12/19/19 (written by kheinle) — Mexico’s former Secretary of Public Security, Genaro García Luna, was arrested in Dallas, Texas on Monday, December 9. According to TheLos Angeles Times, he is thought to be the highest ranking Mexican official ever to be charged with drug trafficking in the United States. He served as Mexico’s Secretary of Public Security (Secretaría de Seguridad Pública, SSP) from 2006 to 2012 during the Calderón Administration. Prior to that, he led Mexico’s Federal Investigation Agency (Agencia Federal de Investigación, AFI) from 2001 to 2005 during the Fox Administration.
The indictment against García Luna was unsealed on December 10 in the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Eastern District of New York, leveling three counts of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and one count of making false statements in his U.S. citizenship application. With the former secretary’s protection, the Sinaloa Cartel was able to safely import tons of cocaine and other drugs into the United States between 2006 and 2012. The indictment specifically alleges that García Luna:
to distribute a controlled substance, intending, knowing and having reasonable
cause to believe that such substance would be lawfully imported into the United
States from a place outside thereof, which offense involved a substance containing
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute one or more controlled
substances, which offense involved a substance containing cocaine…”
to import a controlled substance into the United States from a place outside
thereof, which offense involved a substance containing cocaine…”
one or more materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and
representations, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of
the Government of the United States…”
García Luna’s arrest is emblematic of the serious challenges
facing Mexico. The country is notorious for its inability – in some cases
unwillingness – to curtail corruption, to check the extremely high levels of impunity,
and to hold elected officials accountable. In García Luna’s case, as Secretary
of Public Security from 2006 to 2012, he was “the man considered to be the
brains behind the Mexican government’s militarized war on drug traffickers,”
writes The New York Times. According to the
indictment, however, on two occasions García Luna received briefcases full of
cash from the Sinaloa Cartel totaling USD $3 million and USD $5 million. Thus, he
was simultaneously receiving millions of dollars in exchange for protecting the
Sinaloa Cartel and allowing it to operate with impunity while leading the
government’s “tough on crime” security plan targeting the Sinaloa Cartel, among
In hind sight, García Luna undermined his own strategy. “We
are obligated to confront crime,” he said in an interview
in 2008 discussing the potential to negotiate with cartels. “That is our
job, that is our duty, and we will not consider a pact.”
This indictment unveiled in the Eastern District of New York
also sheds some light on the previously unaccounted for growth in García Luna’s
personal wealth, as detailed by El Universal. “According to official
numbers, García Luna’s salary increase[d] by 120% and his assets increased
their value five times.” In 2002, the former secretary earned MXN $1.7 million
in 2002, but then jumped to MXN $3.7 million in 2008. He and his wife also
owned two homes valued around MXN $500,000 each in 2002, but then owned a MXN
$7.5 million-home in 2008 worth more than seven times that his two properties
combined just six years earlier. They then purchased two homes just four years
later in 2012 in Florida valued at USD $5.5 million combined. There have long
been questions surrounding García Luna’s ability to purchase such luxury homes;
the indictment may help fill in these gaps.
A Step Forward
With the blatant show of corruption on display in García
Luna’s indictment, his arrest is being applauded. “García Luna stands accused
of taking millions of dollars in bribes from ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán’s Sinaloa Cartel
while [García Luna] controlled Mexico’s Federal Police Force and was
responsible for ensuring public safety in Mexico,” wrote
U.S. Attorney Richard Donoghue. His “arrest demonstrates our resolve to
bring to justice those who help cartels inflict devastating harm on the United
States and Mexico, regardless of the positions they held while committing their
If convicted, García Luna faces between ten years and life
in prison. Mexico’s Attorney General’s Office (Fiscalía General de la
República, FGR) is also working with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
(Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, SRE) to extradite
García Luna to face charges in Mexico.
11/22/19 (written by T McGinnis) – On November 4, 2019, nine members of a local Mormon family were killed in a cartel-related ambush in northeastern Sonora. Among the deceased, officials found and identified the bodies of three women and their six children, all belonging to the LeBarón family.
