Families of passengers killed in January midair collision say Army isn't taking responsibility, according to new letter
Alexandra Skores
, CNN
Roberto Marquez from Dallas, Texas, sets up a makeshift memorial on 31 January for the victims of the deadly midair collision near Reagan National Airport in Arlington, Virginia.
Photo:
Roberto Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images via CNN Newsource
The families of the victims of American Airlines Flight 5342 say they are "deeply dismayed" at the Army's recent actions regarding the ongoing investigation into the
midair collision in January that killed 67 people
near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
A new letter to the Secretary of the Army, signed by family members of the passengers who died when the regional jet and Black Hawk helicopter collided, called out the Army's refusal to engage with families, despite other parties involved in the accident being willing to cooperate.
"The Army's approach contrasts sharply with the more collaborative stance taken by other organisations involved in this incident and raises serious questions about its commitment to transparency and accountability," the letter read. "Our concerns were compounded when the Army withheld its unclassified ADS-B policy memo from Congress, only releasing it under threat of subpoena."
ADS-B is equipment installed in aircraft to detect and avoid potential collisions; however, in the January accident, the NTSB found it was
not transmitting in the Army helicopter
.
The Army has been criticised by lawmakers following the incident, including both Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Senator Ted Cruz and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell.
In April, Cruz said, "If another Black Hawk helicopter strikes another passenger jet and murders 67 people because the Army refused to change its policy of turning off ADS-B Out and rather than act proactively to protect people's lives - the Army chose to protect its bureaucratic a** - those deaths will be on the Army's hands."
The Army Inspector General later declined to open an independent audit into the crash, despite bipartisan support, as noted in the letter.
"Given that this is the deadliest incident involving US civilian casualties caused by the military in modern history, the Army has a heightened responsibility to ensure full public transparency and urgent implementation of meaningful safety reforms," the letter said. "The scale of this tragedy demands complete cooperation and accountability from all parties involved - including the US Army."
The families are requesting the Army appoint a family liaison, schedule a meeting with them and support the audits requested by Congress.
CNN has reached out to the Pentagon for comment.
- CNN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
14 minutes ago
- Newsroom
Europe's capitulation to Trump
Opinion: When Nato was founded in 1949, Europe and America worked as genuine partners. Sure, the Europeans needed American security guarantees more than Washington needed another military commitment. But there was mutual respect and shared purpose. Both sides knew the transatlantic relationship meant give and take. How times have changed.
NZ Herald
42 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Trump adviser defends labour official's firing, deflects on how data was politically ‘rigged'
'The President wants his own people there, so that when we see the numbers, they're more transparent and more reliable,' Hassett said on NBC. The latest jobs report, which triggered Trump's anger, hit at an especially sensitive point for the President. He called the report 'A SCAM' in a post to social media, saying without evidence that McEntarfer 'had the biggest miscalculations in over 50 years'. For months, he has boasted multiple times a week that the US now has the 'hottest' economy in the world. He has repeatedly told audiences that he has received that assessment from people he has talked to, attributing the comment at different times to Middle Eastern monarchs, European leaders and American businessmen. The Labour Department's latest monthly report showed the labour market to be at best lukewarm, adding just 106,000 new jobs over the past three months. That's far fewer than previously estimated and less than the amount needed to keep unemployment from rising. The report, which included steep downgrades of the estimates for jobs added in May and June, suggested that Trump's tariffs have started to seriously slow the economy. The revisions, while large, were not unheard of - final statistics on the number of jobs in the economy often differ widely from the initial estimates. When NBC's 'Meet the Press' host Kristen Welker pressed Hassett for proof to support Trump's claim that those numbers were 'rigged,' he deflected. 'The revisions are the hard evidence,' he said, adding, 'If I was running the BLS, and I had a number that was a huge, politically important revision … then I would have a really long report explaining what happened, and we didn't get that.' Where Hassett sees impropriety, Trump's former BLS commissioner, William Beach, sees revisions that resulted from McEntarfer 'trying to do a better job, getting more information'. On CNN, Beach rejected the argument that McEntarfer somehow manipulated the data for political purposes, saying that 'by the time the commissioner sees the numbers, they're all prepared. They're locked into the computer system.' McEntarfer has not commented publicly on her firing. Her dismissal comes amid broader concerns from policymakers and economic analysts about increasingly shaky government economic data over issues that, in many cases, predate her tenure leading the bureau. Falling response rates to government surveys, coupled with pandemic-driven seasonal quirks and long-standing budget strains, have made it harder to collect and analyse reliable data, officials have said. Agencies responsible for the data have also shed staff through early retirements, deferred resignations and normal attrition. Beach said that he will still trust the jobs numbers moving forward but that the attack by Trump undermines the public's trust in the bureau. 'I don't think there's any grounds at all for this firing,' he continued. 'And it really hurts the statistical system. … This is damaging.' Polls suggest the public has more trust in the accuracy of federal statistics, such as the unemployment rate, than in the federal government overall. A national poll of about 1000 adults conducted by survey research firm SSRS in June found that roughly 70% had at least some confidence in federal statistics, compared with 51% who said the same about the federal government overall. Former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers called Trump's claim that the BLS numbers were manipulated for political purposes 'a preposterous charge', telling ABC that McEntarfer's firing was 'way beyond anything that Richard Nixon ever did'. 'These numbers are put together by teams of literally hundreds of people following detailed procedures that are in manuals. There's no conceivable way that the head of the BLS could have manipulated this number,' said Summers, who led the Treasury Department under President Bill Clinton. Hassett also raised concerns about data quality - questioning whether the system has recovered from the chaos of economic data collection during the Covid pandemic. He argued that large revisions during the pandemic were happening 'all the time, all over the place', which was understandable given fluctuations in the job market. But after the pandemic, the large revisions have continued, he said. 'Right now, we've got BLS numbers that aren't really a lot better than they were during Covid, and we need to understand why. I think the President's right to call for new leadership,' Hassett told Fox News. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on CBS that the President's concerns with the BLS data date back to 'everything we saw last year', appearing to reference downward revisions to the 2024 jobs data that Trump complained about. 'There are always revisions, but sometimes you see these revisions go in really extreme ways,' Greer continued. 'The president is the president. He can choose who works in the executive branch.' The Trump Administration's push to overhaul major benchmarks it calls flawed predates the jobs report. In March, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick called for a change in the way economic growth is measured, though that idea has yet to move forward. Over the past decade, as a result of budget constraints, the BLS has scaled back key activities such as in-person visits, follow-ups, field training and travel - steps that are essential for data quality. It has said it is surveying fewer outlets for the consumer price index - the most widely used benchmark for inflation - because of staffing shortages in certain cities, and that it is discontinuing the calculation and publishing of wholesale pricing data on hundreds of products in the producer price index.
NZ Herald
19 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit
Indeed, Trump has routinely cited the tariff revenue as evidence that his trade approach, which has sowed uncertainty and begun to increase prices for consumers, is a win for the US. Members of his Administration have argued that the money from the tariffs would help plug the hole created by the broad tax cuts Congress passed last month, which are expected to cost the Government at least US$3.4 trillion. 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labour market. Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than US$2t in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the US abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' Trump has long fantasised about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the US away from taxing earnings and towards taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. US President Donald Trump. Photo / Tierney L. Cross, The New York Times Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the Government collects every year. 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden Administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Senator Josh Hawley, (Republican-Missouri), recently introduced legislation to send US$600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social programme, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogramme.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the US, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Andrew Duehren Photographs by: Alyssa Schukar, Tierney L. Cross ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
