That system has been called 'regulated competition.' Sure, there was some regulatory capture, on occasions. But at the time, there was a shared understanding that if left unregulated, market forces will naturally converge into a few dominant players, who will then prey on their captive customers. That's what we're seeing now with our banks, supermarkets and electricity companies, and what we saw with our telcos in the recent past. It may sound like a paradox, but 'free' markets have to be constantly regulated in order to remain free. No doubt, this is a fallible process. Arguably, Big Tech today needs to be regulated for anti-trust purposes in the same way as the US oil magnates, railway barons and meat packing companies were in the past. Unfortunately it is these kind of 'sophisticated and pervasive' systems of regulation that Seymour and his boardroom friends are demonising (and wish to tear down) for their short term political and economic gain. The folly of doing so has already been demonstrated in post-Thatcher Britain, where devastated communities are now turning to Nigel Farage for their salvation. Likewise in the US, the millions of victims of de-regulated market forces have turned to Donald Trump. In New Zealand the same quackery – remove the chains of regulation and set our entrepreneurial spirit free! – is being preached to us by David Seymour. We need to oppose it, tooth and nail. Footnote: In the light of the coalition government's attitude to the coercive contracts now common within the gig economy – sign away your employment rights or you won't get the job – it is interesting to read this paragraph written by the US Supreme Court judges 114 years ago, as they ordered the breaking up of the oil empire of America's first billionaire, John D Rockefeller, into over 30 smaller companies. In England and in the US before 1911, the Supreme Court said: … Public policy has been to prohibit, or treat as illegal, contracts, or acts entered into with intent to wrong the public and which unreasonably restrict competitive conditions, limit the right of individuals, restrain the free flow of commerce, or bring about public evils such as the enhancement of prices. Sheesh. If only New Zealand would prohibit (or treat as illegal) coercive contracts that limit the rights of individuals, wrong the public, restrict competition and foster public evils such as price fixing by supermarkets and electricity companies. Unfortunately, the simple-minded worldview being promoted by the Regulatory Standards Bill will make such public evils more likely, not less so. The Dark Star of Inflation There isn't an obvious link between central banking and the Grateful Dead. Yet two years ago, US Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell publicly confessed to the House Financial Services Committee that he has been a Grateful Dead fan for the past 50 years. To the vast irritation of Donald Trump, Powell is refusing to cut US interest rates until he sees what the inflationary impact of Trump's tariffs will be. Because of the uncertain inflation outlook, Australia's central bank also refused this week to cut interest rates. Yesterday, the RBNZ did the same. It kept the rate at 3.25% despite pleas by economists and by pundits that our economy is languishing in a really, really weak condition. Unemployment is at very high levels, employment is falling and people with little or no job security are feeling naturally reluctant to spend what money they have. Perversely though…more people being thrown out of work, wage growth being suppressed and more households being daunted by high prices at the checkout all tend to be welcomed by the RBNZ. Why? Because they provide a brake on inflation. Given such brutal realities, its no wonder people have always flocked to the serenity of Dead concerts. Down the years though, the band's fan base have not simply been comprised of travellers on the psychedelic astral plane. The tireless tapers of Dead concerts, and the compulsive setlist compilers include a lot of workaholic Type A personalities as well. Here are the members of the RBNZ monetary policy committee that sets interest rates. No offence, but it isn't easy to spot the likely Grateful Dead fan (or fans) among them. Here's the Dead's signature track. By the time it ends, it will feel as if the policy committee's next meeting – and a further 25 point rate cut – is almost due.