Ambushed en Route
to El Universal and The Wall Street Journal, at 10:00am on
the morning of November 4, the mothers and 14 of their children left their
homes in the small village of La Mora in three separate vehicles. Two of the vehicles
were traveling to the neighboring state of Chihuahua , while the third was headed
to Phoenix, Arizona, all to visit family. Witness accounts from affected family
members who survived say that around 10:20am, one of the SUVs was discovered
engulfed in flames. Three armed men were seen fleeing the scene.
40 minutes later, closer to 11:00am, the other two SUVs were attacked ten miles
further down the road. One of the vehicles contained Christina Marie Langford
and her seven-month-old baby. The other was driven Dawna Ray Langford and her
seven children. Dawna’s 13-year-old son, Devin, survived the ambush along with
several of his other siblings. After fleeing the attack and hiding in bushes
along the roadside, the surviving children then walked 14 miles back into La Mora
to alert authorities.
Suspects Behind the Massacre
attacks were the result of a clash between rival gangs in the surrounding area.
General Homero Mendoza Ruiz,
the Chief of Staff for Mexico’s National Defense, said that two criminal groups
had previously engaged in a shootout along the U.S.-Mexico border in the town
of Agua Prieta. They were identified as Los Salazar, based in the state of
Sonora, and La Línea, based in the neighboring state of Chihuahua. The New York Times thenreported that in an effort to create
barriers of entry for Los Salazar, La Línea had dispatched gunman to the region
that straddles Sonora and Chihuahua, which is where the attacks took place.
The motive behind the massacre has been debated. One theory is that it was a case of mistaken identity. General Mendoza noted that the suburban model of the SUV driven by two of the three mothers is commonly used by criminal gangs, which could have led to confusion about who was inside the vehicles. Additionally, investigators cited that because the children in one of the vehicles were allegedly able to flee, this suggests that the attack was not specifically directed toward the families.
Another theory, however, speculated that the
LeBarón family was somehow more intimately entangled and actively engaged in
the rivalry. Even some family members themselves said that what transpired on
November 4 was most likely a targeted, intentional operation by criminal
groups. According to Milenio, Julián
LeBarón, the cousin of a victim, stated that although the community remains
bewildered by the guiding motivations of the involved groups, there is no doubt
that “they [were] intentionally murdered.”
Still, accounts differ with regard to the
relationship between the Mormon community and local cartels. Some investigators
suggested that the motive behind the attack may be linked to the community’s
“cordial” relationship with Los Salazar criminal group, which controls most of
the activity in that region. Los Salazar are thought to be aligned with the
Sinaloa Cartel, headed by Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán – a stringent enemy of La
Línea. Some speculate that the ambush served as a message to the Sinaloa
factions that La Línea, and more broadly the Juárez Cartel, control the road and
therefore the drug trafficking routes that lead into the state of Chihuahua.
Mormon History in
Although various news stories have portrayed
the massacre as a violent attack against visiting U.S. citizens, the community of
over 5,000 Mormons living in northern Mexico dates back to the early 20th
century and consists of many dual nationals. According to El Universal, the LeBarón family initially made the move into Mexico
to practice polygamy, a convention that since then, has largely faded out among
While some press accounts have focused on
this aspect—including conspiracy theories attempting to link the victims’
families to the human trafficking ring known as NXIVM—others have focused on
the family’s activism in advocating for the rights of crime victims and local
disputes over land tenure and water. A decade earlier, two members of the
LeBarón family were kidnapped and murdered following their confrontation of the
drug gangs that control the borderlands south of Arizona. That incident spurred
family members to organize locally and nationally to pressure the government to
act to improve citizen security and victim protections.
Though authorities are still working to
identify possible suspects and uncovering the real motivations for the massacre,
the implications for the U.S.-Mexico relationship remain much more evident.
Since the attack occurred approximately 70 miles from the Arizona-Mexico border
and against dual U.S.-Mexico citizens, U.S. politicians have become
increasingly vocal regarding the security policy of Mexican President Andres
Manuel López Obrador. According to TheWall Street Journal, U.S. President Donald
Trump offered help in combating cartel violence. “This is the time for Mexico,
with the help of the United States, to wage WAR on the drug cartels and wipe
them off the face of the earth…the cartels have become so large and powerful
that you sometimes need an army to defeat an army!” he tweeted. Given the
historical legacy of U.S. interventionism in Mexico and apprehensions about
armed U.S. agents operating in Mexico, President López Obrador swiftly declined
Jorge Chabat, an analyst at the
University of Guadalajara, stated that this incident will likely “raise the
temperature among conservative sectors in the U.S. precisely during election
season.” Other political actors, such as U.S. Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.), have
asserted that Mexico remains dangerously close to assuming the classification
of a failed state, especially given the violence seen in Culiacán and Veracruz.
