Trump's FAA administrator pick facing tough questions on safety at hearing
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Federal Aviation Administration is facing tough questions about safety during a hearing Wednesday in the wake of January's deadly midair collision and a string of other crashes and near misses since then.
Much of the industry, including the major airlines and their trade groups, supports Bryan Bedford's nomination. But pilots unions and Democrats have raised concerns that he might weaken pilot training standards.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
30 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump moves to merge wildland firefighting into single force, despite ex-officials warning of chaos
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered government agencies to consolidate their wildland firefighting into a single program, despite warnings from former federal officials that it could be costly and increase the risk of catastrophic blazes. The order aims to centralize firefighting efforts now split among five agencies and two Cabinet departments. Trump's proposed budget for next year calls for the creation of a new Federal Wildland Fire Service under the U.S. Interior Department. That would mean shifting thousands of personnel from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service — where most federal firefighters now work — with fire season already underway. The administration has not disclosed how much the change could cost or save. Trump in his order cited the devastating Los Angeles wildfires in January as highlighting a need for a quicker response to wildfires. 'Wildfires threaten every region, yet many local government entities continue to disregard commonsense preventive measures,' the order said. The Trump administration in its first months temporarily cut off money for wildfire prevention work and reduced the ranks of federal government firefighters through layoffs and retirement. The order makes no mention of climate change, which Trump has downplayed even as warming temperatures help stoke bigger and more destructive wildfires that churn out massive amounts of harmful pollution. More than 65,000 wildfires across the U.S. burned almost 9 million acres (3.6 million hectares) last year. Organizations representing firefighters and former Forest Service officials say it would be costly to restructure firefighting efforts and cause major disruptions in the midst of fire season. A group that includes several former Forest Service chiefs said in a recent letter to lawmakers that consolidation of firefighting work could 'actually increase the likelihood of more large catastrophic fires, putting more communities, firefighters and resources at risk.' Another destructive fire season is expected this year, driven by above-normal temperatures for most of the country, according to federal officials. A prior proposal to merge the Forest Service and Interior to improve firefighting was found to have significant drawbacks by the Congressional Research Service in a 2008 report. But the idea more recently got bipartisan support, with California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla and Montana Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy sponsoring legislation that is similar to Trump's plan. Before his election last year, Sheehy founded an aerial firefighting company that relies heavily on federal contracts. In a separate action aimed at wildfires, the Trump administration last month rolled back environmental safeguards around future logging projects on more than half U.S. national forests. The emergency designation covers 176,000 square miles (455,000 square kilometers) of terrain primarily in the West but also in the South, around the Great Lakes and in New England. Most of those forests are considered to have high wildfire risk, and many are in decline because of insects and disease.
New York Times
32 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Lawmakers Enraged After Senator Is Pushed to Floor and Handcuffed
At a protest in St. Louis on Wednesday called 'March to Defend Immigrant Rights,' participants chanted, 'From Ferguson to Palestine, occupation is a crime!' invoking unrest in Ferguson, Mo., over police brutality in 2014 and Palestinian freedom. The scene encapsulated how the left's decades-long embrace of intersectionality — the concept that all oppressed people are linked — gives the protest movement large numbers of supporters but also can create a cacophony of messages. The forces stirring action on the streets this week have been led by labor groups. And many protests, including those in Los Angeles, have continued to focus on workplace raids. But the voices at other protests are mixed, an echo of the wide array of progressive forces that have animated every anti-Trump protest this year. Those earlier actions have been coordinated affairs, planned in advance for weeks by large groups like MoveOn and Indivisible, which have helped keep actions focused on concerns like cuts to Medicaid and Social Security, the power of billionaires and immigration policies. But in this week's spontaneous actions, the many interests from the broad base of anti-Trump activists came to the fore, including more explicit support for racial justice, Palestinian freedom and socialist politics. 'In this moment we must all stand together,' said Becky Pringle, the head of the National Education Association, the largest individual union in the country and one of the groups that sprang into action as the protests emerged in Los Angeles. Local chapters of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a Communist Party offshoot of the Workers World Party, have also played a leading role, working with local leftist groups to post information about new demonstrations from California to Maine. The group's concerns are among the mélange of causes animating protests that were born out of workplace raids to round up illegal immigrants. Palestinian supporters have shown up at protests in Chicago, New York and elsewhere. When the St. Louis march ended on Wednesday, various groups took the opportunity to rally support for queer rights, Black Lives Matter and tornado relief and cleanup efforts. The St. Louis march was promoted on social media by the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Voices for Palestine Network, Black Men Build St. Louis and the Ecosocialist Green Party on Instagram. 