logo
Texas bill banning residents of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia from owning property isn't law — yet

Texas bill banning residents of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia from owning property isn't law — yet

Yahoo15-05-2025

Texas state Senate Bill 17, which the House passed on May 9, 2025, aims to restrict citizens of certain nations — China, Russia, Iran and North Korea — from owning property in the United States.
While the bill's language doesn't explicitly forbid all citizens of those foreign countries from owning property, it does ban foreign citizens "acting as an agent or on behalf of a designated country" from owning property. It doesn't specify what "acting as an agent or on behalf of a designated country" means but gives the state attorney general the responsibility to enforce the law.
The law, which would take effect on Sept. 1, 2025, includes exceptions for individuals with U.S. citizenship and for lawful permanent residents. Existing landowners affected by the bill would be able to keep their property but would not be able to purchase or lease additional land.
A controversial amendment passed by the House would allow the governor to add or remove nations or "transnational criminal organizations" to/from the list of banned entities.
Therefore, exactly who would be affected by the law depends on how the attorney general decides to interpret it — in its most broad interpretation, the bill could act as a total ban for foreign landowners without U.S. citizenship or lawful residency from the designated countries.
In May 2025, viral posts appeared on social media claiming Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced he would sign a bill blocking citizens of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea from owning land in the state.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1102324308590264&id=100064381164299&set=a.636197345202965
The claim was based on Senate Bill 17 (SB17), a state bill aiming to heavily restrict, if not outright ban, certain foreign entities from owning property in the state. Abbott did announce on his social media accounts that he planned to sign it into law.
How strict the proposed restriction on foreign citizens of those countries will depend on how it's interpreted. The bill contained exceptions for individuals with U.S. citizenship (dual citizens) or lawful permanent residency status, meaning that under its broadest interpretation, the bill as written could be used to ban most, but not all, citizens of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea from buying land in the state if it went into effect.
Additionally, since laws cannot retroactively penalize individuals, landowners from the aforementioned countries would be able to keep their existing landholdings but would not be allowed to buy more.
In July 2024, Snopes published an article fact-checking a claim that Chinese investors were buying farmland near United States military bases, including in Texas. (We found the claim was quite misleading.) Part of that story involved a Chinese billionaire, Sun Guangxin, attempting to build a wind farm on over 100,000 acres of land in Val Verde County, Texas.
The wind farm never happened, in part because of Texas lawmakers. In response to Sun's planned wind farm, the Texas legislature passed the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act (LSIPA), which banned businesses owned or controlled by individuals from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea from operating "critical infrastructure," including the electric grid.
SB17, which passed the Texas House on May 9, could be viewed as an extension of that agenda.
As originally written (amendments will be discussed below), SB17 aimed to restrict land purchases by different individuals and groups associated with "designated countries," which the bill defined as follows:
"Designated country" means a country identified by the United States Director of National Intelligence as a country that poses a risk to the national security of the United States in at least one of the three most recent Annual Threat Assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community issued pursuant to Section 108B, National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. Section 3043b).
That list currently consists of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, the four countries named in the claim we're fact-checking.
Under a proposed change, the following individuals or organizations would be banned from outright owning land in the state: (The original wording featured an exception that would allow the organizations to lease land for "less than 100 years.")
(1) a governmental entity of a designated country;(2) a company, nongovernmental organization, or other entity that is: (A) headquartered in a designated country; (B) directly or indirectly held or controlled by the government of a designated country; or (C) owned by or the majority of stock or other ownership interest of which is held or controlled by individuals described by Subdivision (4); (3) a company or other entity that is owned by or the majority of stock or other ownership interest of which is held or controlled by a company or entity described by Subdivision (2); or(4) an individual who: (A) is a citizen of a designated country and: (i) is domiciled outside of the United States; or (ii) unlawfully entered the United States at a location other than a lawful port of entry; or (B) is: (i) a citizen of a country other than the United States; and (ii) acting as an agent or on behalf of a designated country.
That last clause — "acting as an agent or on behalf of a designated country" — is where the complication lies, since the bill doesn't define what activities fall under that classification. It gives the state attorney general the power to enforce the law, meaning whatever that person says, goes.
As long as the individual in question is either a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States (meaning holds a green card), that person would not be at risk, as the bill does contain an exception specifically for those individuals. But for anyone else hoping to buy property in the state, if the AG decides that just being a citizen of a foreign nation makes you an "agent" of that foreign nation, that's an issue — the interpretation may be dubious, but you'd have to prove that in court.
That was not the final version of the bill, however, as legislators added and approved several amendments that changed things about it, including who the law would apply to.
Two separate amendments heavily tightened the 100-year limit on property leases, first to two years, then to one year.
Another amendment added members "of the ruling political party or any subdivision of the ruling political party in a designated country" to the list of people banned from owning land.
A fourth made it such that a citizen of a designated country who lived outside the United States had to be "lawfully present and residing in the United States at the time the individual purchases, acquires, or holds the interest," in order to buy property.
Finally, and perhaps most controversially, an amendment passed that would allow the Texas governor to add or remove "a country or a transnational criminal organization" to/from the banned list after consulting with Texas' public safety director and the Homeland Security Council.
The bill, which would go into effect on Sept. 1, 2025, isn't law just yet (as of the time of this writing) — it, and all of its amendments, have to pass through the state Senate before landing on Abbott's desk to sign. The state Senate, like the state House, is controlled by Republicans. In May, Abbott announced on his X account that he would "soon sign the toughest ban in the U.S." on land ownership by "people from hostile foreign nations."
Izzo, Jack. "Chinese Investors Are Buying Farmland Around US Military Bases?" Snopes, 23 July 2024, https://www.snopes.com//news/2024/07/23/chinese-farmland-military-bases/.
Kamal, By Sameea. "Texas House Advances Bill That Would Prohibit Land Sales to People and Entities from Certain Countries." The Texas Tribune, 9 May 2025, https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/08/texas-foreign-land-purchase-senate-bill-17/.
"Texas and Federal Government Seek to Protect U.S. Infrastructure From Disruption by Foreign Adversaries." Jackson Walker, https://www.jw.com/news/insights-texas-lone-star-infrastructure-protection-act/. Accessed 14 May 2025.
Yu, Issac. "Texas House Passes Bill Banning Chinese Citizens from Buying State Land." Houston Chronicle, 9 May 2025, https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/texas-bill-ban-land-ownership-20317591.php.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