“Mexico’s president hasn’t taken the threat seriously and innocent lives have
been lost again.” He urged Mexico to heed President Trump’s advice and join
U.S. military forces to launch a “full-scale offensive against these butchers.”
Trafficking at the U.S.-Mexico
Ironically, sources point out the
underlying complicity of the U.S. in the recent violence targeting La Mora’s
Mormon community. The New York Times
reports that at a news conference two days after the attacks, Mexican
government officials offered additional details regarding the incident.
According to investigators, “the ammunition used in the attack were .223
caliber cartridges manufactured in the United States by Remington” and usually
associated with AR-15 and M16 rifles. Each year, approximately 200,000 American
guns illegally cross the border into Mexico, many of which land in the hands of
the criminal organizations that fight to control the multibillion drug trade to
the United States.
Since taking office, President Obrador has issued public statements signaling that his time in office would constitute the end of entrenched political corruption and Mexico’s “War on Drugs.” With Obrador’s strategy of “hugs, not bullets,” he discusses a prioritized focus on alleviating the poverty that drives individuals to join gangs and fall prey to cartel influence. However, record homicide rates in 2019 alone have caused many to call this strategy into question. To intensify an already escalated situation, the incident on November 4 happened only two weeks after the Sinaloa Cartel laid siege to the city of Culiacán following the military’s arrest of El Chapo’s son, Ovidio Guzmán. For many, the subsequent release of Guzmán and retreat of military forces signaled a weak government security strategy. María Elena Morera, director of civil society organization Causa in Común, told The Wall Street Journal that, “Mr. López Obrador’s strategy is clearly not working. He can’t keep thinking that a government using legitimate force against criminals is what generates violence.”
Secretary of Security and Civilian Protection Alfonso Durazo initially reported that a suspect had been
brought into custody, but information later gathered indicated he was not
involved. The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, at the alleged request of
the Mexican government, later agreed to join the investigation into the
internal and external pressures equally intensifying, it remains to be seen
whether President López Obrador’s security strategy will evolve in the face of
increased scrutiny and international political pressure.
11/05/19 (Written by T McGinnis) – On October 17th, heavy fighting erupted in the Mexican city of Culiacán, Sinaloa after security forces detained Ovidio Guzmán López, the son of the jailed drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. According to El País, authorities initially reported that they found Guzmán during a routine search and arrested him due to the significant role he has played in his father’s illicit activities. However, as noted by the Los Angeles Times, the story evolved rapidly. Mexican officials later acknowledged that the operation had been planned, but suggested that it was physically carried out by rogue security forces without proper authorization. In either case, authorities lacked a search warrant upon entering Guzmán’s property, calling the legality of the mission into question from the beginning. Following this blunder, the cartel launched a large attack in retaliation. As videos and pictures of dead bodies and families scrambling for shelter surfaced and subsequently flooded the media, the public watched as the death toll gradually rose in the days following the violence. Univision later confirmed on October 21st that at least 13 people were killed and dozens more were injured.
According to Milenio, in reaction to the violence, authorities ultimately freed Ovidio Guzmán López and retreated, subsequently defending this course of action by arguing that the most important objective remains to avoid the loss of human lives. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador spoke publicly regarding the matter stating, “We don’t want bloodshed. We do not want that. From anyone. We are also hurting with respect to the loss of the life of an alleged criminal. We are not oblivious to the pain caused by the death of any person.” Reiterating the position that his administration has taken from the outset, Obrador insisted that “you can’t fight fire with fire.” However, this response raised strong criticisms of López Obrador’s security strategy, which thus far has failed to quell Mexico’s rising tide of violence, which has reached more than 3,000 murders each month as noted by El Universal.