'St. Louis is a small city, and a lot of the people that care about organizing for human rights tend to all work loosely with each other through an unofficial coalition,' said Kaitlyn Killgo, one of the activists. The presence of many different causes can dilute the message of any one protest — and risks appearing to general observers like a gathering of far-left activists. This issue is a familiar one for mainstream Democrats. While parsing their losses in the 2024 election, they have debated whether they diminished their appeal to the public by treating all causes as equally important. Community networks have galvanized protesters in other cities. When Laura Valdez, a civil rights activist in San Francisco, saw the video of ICE agents detaining a prominent labor leader in Los Angeles, she believed that immigrants and activists faced a new level of danger. 'This was a four-alarm fire,' said Ms. Valdez, the executive director of Mission Action, an advocacy organization for low-income and immigrant communities. 'We needed to activate.' The video of the labor leader's arrest was taken on Friday. By Monday, Ms. Valdez and Mission Action were participating in one of dozens of protests that sprang up across the country in response to the Trump administration's immigration raids. The rapid appearance of people on the streets of so many American cities was not a coincidence. Mission Action and other left-leaning organizations were able to mobilize quickly because they have spent all year protesting President Trump's policies; several gatherings attracted hundreds of thousands of participants. Their networks were primed. On Monday, the Austin, Texas, chapter of the Party for Socialism and Liberation posted on social media: 'Emergency protest: solidarity with LA! We'll see y'all tomorrow at the state capitol to say 'ICE out of our cities! Stop the deportations!'' That same day, the People's Forum, a New York City workers' rights organization, told supporters that there would be a protest the following day in solidarity with Los Angeles. 'We refuse to be silenced! The people of New York City demand ICE get out of our communities, stop the deportations, and stop the raids.' On June 10, the Maine chapter of the Party for Socialism and Liberation put out the word on social media: 'Emergency Protest. From LA to Bangor: ICE Out! June 11 — 6:30pm. Pierce Park.' Reaction to the Trump administration has brought a broad swath of progressive groups in close coordination, with leaders often speaking multiple times a day about how various policies are affecting their communities. 'Ultimately, this comes down to workers' rights,' Ms. Pringle said. Mr. Trump's desire to remove undocumented immigrants from the country has had an especially galvanizing effect among left-leaning organizations. The coalition of centrist Democratic nonprofits and far-left national and local organizations that stood together during the first Trump administration splintered over whether to support Palestinians after the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas. In addition to coordinating anti-Trump protests, progressive groups have been working to educate immigrant workers, students, educators and religious leaders about their rights and to connect them with mutual aid and legal assistance. When ICE agents began entering workplaces in Los Angeles late last week, that network went on high alert. 'We could see that the government had decided it would be more effective to apprehend hundreds of people through workplace enforcement rather than having several agents try to go after one person at a time,' Ms. Valdez said. Image David Huerta, the president of the Service Employees International Union of California. His arrest helped catalyze the protests. Credit... Philip Cheung for The New York Times And then came the arrest of David Huerta, the president of the Service Employees International Union of California, as he recorded a video of the immigration raid. The service employees union and other national and local union leaders began to talk about how to respond. They supported the idea of public opposition. Other unions reached out to the SEIU to ask how they could help. Following the SEIU's lead, they decided that the best course of action was to bring public attention to Mr. Huerta's arrest and to denounce Mr. Trump's decision to use federal force to quell protests. 'Labor is everywhere,' said Ms. Pringle, whose organization was in touch with the SEIU. 'The three million educators in the National Education Association are in every congressional district and community.' The California Teachers Association and other progressive state organizations committed to push out messaging and encourage citizens to protest, a pattern that was replicated across the country. Since Friday, and following the deployment of the National Guard, a broad coalition of organizations has called on the public to join demonstrations in downtown Los Angeles. They include Unión del Barrio, a grass roots group with volunteer membership that describes itself as revolutionary and anti-imperialist, and Local Black Lives Matter leaders. 'This is our fight. This is our fight,' Melina Abdullah, a co-founder of the Los Angeles chapter of Black Lives Matter, said in a recent video on social media. 'For both moral and strategic reasons, this is a Black fight.' In New York City, protests have coalesced outside the federal immigration headquarters in Lower Manhattan this week. But they have typically morphed into a stew of left-wing causes, with Palestinian calls for liberation and Occupy Wall Street chants overtaking the group's message against deportations. A large rally that began at 5 p.m. on Tuesday drew hundreds of demonstrators, including immigrant New Yorkers who said they were rallying on behalf of parents, friends and relatives who were undocumented. They marched to chants of 'Abolish ICE,' and carried yellow signs, in English and Spanish, that said 'ICE out of NYC.' But by 10 p.m., as much of the protest had dissipated, a splinter group of about 100 protesters remained, some wearing tactical looking outfits and kaffiyehs, appearing more intent on taunting police officers and causing disruption with sporadic chants of Palestinian liberation. At a protest this week in Chicago, many protesters also wore kaffiyehs and carried signs supporting Palestinians. Some of the loudest chants heard downtown were targeted at U.S. policy in Gaza: 'From Palestine to Mexico these border walls have got to go!' The spontaneous protests that erupted this week are a preview of what is to come on Saturday — a long-planned, nationwide protest against the Trump administration called No Kings, scheduled to coincide with the president's birthday and military parade. Several prominent progressive coalitions planned No Kings, including MoveOn, Indivisible and 50501. There will be no event in Washington, the site of Mr. Trump's parade. Organizers want to draw attention to the president's many opponents throughout the country. In addition to the flagship march that will take place in Philadelphia, organizers said there will be No Kings marches in at least 2,000 cities and towns, in every state in the country. Miram Jordan contributed reporting from Los Angeles, and Julie Bosman from Chicago.