LA Protests: National Guard Troops Have Detained Protesters (Live Updates)
LA Protests: National Guard Troops Have Detained Protesters (Live Updates)

Forbes

time31 minutes ago

  • Forbes

LA Protests: National Guard Troops Have Detained Protesters (Live Updates)

The National Guard has at times detained protesters in its deployment to Los Angeles, an official said Wednesday, as demonstrations against Immigration and Customs enforcement raids spread to other major cities. Protesters face members of the California National Guard and US Customs and Border Protection agents ... More in Los Angeles. June 11, 4:30 p.m. EDTMaj. Gen. Scott Sherman of the National Guard told reporters federal troops have made brief detainments of protesters in Los Angeles before handing them over to law enforcement for arrests, adding about 500 National Guard troops have been trained to assist immigration operations, the Associated Press reported. 5 a.m. EDTAn LAPD spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times they arrested 25 people for violating the curfew in the city's downtown area on Tuesday night. In a post on X on Tuesday night, the agency said 'multiple groups' were continuing to 'congregate on 1st St between Spring and Alameda' and added 'Those groups are being addressed and mass arrests are being initiated.' 2.30 a.m. EDTTexas Gov. Greg Abbott said he will deploy the Texas National Guard across several parts of his state 'to ensure peace & order,' as protests against ICE are planned in parts of San Antonio on Wednesday. In an X post, Abbott wrote: 'Peaceful protest is legal. Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrest.' June 10, 11.45 p.m. EDTIn a televised address on Tuesday evening, Newsom blasted Trump and described him as 'a president who wants to be bound by no law or constitution, perpetuating a unified assault on American traditions.' Newsom said, 'California may be first, but it clearly won't end here,' adding that other states and eventually democracy itself were 'next.' The governor added: 'Democracy is under assault right before our eyes — the moment we've feared has arrived.' Newsom also hit out at Trump for pardoning the perpetrators of the January 6 Capitol riots, saying: 'Trump, he's not opposed to lawlessness and violence as long as it serves him. What more evidence do we need than January 6th.' 11.30 p.m. EDTA significant portion of downtown Los Angeles is under a curfew, which was announced earlier in the evening by the city's Mayor Karen Bass, who said the restriction will be in effect from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. local time. Bass said she has introduced to the curfew 'to stop bad actors who are taking advantage of the President's chaotic escalation,' and added: 'Law enforcement will arrest individuals who break the curfew, and you will be prosecuted.' 4:56 p.m. EDTU.S. District Judge Charles Breyer turned down Newsom's request for an emergency ruling that would have blocked federal troop deployment in Los Angeles, giving Trump until Wednesday at 2 p.m. EDT to file a response to Newsom's lawsuit (Newsom can file his response to Trump by Thursday at 12 p.m. EDT). 4:47 p.m. EDTThe Trump administration asked the judge to reject Newsom's request and allow it to respond by Wednesday, calling Newsom's attempt to block the deployment of federal troops 'legally meritless' and saying it would jeopardize the safety of Homeland Security personnel and interfere with the government's ability to carry out operations. 2:20 p.m. EDTNewsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a filing at the U.S. District Court for Northern California, requested the federal judge quickly block the Trump administration's deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, arguing the order is 'unlawful' as there 'is no invasion or rebellion' in the city and asking the judge to act by 4 p.m. EDT 'to prevent immediate and irreparable harm.' 11:30 a.m. EDTInterim Defense Department comptroller Bryn MacDonnell told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense the cost of sending federal troops to Los Angeles was estimated at $134 million, 'which is largely just [temporary duty assignment] costs, travel, housing, food, et cetera.' 10:44 a.m. EDTHouse Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Newsom should be 'tarred and feathered' for how he has handled the protests, in response to a question about calls for the governor's arrest, provoking a response from Newsom, who said Johnson gave a 'fitting threat given the GOP want to bring our country back to the 18th Century.' 8:27 a.m. EDTIn a Truth Social post, Trump claimed Los Angeles 'would be burning to the ground right now' if he didn't deploy the National Guard to the city and appeared to reference wildfires that destroyed thousands of homes earlier this year, suggesting city and state permits are 'disastrously bungled up and WAY BEHIND SCHEDULE' to rebuild. About 700 active-duty Marines could start arriving in the Los Angeles area as soon as Tuesday, defense officials told CBS and the BBC, after a spokesperson for U.S. Northern Command told the New York Times the troops would arrive in the city overnight. 