Indeed, critics charged that the cartel’s victory represented a stunning “humiliation” for the Mexican government. According to The New York Times, though Obrador rightly maintains that he inherited the problem of unchecked corruption, those who oppose the strategy of release and retreat utilized by the government last month argue that these actions send the wrong message and set a dangerous precedent. Cartels may now more strongly assume that through the leveraging violence, they can get their way and further their interests. Additionally, while the López Obrador administration may opt not to go after drug traffickers, vocal critics like Ioan Grillo point out that the drug “war does not stop even if the government is not attacking them.”
López Obrador has also been criticized for the lack of an effective security strategy, despite his efforts to build a new National Guard to restore order. Indeed, many members of the National Guard have been diverted from their public security role to focus on stopping Central American migrants from entering the United States. Meanwhile, López Obrador’s efforts have been beset by protests from federal law enforcement officers who object to the dissolution of their agency, the Federal Police, and their incorporation into the National Guard during the recent reorganization of security forces, as noted last month by Justice in Mexico. Engelbert Ruiz, a Federal Police Officer, commented that “What is really happening is that they are simply changing our uniforms [with] no explanations, clarity, no rights or guarantees.”
According to the Diario de Yucatán, compounding an already complicated set of internal tensions, “Mexican media outlets reported that elements in the army were unhappy with the outcome of Thursday’s debacle in Culiacán.” As noted by sources, such as Mexican News Daily, this rift between President López Obrador and military forces continued to grow in the days following the operation. On October 22nd, retired military general Carlos Gaytán gave a highly critical speech regarding the worrisome status of “today’s Mexico” under the Obrador administration. “…We cannot ignore that the head of the executive has been legally and legitimately empowered. However, it’s also an undeniable truth that fragile counterweight mechanisms have permitted a strengthening of the executive, which has made strategic decisions that haven’t convinced everyone, to put it mildly.” Though Gaytán never explicitly referred to the Culiacán operation, established sources within the military informed The Washington Post that the speech served as a response to the mission on behalf the armed forces.
However, other sources point out that the story of Ovidio Guzmán’s release remains subject to two very different interpretations. According to Consulta Mitofsky for El Economista, “in Sinaloa, 79% of the population and 53% nationally, considered that the federal government did the right thing by freeing Ovidio Guzmán López from the threat of the Sinaloa Cartel to attack the citizens.” The state of Sinaloa, the cradle of Mexican drug trafficking, is overwhelmed by the presence of crime and an ever-increasing tendency of cartels to use insurgent tactics to achieve their political aims, such as the use of roadblocks to hinder military reinforcement. Vladimir Ramirez, a political scientist in Culiacán, explained that although the gunmen did not intentionally target noncombatants initially, the menace posed by the cartel remained clear. The citizens of Sinaloa, who have been subject and well-exposed to cartel reign, recognized this. The usual elusive quality of cartel gunmen had, in this case, materialized; their visible and violent presence forcing families to hide in small, anxiety-provoking spaces as described by Televisa. “It was a threat of terrorism,” Ramirez said. “The government acted with great responsibility.” Additionally, El Universal reports that during the operation, Aguaruto prison experienced a breakdown in security, resulting in the escape of approximately 50 prisoners, most of whom originally forfeited their rights due to ties with organized crime. Additionally, many approve of the government’s strategy of release and retreat because according to Milenio, cartel hitmen threatened to kill hostage soldiers and their families if Guzmán remained held by authorities.
Moving forward, it remains to be seen whether the Mexican president will heed critics’ warnings by cracking down on drug traffickers or continue to pursue a self-described approach focused on “hugs, not gunfights” (abrazos, no balazos). Clearly, though, what occurred in Sinaloa on October 17th has increased pressure on the López Obrador administration to develop a coherent and effective strategy to reduce both violent crime and the threat of Mexico’s powerful organized crime groups.
03/19/19- (written by Aitanna Ferrez) Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán was convicted in the Southern District of New York on Tuesday, February 12, 2019 on all counts brought against him for his role in directing the Sinaloa Cartel since roughly the 1980s. The trial revealed significant details about the Sinaloa Cartel, how it works, who is involved and where their business is conducted, providing a greater understanding of how this specific cartel has contributed to corruption and violence in Mexico. In the wake of his arrest and extradition to the United States, business of the cartel seems to be carrying on as usual, there is an ongoing epidemic of U.S. drug overdoses, and violence in Mexico has reached record levels. Understanding the impact of the Sinaloa Cartel and where it may be headed in Guzman’s absence requires a careful review of what we now know about the organization.