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
On Why The Regulatory Standards Bill Is A Hot Mess
When the politician pushing a controversial piece of legislation starts accusing his critics of 'derangement syndrome' – as David Seymour has done this week – then any chance of a rational debate on the Regulatory Standards Bill has gone out the window. Seymour's tantrum confirms the fears held by constitutional experts (and by many of the public) that Seymour is unfit to wield the powers conferred on by this legislation. The Bill is a hot mess. That may be intentional. Is it a genuine power grab on behalf of corporates and foreign investors? Or is it a toothless rollcall of libertarian platitudes? Or is it something in a shot across the bow of the courts meant to chill their enthusiasm for upholding any environmental right or consumer protection that the business sector is known to oppose? For Seymour, reaching clarity on any of this may be irrelevant. After all, the politics of polarisation consciously generates fear and heat and anger; its what turns society into rival tribes, for the purposes of divide and rule. As with the Treaty Principles Bill, stirring up the liberal Establishment is one of the main goals of the exercise. In other words, it doesn't really matter if the Regulatory Standards Bill gets passed, for not. For ACT, it will have served its purpose if it merely becomes a media circus, in which Seymour gets to tread the parliamentary sawdust once more as the ringmaster, while the rest of the public cheers and jeers. That's how politics-as-performance works. It is never mainly meant to be a politics of substance. If it works out that way, that's only a bonus. Seeing red at red tape All along, Seymour's tendency to equate 'regulation' with ' red tape' has signalled the ideological bias behind his pet project. The Regulatory Standards Bill happens to be targeted at the body of environmental, consumer, workplace and Treaty-based regulations that have been developed since the 1970s to meet the needs of a modern, pluralistic society. No doubt, regulations are annoying and bothersome to the narcissists in our midst, but most of the time, those rules exist for a reason. They make society more liveable, for the majority of us. A social safety net is a hindrance only to the sort of people who never have to rely on it. Back to the Future Unfortunately, this means that the public has to explain patiently to the likes of Seymour, Federated Farmers and BusinessNZ that central government should respond (a)when extreme weather conditions driven by climate change wreak havoc on communities and households (b) when rivers and lakes get polluted for profit (c) when fishing stocks are driven to the brink of collapse (d) when our rate of workplace fatalities exceeds those in comparable countries (d) when predatory pricing is rife at banks and supermarkets and (e)when Māori health statistics continue to deteriorate... etc etc. You get the picture. Telling monolithic sectors of the economy that they have to act responsibly in the public good isn't socialism; its how a viable social democracy works. If anything we need more forms of co-ordinated action by central and local government to address the inequities in society. Instead, the coalition government seems to be intent on unloading the cost and responsibility onto individuals, households and communities. It seems to be intent on atomising society, not on bringing it together. Needless to say, this political philosophy – it relies a lot on stoking fear and greed, division and resentment - prepares us badly for the social and environmental challenges that New Zealand is facing over the next 25 years. In that respect, the Regulatory Standards Bill is a real throwback. It is as retro as the acid-wash jeans and shoulder pads fashionable during the mid 1980s high summer of neo-liberal thinking. And because the political worldview of Seymour (and his corporate sponsors) seem to be frozen in that primitive period of mid-1980s market economics, there's a historical dimension missing entirely from the draft Bill. Basically, there are no criteria for discerning' good' regulation from 'bad' regulation, beyond the whims and prejudices of the people chosen (by Seymour) to administer the legislation. What could possibly go wrong? While this may not be apparent to the ACT Party, regulation isn't just about red tape and bureaucracy getting in the way of the buccaneers of the boardroom. For the century preceding the 1980s, regulators working in tandem with government, business and (to a lesser extent, unions) created the rules that have governed market competition. Capitalism thrived under this regime. In a recent essay in Washington Monthly, Phillip Longman spelled out just how far into the engine room of the economy those regulations reached. The majority of the public were employed, housed and fed by these egalitarian rules, to an extent that free market economics has failed miserably to match. Here's Longman, listing some of those beneficial regulations: Which kind of banks could operate here and how much interest could they charge, or pay? What rates could railroads or airlines set for