7:30 a.m. EDTSecretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will participate in the first of a series of congressional hearings he is scheduled to face this week, where he is expected to be grilled about the deployment of the Marines in Los Angeles—he will appear before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense on Tuesday. Hegseth was the first Trump administration official to suggest the deployment of active duty Marines to tackle the protests in an X post. 4 a.m. EDTThe Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, on Tuesday addressed the incident involving Australian news reporter Lauren Tomasi, who was struck on her leg by a rubber bullet while covering the protests on Sunday, saying the incident was 'horrific' and claimed footage showed that police had 'targeted' the journalist. Albanese said he has raised the matter with the Trump administration, and added: 'We don't find it acceptable that it occurred, and we think that the role of the media is particularly important.' 3 a.m. EDTThe San Francisco Police Department issued a statement about the demonstrations taking place in the city in support of the Los Angeles protests and said: 'Thousands of people participated in today's demonstrations, which were overwhelmingly peaceful.' However, the police arrested 'multiple individuals' at the end of the night 'two small groups broke off' and allegedly 'committed vandalism and other criminal acts.' 1:30 a.m. EDTAccording to the U.S. Northern Command, the 700 Marines being deployed in Los Angeles are from the 2nd Battalion of the 7th Marines Regiment, 1st Marine Division, and they will 'seamlessly integrate' with the 1700 California National Guard unit deployed to protect 'federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area.' 12:40 a.m. EDTThe San Francisco Chronicle reported that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote a letter to Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth on Sunday, asking him to order the military to detain or arrest 'lawbreakers' in Los Angeles. Legal experts cited by the report said Noem's letter may be attempting to circumvent federal laws, which prevent the military from participating in domestic law enforcement, by invoking the Insurrection Act. 12 a.m. EDTIn an interview with CNN, Trump's border czar Tom Homan defended the troop deployment plan and when asked about the role the Marines will play, he said: 'It all depends on the activities of these protesters – I mean, they make the decisions.' 'We don't know what's going to happen tonight – it seems like at night, the crowds get bigger, the violence be well prepared for the military here to protect government property and protect officers' lives,' Homan added. Earlier on Monday, LAPD chief Jim McDonnell said 'The possible arrival of federal military forces in Los Angeles — absent clear coordination — presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us tasked with safeguarding this city.' June 9, 11.30 p.m. EDTNewsom criticized the move to deploy Marines, saying the 'The Secretary of Defense is illegally deploying them onto American streets so Trump can have a talking point at his parade this weekend.' The governor said the state would sue to stop what he described 'a blatant abuse of power,' as he urged Courts and Congress to 'act.' 4 p.m. EDTUp to 700 Marines from a battalion based out of Twentynine Palms, California, were mobilizing to respond to the protests, according to ABC News, and are expected to deploy to the city within 24 hours. The Marines will aid the more than 2,000 members of the National Guard Trump deployed to Los Angeles, according to CNN. 2 p.m. EDTBonta announced he is filing a lawsuit against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, alleging Trump's order to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles was 'trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends' while federalizing the National Guard 'is an abuse of the President's authority under the law.' Bonta claims the deployment deprived California of emergency response resources, infringed on Newsom's authority and violates the state's 'sovereign right to control and have available' the National Guard. 9:40 when asked about Newsom daring Homan to arrest him, said he 'would do it if I were Tom—I think it's great,' claiming Newsom is 'grossly incompetent.' Earlier on Monday, Homan told Fox News that while 'no one's above the law,' there was 'no discussion' about arresting Newsom. 