CNBC
35 minutes ago
- CNBC
An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount
Beset by near-universal bearish outlooks just a month ago, oil prices could spike to more than $100 a barrel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran, some analysts are warning. Crude prices spiked as much as 5% overnight — before paring gains — on fears of military escalation between Iran and Israel as President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of some U.S. personnel from embassies and bases across the Middle East. The front-month August contract for global benchmark Brent crude was trading at $69 per barrel at 3:20 p.m. ET on Thursday, while the front-month July U.S. WTI contract was at $67.7 per barrel. "They [U.S. military personnel] are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place and we will see what happens... We have given notice to move out," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. The Pentagon has ordered the withdrawal of troops and non-essential staff from embassies in Baghdad, Kuwait and Bahrain. The jury is still out as to whether the moves are a pressure play ahead of upcoming U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, or whether the U.S., Israel and Iran are truly on the verge of conflict. The geopolitical risk premium is "already at least partially reflected in current oil prices," according to J.P. Morgan's global commodities research team, citing Brent crude trading at just under $70 a barrel, already above its model-derived fair value figure of $66 for June. "This suggests an elevated 7% probability of a worst-case scenario, where the price reaction is exponential rather than linear, with the impact on supply potentially extending beyond a 2.1 mbd (million barrels per day) reduction in Iranian oil exports," the bank's research team wrote in a note published Thursday. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Israel appears ready to attack Iran, according to reports citing U.S. and European officials, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressing Trump to allow strikes. But the American president said in late May that he had warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran while negotiations with Washington were under way. U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff is currently set to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman on Sunday for a sixth round of negotiations. Strait of Hormuz in focus Oil traders are focusing on the potential of a wider conflict shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which 20% of the volume of the world's total oil consumption passes daily. The British Navy on Wednesday issued a rare warning to ships in the region, saying it had "been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners." It urged caution for vessels transiting "the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz." Beyond that, J.P. Morgan warned, "a more general Middle East conflagration could ignite retaliatory responses from major oil producing countries in the region responsible for a third of global oil output." "Under this severe outcome," the bank's analysts wrote, "we estimate oil prices could surge to the $120-130/bbl range." Even before the latest uptick in tensions, some oil industry watchers were already making bullish calls despite a flood of announced OPEC+ supply coming onto the market, and lower global growth and demand forecasts due to trade and tariff tensions. Josh Young, founder and chief investment officer at Houston-based Bison Interests, told CNBC in late May that physical markets are more tightly supplied than previously thought, and with several oil rigs in the U.S. shale patch coming offline just as the U.S. summer driving season begins, markets should be preparing for Brent crude at $85 a barrel. "The pure inventory versus consumption would indicate $85 [per barrel], which is way higher than where we are right now. It's almost uncomfortable to say that, but that's the current price implied by inventories," Young told CNBC's Access Middle East. He cited his forecast figure as "fair value," arguing that "typically, you go from too cheap to too expensive. So I don't think we should be ruling out $100 oil this year. And I think if there is a geopolitical risk, it could get even higher." Without the geopolitical risk premium — namely, a conflict with Iran — Young still sees crude coming up to the $80 to $85 per barrel range, particularly in the event of trade deals being reached and Trump's tariffs being lowered. The outlook is boosted by this month's forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which sees a decline in U.S. oil production for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic due to slower drilling activity and a declining rig count. Such bullish forecasts are certainly not the norm, however. Without a military attack on Iran, J.P. Morgan's base case for oil "remains in the low-to-mid $60s oil for the remainder of 2025, and $60 in 2026." Goldman Sachs also maintains an oil price forecast in the $50 to $60 per barrel range for this and next year, despite noting an improving demand picture, downside risks to U.S. supply and geopolitical tensions. The recent rise in inventories due to OPEC+ output increases, "supports our cautious oil price forecast, with Brent expected to average $60 for the rest of 2025 and $56 in 2026," the bank's commodities team wrote. "However, small misses in OPEC+ supply suggest that lower-than-anticipated spare capacity represents an upside risk to our price forecast."