Background on the Sinaloa Cartel
According to InSight Crime, the Sinaloa Cartel began as a small group of farming families who switched to drug trafficking in the 1960s and 70s. In the 1980s, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán officially founded the Sinaloa Cartel. Up until his arrest in January 2016, Guzmán served with Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada Garcia as what has been perceived as head of the drug trafficking organization.
The Sinaloa Cartel achieved success in part because of its relatively decentralized structure, with different geographic divisions of the network working together as “separate but cooperating organizations.” Indeed, though identified as the organization’s formal leaders in principal, InSight Crime reports that both Guzmán and Zambada Garcia historically maintained their own individual organizational structures within the Sinaloa Cartel. Meanwhile, many of the Sinaloa Cartel’s activities and operations in Mexico and internationally were “outsourced” to local suppliers, distributors, and other partners.
According to Vanda Felbab-Brown, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, in an interview with ABC News, it was “El Chapo” Guzmán’s ability to “institutionalize power systems and relationships” that largely enabled the cartel to expand. According to Bret Hamilton, assistant special agent for Alabama’s sector of the DEA, the Sinaloa cartel is said to control about one-fourth of the drug traffic within the Mexican Region, with an even larger reach and hold on the United States.”
The effect of the reach of the Sinaloa Cartel and its network of contraband trade has had translates directly into its ability to, as InSight affirms, “successfully [penetrate] government and security forces wherever it operates.” As stated in a June 2018 CRS report, the Sinaloa Cartel has “successfully corrupted public officials from the local to the national level inside Mexico and abroad to operate in some 50 countries,” allowing it to become the top supplier of illicit psychotropic substances in the United States.
What We Learned from the Guzmán Trial
The trial of Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán was a lesson in and of itself on how the Sinaloa Cartel’s success has been contingent upon the high level of corruption within the Mexican police, military, and government. Witness testimony during the trial brought to the surface countless allegations against Guzmán and the Sinaloa Cartel, and corruption was arguably the prominent theme that emerged throughout.
As revealed in a VICE News podcast, the corruption of the Sinaloa Cartel is practically embedded in all aspects of life in Mexico. Two testimonies in particular – one delivered by a former government official Lucero Sanchez Lopez, who became a mistress of Guzmán and the other by Alex Cifuentes, a relative of one of Guzmán’s primary cocaine suppliers in Colombia – brought to light the degree of high-level corruption of the Mexican government by the Sinaloa Cartel. In addition, according to the New York Times following the final presentation of evidence, reports delivered the prosecution revealed possibly the most shocking claims against Mr. Guzmán, accusing the crime lord of “routinely rap[ing] girls as young as 13 years old.”
The first witness’ testimony illustrated the way that government officials fell under Guzmán’s sway even as they were sworn to enforce the law. Cifuentes, meanwhile, alleged that the cartel was able to bribe officials even at the highest levels of office, including then-president Enrique Peña Nieto (2012-2018), who allegedly accepted a bribe of $100 million to protect the Sinaloa Cartel from authorities.
The Sinaloa Cartel, though constantly challenged within Mexico by other drug trafficking organizations, seems to prosper well due to its significant international network, even after the guilty verdict of Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. In an interview with PBS Newshour, Mike Vigil, the former chief of international operations for the DEA, comments that capturing and convicting Guzmán “was a great moral victory for the rule of law, [but] it did very little to have a negative impact on the Sinaloa Cartel.” With the drugs continuing to be shipped, the Mexican government no longer hunting down drug lords, and Guzmán’s fate of little importance, the Sinaloa Cartel seems to continue to persist with business as usual.
Trial of Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. Source: USA Today.
02/11/19 (written by aferrez) The evidentiary phase of the trial of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán Loera, the purported leader the of the Sinaloa drug cartel, came to a conclusion on Wednesday, January 30, 2019 after having raised newfound speculation about the extent of the corruption in Mexico.
The trial included testimony from at least 16 of Guzmán’s “underlings and allies, some of whom served as cartel bag men.” Several of these witnesses are among those who made allegations of corruption about Mexican government officials, including members of the current and past Mexican presidential administrations.