9:40 a.m. EDTWaymo removed vehicles from the downtown Los Angeles area and suspended service 'out of an abundance of caution' following guidance from the Los Angeles Police Department, though the robotaxi firm noted it was still operating in the greater Los Angeles region. At least six Waymo vehicles set ablaze Sunday and the company was in touch with the Los Angeles Police Department for an investigation, Waymo spokesperson Chris Bonelli told Forbes, as law enforcement warned burning lithium-ion batteries used in the cars release toxic gases, posing possible health risks, and to avoid the area. 8:54 a.m. EDTNewsom signaled he would sue Trump over his decision to send the National Guard into the state, alleging Trump 'flamed the fires and illegally acted.' June 9, 5 a.m. EDTAt least 60 people were arrested in San Francisco after police reportedly clashed with a group of protestors who gathered to show solidarity with the Los Angeles protestors and oppose the Trump administration's immigration crackdown and deployment of National Guard troops to quell protests. 4 a.m. EDTIn a post on his Truth Social platform Trump mentioned the LAPD's comments from the press conference about reassessing the situation about bring in the National Guard, and wrote 'He should, RIGHT NOW!!! Don't let these thugs get away with this.' In follow up posts Trump wrote: 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS,' and 'ARREST THE PEOPLE IN FACE MASKS, NOW!' 3:30 a.m. EDTThe LAPD told reporters at a late night press conference that it had arrested 10 people on Sunday, bring the day's total tally to 27 after adding to the California Highway Patrol's 17 arrests. LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell told reporters that he was aware of the 'deep fear and anxiety' among the immigrant community, and said the department is 'committed to transparency, accountability, and treating every Angeleno with respect, regardless of their immigration status.' When asked about the need for National Guard presence, McDonnell told reporters, 'tonight this thing has gotten out of control' but he would have to know more about their intended role before making that determination and added: 'we got to make a reassessment.' 2:30 a.m. EDTLos Angeles Police Department said an 'UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY' declaration has been issued 'for the area of the Civic Center part of Los Angeles' and said people with with 'Cell Phones in the received the alert.' 1:30 a.m. EDTAccording to the New York Times, a man tried to aim his van at protesters near a gas station in downtown Los Angeles, but it is unclear if any people were harmed. The LAPD later told the Times that it had detained the van driver, and noted 'multiple charges to follow.' 12:30 a.m. EDTThe Los Angeles Police Department has announced that gatherings at Downtown Los Angeles have 'been declared as an UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY,' as it ordered people to 'leave the Downtown Area immediately.' June 8, 11.45 p.m. EDTIn an interview with MSNBC, Newsom dared the Trump administration to come and arrest him in response to earlier comments by the president's border czar Tom Homan threatened to go after any official who interferes the immigration crackdown. Newsom told MSNBC, 'Come after me, arrest me, let's just get it over with, tough guy...I don't give a damn, but I care about my community.' In his interview, Newsom once again accused Trump of 'putting fuel on the fire,' with his actions and confirmed that his state will file a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday. 11.30 p.m. EDTCalifornia's Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis told CNN that she expects state officials to file a federal lawsuit on Monday against the Trump administration's move to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles. Kounalakis said the lawsuit will say that the president did not have the 'authority to call in the National Guard for 400 people protesting in a way that local law enforcement could clearly handle it.' Earlier in the evening, Newsom said he had made a formal request to the White House to 'rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command,' The governor said: 'This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed.' 4 p.m. EDTWhen asked by reporters whether he would invoke the Insurrection Act, the law that gives presidents the authority to deploy the military domestically, Trump said, 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' adding he does not think the Los Angeles protests are an insurrection, though he said there are 'violent people, and we're not going to let them get away with it.' Trump said he called Newsom and told him he had to 'take care' of the protests, otherwise he would 'send in the troops,' and he told a reporter who asked whether California officials who obstruct deportations would face federal charges: 'If officials stand in the way of law and order, yeah, they will face charges.' 1:30 p.m. EDTAbout 300 members of the National Guard have been stationed across Los Angeles so far, The New York Times reported, the first soldiers as part of the 2,000 Trump has promised to station across the city as more protests are expected to take place this afternoon. 