FirstAlerts

Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake Strikes Peru's Southern Andes, USGS Says

The United States Geological Survey recorded a magnitude 6.7 earthquake in Peru on August 20, 2026, with no tsunami evaluation flagged.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 20, 2026, 2:22 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 20, 2026, 12:57 p.m. ETUpdated Aug 22, 2026, 12:16 p.m. ET
A struck Peru on August 20, 2026, according to (USGS). The USGS recorded one felt report and classified the quake as . The was not flagged for tsunami evaluation, according to WAM and Tempo. The USGS located the epicenter , according to WTOP. Cyprus Mail reported the epicenter as . The depth was reported as by Cyprus Mail and WAM, and by WTOP and Tempo. The time of the quake was reported as 00:00:00 UTC by Cyprus Mail and WAM, and 18:00:00 UTC by WTOP and Tempo.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 20, 2026, 2:22 p.m. ETFirst report

    Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake Strikes Near Upahuacho, Peru

    A magnitude 6.7 earthquake occurred at 18:00:15 UTC on August 20, 2026, about 38 km northwest of Upahuacho, Peru, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The quake was recorded at a shallow depth of 66.7 km. The USGS reported one felt report.

    The earthquake's magnitude has been reviewed by the USGS. No tsunami evaluation has been flagged. The event is still developing, and further information may be released as it becomes available.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 722 Aug 2026, 16:16current

    Updated to include the USGS as the source of the magnitude and location, and added the competing depth and time figures from Cyprus Mail and WAM.

  2. Version 621 Aug 2026, 00:26

    Updated to reflect the published status and ensure all figures are attributed and conflicts are reported as ranges.

  3. Version 520 Aug 2026, 23:35

    Updated to include the USGS as the source of the magnitude and location, and added the depth and time discrepancies.

  4. Version 420 Aug 2026, 22:59

    Updated to include the USGS as the source of the magnitude and other official data, and to report the conflicting depth and time figures with attribution.

  5. Version 320 Aug 2026, 20:01

    Updated to reflect conflicting reports on depth, time, and location, and added attribution to both sources.

  6. Version 220 Aug 2026, 19:16

    Clarified location as reported by wtop.com; removed redundant confirmation language.

  7. Version 120 Aug 2026, 18:52

    First published.

  8. Version 120 Aug 2026, 18:22current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.