According to Alan Feuer of The New York Times, “It is no secret that Mexico’s drug cartels have, for decades, corrupted the authorities with dirty money.” Nonetheless, the testimony of some witnesses brought several shocking allegations. For example, the testimony of Vicente Zambada, son of Ismael Zambada an alleged partner of Guzmán. On the witness stand, Zambada claimed his father had a bribery budget of one million dollars a month, and all of it went to high ranking government officials.
In addition to allegations brought forth by Zambada, another witness named Miguel Angel Martínez brought further allegations against Mexican authorities. According to Martínez’s testimony reported by again by Alan Feuer of The New York Times, the chief of Mexico City’s federal police, Guillermo González Calderoni, was the first official on Guzmán’s payroll in the late 1980s, and has since allegedly provided Guzmán with “secret information on an almost daily basis.” This information included, but was not limited to, the disclosure of a radar system installed on the Yucatán Peninsula by the United States government to track Guzmán’s drug flights from Columbia.
The testimony of such witnesses underscored the fact that major drug trafficking operations necessarily involve some significant level of government complicity. This was point was made especially clear by Juan Carlos Ramirez Abadía, a Columbian supplier of Guzmán, who was quoted by The New York Timesas stating that “It’s impossible to be the leader of a drug cartel in Columbia without having corruption…they go hand in hand.” Abadía testified that in order to traffic drugs internationally, his organization paid off everyone from journalists to tax officials.
As revealing as the trial has been with such examples, some experts think the revelations of corruption only scratch the surface. Feuer notes “the trial is offering a public airing of the crimes of the Sinaloa drug cartel –– but is only revealing ‘what the government would like us to hear.’” Indeed, Judge Brian M. Cogan, who presided over the case, had initially instructed some witnesses that they must refrain from discussing alleged corruption of government officials in Mexico because, “It would needlessly embarrass certain individuals and entities.” Nonetheless, the trial brought forth numerous specific details that suggested high level government involvement in the drug trade.
Perhaps the most shocking allegation of the trial was the claim that Guzmán directed a payment of $100 million dollar to then-sitting president Enrique Peña Nieto. Alex Cifuentes Villa, the Colombian drug lord who delivered the testimony against Peña Nieto, is recorded to have saidthat the Sinaloa cartel was initially contacted by Peña Nieto about the time he was elected president in late 2012, according toAlan Feuer at The New York Times. Feuer also notes that Cifuentes Villa testified that Enrique Peña Nieto asked Guzmán for $250 million in exchange for calling off a nationwide manhunt for himduring the campaign. Both Peña Nieto and the López Obrador government vehemently refuted the allegations brought against them and their administrations on social media and in public statements to the press.
In response to these allegations, the defense counsel representing Guzmán raised questions about the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution. In a quote for an article produced by BBC News Mundo, lead defense attorney Jeffrey Lichtman asserted that those testifying against Guzmán are, for the most part, members of the Sinaloa cartel themselves and their testimony is likely intended to gain them leniency on sentences that they are currently serving. Lichtman believes the level of legitimacy of the witnesses is tainted by the fact that they are “men who have cheated all their lives.” Indeed, several witnesses who testified during the trial reportedly struck deals with the prosecution in an effort to receive reduced sentences or U.S. visas.
The final ruling on Guzmán’s fate remains in the hands of the jury, which at the time of this posting was still deliberating on a verdict. Regardless of the outcome, some analysts raised questions about whether there would be a reckoning for corrupt officials, given the details that were revealed at trial. In an interview with CBC Radio, Anabel Hernández, author of Narcoland: The Mexican Drug Lords and their Godfathers, stated, “The trial of El Chapo Guzmán is very symbolic…but the problem is that [it] will not resolve all the corruption, all the laundering of money that exists in Mexico, and that helps the Sinaloa Cartel, and also other cartels, to exist.”
Meanwhile, the trafficking of drugs to the United States continues unabated. Guzmán’s alleged partner, Ismael Zambada, remains at large and numerous other drug trafficking organizations continue to thrive in Mexico. Numerous sources reporting on the Guzmán trial note that this drug trafficking activity and the corruption that results is likely to continue as long as there is a voracious appetite for narcotics in the United States.