1 p.m. EDTLos Angeles Mayor Karen Bass told the Los Angeles Times said she tried to talk to the Trump administration to 'tell them that there was absolutely no need to have troops on the ground here in Los Angeles,' stating the protests on Saturday were 'relatively minor' and 'peaceful,' with about 100 protesters. 3:22 a.m. EDTBass appeared to rebuff Trump's claim the National Guard did a 'great job' in the city, stating in a post on X that the National Guard had not yet been deployed at that time in Los Angeles, while praising Newsom and local law enforcement. 2:41 said in a late-night Truth Social post the National Guard did a 'great job' in Los Angeles, while slamming Newsom and Bass and the 'Radical Left' protesters and stating protesters will no longer be allowed to wear masks: 'What do these people have to hide, and why???' 12:14 slammed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for 'threatening to deploy active-duty Marines on American soil against its own citizens' as 'deranged behavior.' June 7The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said it had arrested two people Saturday evening for alleged assault on a police officer, stating multiple officers had been injured by a Molotov cocktail, the Los Angeles Times reported. 10:34 exhibited 'violent behavior' toward federal agents and local law enforcement, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said in a statement, while clarifying it is not involved in federal law enforcement response and is instead focused on crowd and traffic control. 10:22 a post on X, Newsom said the federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying soldiers in Los Angeles solely to create a 'spectacle.' 10:06 announced in a post on X the Department of Defense is 'mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles,' stating Marines are standing by for deployment in case of violence. 9:17 House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Trump would deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to address 'lawlessness,' citing protests targeting immigration officers. Similar protests have spread to other cities across the U.S., including San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Denver, Las Vegas, Philadelphia, Seattle, Boston, Santa Ana, California, and parts of Texas, including Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin. At least 80 protesters were arrested in New York, while 15 were arrested in Philadelphia, more than a dozen were arrested in Austin and one was detained in Dallas. At least two police officers were injured during protests in Philadelphia. Los Angeles Metro Police officers stand on the road in front of city hall Tuesday night. People take part in an anti-ICE protest in New York City on Tuesday. Protesters walk by the Cloud Gate sculpture in Chicago on Tuesday. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass will hold a press conference at 2 p.m. EDT Wednesday. Protests broke out Friday and Saturday in Paramount and Compton, cities adjacent to Los Angeles, over immigration raids conducted by ICE, during which the agency detained 44 immigrants Friday and 118 immigrants Saturday, the Associated Press reported. Police and protesters clashed over the weekend, according to local reports and videos on social media, with law enforcement using tear gas and flash grenades to break up the crowds while some protesters threw rocks and lit vehicles on fire. Glendale, California, announced Sunday the city had terminated an agreement with Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement that allowed the agencies to house federal detainees at the city's police facility. Glendale officials said the move was 'a local decision and was not made lightly,' as the city 'recognizes that public perception of the ICE contract—no matter how limited or carefully managed, no matter the good—has become divisive.' Glendale's city manager opted to end the contract after 'careful evaluation of legal, operational and community considerations,' the city said, noting the decision was not 'politically driven.' Trump reportedly said in a memo he is invoking Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which allows the federal government to deploy the National Guard if the United States is 'invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation,' or if there is a 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' Vice President JD Vance said in a post on X on Saturday night the influx of immigrants, which he called 'Biden's border crisis,' amounts to an 'invasion,' rebuffing critics who have questioned whether Trump had the authority to deploy troops. Trump's move has faced some pushback from constitutional scholars. 'For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling,' Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told the Los Angeles Times. The legal issues raised by Trump sending the National Guard to L.A. (Los Angeles Times)