transporting various types of cargo or passengers over different distances? How much profit could investors in electric utilities or telecommunication companies make, and what customers were they required to serve, and at what prices? Point being, these rules were the product of a collaborative process, not the result of a deliberately divisive one. It was a process that did not toss the lessons of the past onto a regulatory bonfire: Working with industry, federal lawmakers and regulators hashed out rules that determined who could enter and exit different key sectors, what terms of service they could impose and with whom they could merge. During America's century-long rise as a capitalist superpower, such market rules fit together to form an increasingly sophisticated and pervasive system. That system has been called 'regulated competition.' Sure, there was some regulatory capture, on occasions. But at the time, there was a shared understanding that if left unregulated, market forces will naturally converge into a few dominant players, who will then prey on their captive customers. That's what we're seeing now with our banks, supermarkets and electricity companies, and what we saw with our telcos in the recent past. It may sound like a paradox, but 'free' markets have to be constantly regulated in order to remain free. No doubt, this is a fallible process. Arguably, Big Tech today needs to be regulated for anti-trust purposes in the same way as the US oil magnates, railway barons and meat packing companies were in the past. Unfortunately it is these kind of 'sophisticated and pervasive' systems of regulation that Seymour and his boardroom friends are demonising (and wish to tear down) for their short term political and economic gain. The folly of doing so has already been demonstrated in post-Thatcher Britain, where devastated communities are now turning to Nigel Farage for their salvation. Likewise in the US, the millions of victims of de-regulated market forces have turned to Donald Trump. In New Zealand the same quackery – remove the chains of regulation and set our entrepreneurial spirit free! - is being preached to us by David Seymour. We need to oppose it, tooth and nail. Footnote: In the light of the coalition government's attitude to the coercive contracts now common within the gig economy – sign away your employment rights or you won't get the job – it is interesting to read this paragraph written by the US Supreme Court judges 114 years ago, as they ordered the breaking up of the oil empire of America's first billionaire, John D Rockefeller, into over 30 smaller companies. In England and in the US before 1911, the Supreme Court said: ... Public policy has been to prohibit, or treat as illegal, contracts, or acts entered into with intent to wrong the public and which unreasonably restrict competitive conditions, limit the right of individuals, restrain the free flow of commerce, or bring about public evils such as the enhancement of prices. Sheesh. If only New Zealand would prohibit (or treat as illegal) coercive contracts that limit the rights of individuals, wrong the public, restrict competition and foster public evils such as price fixing by supermarkets and electricity companies. Unfortunately, the simple-minded worldview being promoted by the Regulatory Standards Bill will make such public evils more likely, not less so. The Dark Star of Inflation There isn't an obvious link between central banking and the Grateful Dead. Yet two years ago, US Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell publicly confessed to the House Financial Services Committee that he has been a Grateful Dead fan for the past 50 years. To the vast irritation of Donald Trump, Powell is refusing to cut US interest rates until he sees what the inflationary impact of Trump's tariffs will be. Because of the uncertain inflation outlook, Australia's central bank also refused this week to cut interest rates. Yesterday, the RBNZ did the same. It kept the rate at 3.25% despite pleas by economists and by pundits that our economy is languishing in a really, really weak condition. Unemployment is at very high levels, employment is falling and people with little or no job security are feeling naturally reluctant to spend what money they have. Perversely people being thrown out of work, wage growth being suppressed and more households being daunted by high prices at the checkout all tend to be welcomed by the RBNZ. Why? Because they provide a brake on inflation. Given such brutal realities, its no wonder people have always flocked to the serenity of Dead concerts. Down the years though, the band's fan base have not simply been comprised of travellers on the psychedelic astral plane. The tireless tapers of Dead concerts, and the compulsive setlist compilers include a lot of workaholic Type A personalities as well. Here are the members of the RBNZ monetary policy committee that sets interest rates. No offence, but it isn't easy to spot the likely Grateful Dead fan (or fans) among them. Here's the Dead's signature track. By the time it ends, it will feel as if the policy committee's next meeting – and a further 25 point rate cut – is almost due.