E-2 Hawkeye Replaces USAF E-3 Sentry, E-7 Cancelled In New Budget
E-2 Hawkeye Replaces USAF E-3 Sentry, E-7 Cancelled In New Budget

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

E-2 Hawkeye Replaces USAF E-3 Sentry, E-7 Cancelled In New Budget

A seismic shift has occurred in the Trump administration's new defense spending plan that is just emerging when it comes to the USAF's airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) predicament. The service's E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft are dwindling in number and rapidly aging into unsupportability. The proven and in-production E-7 Wedgetail, based on the Boeing 737 and serving with multiple allies, was supposed to bridge the gap between the E-3's retirement and pushing the sending part of the mission to space-based distributed satellite constellations. You can read all about this here. Now, if the administration gets its wish, that won't happen. The E-7 will be cancelled and the E-2D Hawkeye, currently flown by the U.S. Navy, will step in to fill the gap. This major turn of events came to light today as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. John Caine, and Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee. MacDonnell is Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and is currently performing the duties of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Pentagon's Chief Financial Officer. In 2023, the USAF announced its intention to purchase E-7s, potentially as many as 26 of them, as replacements for a portion of the E-3 fleet. At the hearing today, the question of the current future of the USAF AEW&C force came from Sen. Lisa Murkowski late in the hearing. Murkowski is a Republican from Alaska, where fighters, tankers, and E-3 Sentry jets launch regularly to intercept foreign planes, primarily Russian fighters, bombers, and surveillance aircraft, over the vast arctic wilderness. Chinese H-6 missile carrier aircraft also appeared off Alaska last year for the first time, as part of a joint mission with Russia. Chinese air and naval presence in the region is only expected to grow in the future. China and Russia conduct joint air strategic patrol over Bering Sea on July 25. This marks the eighth air strategic patrol organized by the two militaries since from China PLA Air Force Weibo accounthttps:// — Ryan Chan 陳家翹 (@ryankakiuchan) July 25, 2024 With this in mind, just how big of an issue the age of the E-3 fleet has become was central to Murkowski's question. 'I have been concerned. We have E-3 capability up north, of course, but we were all counting on the E-7 Wedgetail coming our way. We're kind of limping along up north right now, which is unfortunate. And the budget proposes terminating the program. Again, the E-3 fleet [is] barely operational now, and I understand the intent to shift towards the space-based – you call it the 'air moving target indicators' – but my concern is that you've got a situation where you're not going to be able to use more duct tape to hold things together until you put this system in place. And, so, how we maintain that level of operational readiness and coverage, I'm not sure how you make it.' 'You know, the E-3 and the E-3 community have been really important to us for a long, long time, and I'll defer to the Comptroller, but I you know the Department has a bridging strategy through investing in some additional airborne platforms in order to gap fill while the space-based capabilities come online,' Kane replied in response to the senator's question. This is where the E-2D comes in. MacDonnell then added, 'Ma'am, we do have in the budget $150 million in FY26 [Fiscal Year 2026] for a joint expeditionary E-2D unit with five dedicated E-2Ds, and the budget also funds for additional E-2Ds to fill the near-term gap at $1.4 billion.' Currently, the only branch of the U.S. military that operates the E-2D is the U.S. Navy. The Alaskan senator then inquired, 'Can you tell me, will that have implications for what we're seeing up north in Alaska?' 'The answer is yes. I would. I would file this entire discussion under difficult choices that we have to make. But you know, the E-7, in particular, is sort of late, more expensive and 'gold plated,' and so filling the gap, and then shifting to space-based ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] is a portion of how we think we can do it best, considering all the challenges,' Hegseth responded. At a separate hearing before the House Appropriations Committee yesterday, Hegsteth had also described the Wedgetail as an example of a capability that is 'not survivable in the modern battlefield' and mentioned broad plans 'to fund existing platforms that are there more robustly and make sure they're modernized.' An annual assessment of high-profile U.S. military procurement programs from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, which was released today, offers additional insight into issues with the USAF's effort to acquire E-7s. The original plan was to acquire a pair of production representative prototype (or RP) aircraft ahead of production of examples in a finalized configuration, starting this year. The service had then expected to reach initial operational capability with the Wedgetail in 2027. 'Air Force officials said that they now plan to begin production by the second quarter of fiscal year 2026 before completing the E-7A RP MTA [Middle Tier Acquisition] rapid prototyping effort by initiating a separate, concurrent program on the major capability acquisition pathway,' according to GAO. 'They said that it was necessary to begin production concurrently with the E-7A RP rapid prototyping effort to offset the lead time associated with the build and subsequent modification of the aircraft.' 'The program definitized its contract with Boeing since our last assessment. After the contract was definitized, Boeing delayed the first flight test by 9 months to May 2027,' the report adds. 'According to Air Force officials, the delay was due to a late-breaking, required critical security architecture change that affected the procurement of parts, qualification testing, and modification of the airframe.' 'The program stated that the Air Force definitized the MTA rapid prototyping effort contract in August 2024 to deliver two operationally capable E-7A prototype aircraft in fiscal year 2028,' GAO's new assessment further notes. 'The program added that the total acquisition cost increase of 33 percent resulted from updated methodologies to include additional scope related to non-recurring engineering, with the primary drivers being software and air vehicle subsystems.' Last year, the Air Force had been very open about the difficulties it was having finalizing a contract with Boeing for the RP jets. The two parties ended up agreeing on a deal valued at nearly $2.6 billion. A contracting notice the service put out earlier this year also pointed to significant expected differences between the RP aircraft and the full production examples, including the possibility of a new radar. Existing versions of the E-7 in service elsewhere globally today are equipped with Northrop Grumman's Multi-Role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radar. The USAF's move to drop the E-7 and leverage the E-2D, which is already in the Pentagon's stable, prompts many questions. For instance, just how many of these aircraft will the USAF end up with? As of 2024, the USAF's E-3 fleet stood at 16 aircraft. Above all else, there are major capability trades here. The Hawkeye is a much smaller aircraft than both the Sentry and the Wedgetail. It is extremely capable, but it is also optimized to exist within the confines of carrier operations. The crew size is just five individuals. This limits the amount of shear manpower to perform highly complex operations and other tasks beyond traditional AEW&C. The E-2 also has less range and is far slower than both the E-3 and E-7. This means longer transit times, and the aircraft doesn't fit in as seamlessly with the jet-centric operations for the counter-air mission the service currently enjoys. The E-2D's AN/APY-9 radar from Lockheed Martin is hugely capable, but many of its other advanced data fusion and relay systems are unique to the Navy. These systems would either be stripped or just left unused for USAF-focused operations. It's also possible that other systems will replace them, but this will cost money and take time to integrate and field. Hawkeyes, being turboprop aircraft, also operate at lower altitudes, giving their radar, radio systems, and electronic surveillance suites reduced line-of-sight, limiting their range and fidelity at distance for some targets and surveillance application, in some cases. Then there is the aerial refueling issue. The E-2D has gained this ability relatively recently, which expands its endurance. Typical missions can now last over seven hours. However, the aircraft uses the Navy-preferred probe-and-drogue refueling method, not the boom and receptacle one favored by the USAF. The USAF's KC-46 tankers do have a hose and drogue system and some of the service's KC-135Rs have podded hose and drogue systems. Otherwise, they require a basket attachment to their boom, often called the 'Iron Maiden' or 'Wrecking Ball,' due to its rigid metal frame and potential to smack into and damage airframes. This system makes the KC-135R useless for refueling receptacle-equipped aircraft when it is fitted. The E-2D also refuels lower-and-slower than jet aircraft. All these issues are not 'show-stoppers,' but they are ones that will impact operational planning and flexibility. The E-2D, being already a highly upgraded and a much smaller airframe, also lacks the same capacity for future expansion compared to the E-7. This could include adding more personnel for various non-traditional functions, including using its advanced radar to scan the surface more extensively or for unique battle management needs, such as controlling future drone swarms, or even for more extensive passive intelligence collection and exploitation and data fusion operations. High-bandwidth datalinks can possibly make up for some of the manpower differentials, allowing folks on the ground to execute critical functions in near real time as part of a distributed crew arrangement, but there are downfalls to this concept, as well. On the other hand, having commonality with the Navy's AEW&C aircraft should help reduce costs for both services and accelerate the type's entry into USAF service. It could also benefit the future evolution of the E-2D as more money will be flowing into the program. It's also a very capable and well-proven platform, lowering risk. Above all else, joint service E-2Ds could be absolutely critical to the USAF's Agile Combat Employment (ACE) combat doctrine that will see its forces distributed to remote forward locales and constantly in motion. The E-2D's turboprop performance, robust landing gear, and arrested landing capabilities mean it can be pushed far forward to very austere operating locations with limited runway length. And it can do this without sacrificing the quality of the data it collects or the efficacy of its use as a battle manager. This is something a 707 or 737 platform simply cannot match and could prove decisive in a major peer-state contingency. TWZ highlighted these exact benefits after U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) released a video last year showing a Navy Hawkeye refueling from a USAF HC-130J Combat King II combat search and rescue aircraft, which can act as a probe-and-drogue tanker, primarily for helicopters and Osprey tiltrotors. A @USNavy E-2D refuels inflight from an @usairforce HC-130 over the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. — U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) August 6, 2024 While the USAF's move away from the E-7 is certainly surprising, and it will result in shortfalls in some areas, it also unlocks new capabilities, some of which are arguably more applicable to tomorrow's wars. It also buys down additional risk, which is looming very large as it isn't clear at this time, at least publicly, how far along the Pentagon's persistent space-based aircraft sensing constellation development actually is. All of this still has to make it through congressional approval, which could be a challenge considering the special interests involved. But as it sits now, the flying service is pivoting big once again when it comes to its increasingly dire AEW&C needs. Contact the author: Tyler@

How Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' could wreck Utah's groundbreaking AI laws
How Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' could wreck Utah's groundbreaking AI laws

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

How Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' could wreck Utah's groundbreaking AI laws

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget package could derail the state's groundbreaking artificial intelligence laws unless it is changed. The 1,000-page bill that passed the House last month includes a 10-year prohibition on AI regulations. An updated Senate version removed the all-out ban but conditioned $500 million in AI infrastructure grants on states pausing enforcement of AI laws. Behind these provisions is a desire by some lawmakers to prevent a nationwide patchwork of AI regulations that hampers innovation amid competition with China. But Cox, and Utah's top tech policymakers, said the approach taken by Trump's bill interferes with the state's right to react to rapidly evolving technologies. 'Our hope is that the last version of this bill that passes, whatever that looks like, will allow for the smart type of regulation that we're doing in Utah, and prevent the bad kind of regulation that would stop AI from reaching its fullest potential,' Cox said Tuesday during a monthly PBS broadcast. Utah has been recognized around the world for having the 'first and smartest of the AI regulations that have been proposed,' according to Cox. These policies include bills that create a state-run AI policy lab, clarify consumer protection liability for AI and require AI disclosures in industries like finance and mental health. The governor said that multiple members of the U.S. House have told his team that they were not aware of the AI moratorium when they voted on the bill. Members of the White House and Senate have also said that they don't want the 'BBB bill' to eliminate Utah's law, Cox said. 'AI companies actually support what we're doing because they recognize that this is the right way to do AI regulation as opposed to just piecemeal,' Cox said. Cox agreed that 'a hodgepodge' of AI laws around the country would cause the U.S. to 'fall behind and we would lose this global race that is happening right now.' But he said a moratorium on AI policy shouldn't come at the expense of Utah's novel approach which doesn't actually tell AI companies how they can develop their models. Utah Rep. Doug Fiefia, R-Herriman, said the problem goes beyond counterproductive policy. It targets the foundation of states rights that has allowed Utah to lead out on so many issues, according to Fiefia, a freshman lawmaker who previously worked at Google. 'States are laboratories for innovation when it comes to policy, and I believe that the federal government should not overreach on this process and allow it to work,' Fiefia said. 'We will not give over our control because the federal government believes that it's the right thing to do to win this race.' On Tuesday, Utah House legislative leadership, and 62 state senators and representatives, sent a letter authored by Fiefia to Utah's congressional delegation arguing that the moratorium hindered 'Utah's nationally recognized efforts to strike the right balance between innovation and consumer protection.' Not only would the moratorium harm state efforts to legislate guardrails, it would also hurt businesses that are using AI responsibly by allowing their competitors to engage in unethical behavior, according to Fiefia. States have shown they are more nimble than the federal government when they need to adapt to change, Fiefia said. And this is the approach Fiefia believes Utah has demonstrated in opening up legal pathways for innovation while updating the law for the threats posed by AI. 'Just because we want to move fast in this global arms race of AI doesn't mean we can't do so with a seat belt,' Fiefia said. 'I believe that we can both win this AI race, but also doing it in a thoughtful and meaningful way.' The AI moratorium faces procedural hurdles in addition to ideological pushback. Utah Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, pointed out that reconciliation bills are meant only to amend the annual budget and not make substantive policy shifts. Some senators have alleged that the AI moratorium does not comply with the 'Byrd Rule,' a procedural requirement that prohibits 'nonbudgetary' additions during the budget 'reconciliation' process. Cullimore, who was the sponsor behind most of Utah's AI legislation, was in Washington, D.C., last week, speaking with members of the House Commerce Committee, which oversaw the inclusion of the AI moratorium provisions. The intentions behind the moratorium, Cullimore said, were to prevent states from implementing what are called 'foundational regulations' that restrict the kind of technology AI companies can develop. Utah's laws do not do this, according to Cullimore, who also signed Fiefia's letter, but they would still be sidelined by the 'big beautiful bill' even if the moratorium is replaced by the conditioned federal funding. 'I think the drafting of the moratorium was so broad that it potentially encompassed all of that stuff,' he said. 'So I hope that that we can refine the text a little bit, and then if they want to put those conditions in on foundational regulation, I think that'd be appropriate.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store