The F-35 stealth fighter just got another noise complaint
A congressional lawmaker sought funding to help constituents battle F-35 noise pollution.
The Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation previously funded $50 million for noise issues but denied requests for additional funding.
F-35 jets have caused noise complaints nationwide, with reports of health impacts.
The F-35 is a loud aircraft, and the people of Wisconsin are not happy about it.
A local congressman is again calling in a noise complaint on the stealth fighter, urging Pentagon officials to visit the state and witness for themselves just how loud the Lockheed Martin fifth-generation fighter jet actually is when it is flying overhead.
Rep. Mark Pocan sent a letter to the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation, a DC-based agency within the Department of Defense that helps military bases work with their local communities, after the group denied funding for noise mitigation efforts for some Madison citizens, who Pocan says are plagued by the jet's deafening Pratt & Whitney engines.
Truax Field Air National Guard Base, which is home to the 115th Fighter Wing and its F-35A Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters, is located in Madison, Wisconsin.
The Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation has funded DoD noise-mitigation efforts and even has an entire office dedicated to handling community noise issues from military fixed-wing aviation. The office offered Madison residents $50 million in fiscal year 2021, according to Pocan's letter, "to make necessary modifications to their homes to dampen the noise and improve their quality of life."
A recent similar request, however, for $18 million for other Madison residents was nixed.
Pocan said in his letter that "this effort would have allowed for better insulation in over 160 homes to help cushion the noise, as well as new windows or HVAC systems."
A 2012 Vermont Health Department study found that F-35 jets reached a peak noise level of 115 decibels, or approximately the same noise level as a rock concert, louder than the F-16s the 115th Fighter Wing previously flew.
"Since the decision to place F-35 fighter jets at Truax Field in 2020, my office has repeatedly been in touch with the Department of Defense to express my concerns about what impact the noise from these jets could have on local residents, their homes, and local businesses," Pocan said.
"In the years since, residents have reported consistent and significant concerns with the noise levels to my office, along with fears that prolonged exposure could lead to property damage or negative health impacts," the letter said.
The congressman requested that the office send an official out to Madison to explain its rejection to the community in person.
The Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment on its planned response to Pocan's letter.
It's not the first time that noisy jets have made headlines in Wisconsin, where residents near the Truax Field Air National Guard Base have had to contend with the aircraft regularly since their arrival in 2020.
F-35s have also riled up other residents across the country where the advanced fighter jets are housed, disturbing residents in Utah, Arizona and Vermont, where some people have even reported panic attack-like symptoms in response.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
36 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
As Trump Comes for Your Social Media, It's Time You Consider What's Worth Sharing
Agents of the Trump administration are increasingly using social media posts to crack down on immigrants, tourists, and even some U.S. citizens. Last month, a leaked document showed the State Department had crafted a new standard for reviewing the social media accounts of any foreign students planning to attend or even visit Harvard University. Legal immigrants may have benefits denied based on social media activity, and people expressing opinions or acting contrary to Trump are being detained at airports. Whether you're a U.S. citizen or not, it's time you reexamine how much of yourself you're willing to show publicly online. Amid the ongoing travel turmoil that's made several countries institute warnings to foreign citizens planning trips to the U.S., I was looking for ways to make it more difficult for governments to use my social posts against me. That's when I was invited to use Block Party. It's not, by its nature, a politically charged app. With a $25 annual subscription, Block Party uses a browser plugin to help rein in your privacy settings on your various social media accounts with a simple checklist and easy-to-follow, step-by-step guides. Privatizing your social media accounts helps keep big tech from building data profiles based on your activity, which it then uses for targeted advertising, but it may not be enough to completely deter a visit from Customs and Border Protection as you muscle through airport security after coming to the States. [Editor's note: Getting thrown into another bin for targeted advertising isn't great either, but it's better than getting thrown into Guantanamo.] At the very least, it may make the jobs of federal agencies—or anybody looking for dirt on you based on your online activity—a little harder. For the time being, that might be enough to help you avoid being held up by U.S. officials for hours in an airport. Trump Widens the Targets of Social Media Scrutiny You can simply delete your profiles, but as somebody who still needs to remain active on social media, Block Party is one of the better options I've personally used to get into the weeds of my accounts' esoteric privacy settings. It even helps you find settings in some apps to keep AI from scraping your posts. Still, changing all your settings may not be enough to avoid all scrutiny. According to a Politico report on the leaked State Department document, the U.S. government imagines foreign students' lack of a social presence or privatized social media 'may be reflective of evasiveness and call into question the applicant's credibility.' The Trump administration may ascribe this same standard to U.S. citizens. Already, there are concerning examples of agents targeting supposed Trump opponents. Left-wing influencer Hasan Piker said in May that he was detained and questioned for hours by Homeland Security after he came back to Chicago from France. In April, immigration agents detained Michigan-based attorney Amir Makled at an airport for more than an hour as he returned home from the Dominican Republic. The attorney was representing Columbia University students who had protested against the war in Palestine. Makled said feds requested he hand over his phone, and after 90 minutes of questioning, he eventually complied. The situation is growing more constrained for non-citizens traveling to the U.S. Every individual has to decide for themselves what precautions they need to take when traveling as a citizen or non-citizen alike. Sophia Cope, the senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Gizmodo it's not an easy decision, and some people planning to visit the U.S. may be better off choosing a different destination. However, despite U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's proclamation that privatizing social media was somehow an indication of 'evasiveness,' it's still a good idea to privatize your socials before crossing the border to the U.S. And it's not just protesters who need to think long and hard about what thoughts of theirs are shared online. Nonprofit and government staff now have to consider whether their public presence necessitates drastic culling of their online profiles. 'We've definitely been seeing an uptick in interest given the activities of the government recently,' Tracy Chou, the founder and CEO of Block Party, told Gizmodo in a video interview. After Trump's inauguration, she said she's received interest from both current and former government workers from multiple federal agencies, afraid their previously innocuous social media posts could be used as ammunition for right-wing groups. Government workers weren't just trying to avoid the eyes of Trump and DOGE. Chou gave an example of people who worked in the Department of Justice's civil rights division who were trying to avoid attacks from right-wing groups online. Some Apps Make It Easier to Avoid Social Media Scrutiny You can find a loose gaggle of tutorials online for turning on social media privacy settings, but even an experienced user will be surprised by just how many settings there are to limit. You may also want to look into subscriptions such as DeleteMe or Kanary, which work to eliminate information data brokers have on you and remove data from some websites. Block Party is more concerned with restricting the data big tech companies can garner from your social accounts. Privacy settings for most apps are arcane—often deliberately so—and even if you're trying to privatize an account, you can still miss something. Block Party currently works with X, LinkedIn, Facebook, Venmo, Instagram, Reddit, Strava, YouTube, Bluesky, and Google. Additionally, Block Party will only impact the mobile versions of TikTok and Snapchat. Chou said her team is planning to support more apps in the future. The app operates as a browser plugin that offers a checklist for your social accounts. Some settings can be done for you with the tap of a button, but various settings will take some attention on your part. On LinkedIn, Block Party can automatically turn off settings to 'represent company,' a sneaky setting used for sponsored ads about your employer. If I want to change the number of apps connected to my YouTube account, I have to click a link through the app and disable them manually, then mark the task as 'done.' Even using Block Party, the process of tuning all your socials is time-consuming. After you're done, you may realize how many features of these apps depend on your private data. Block Party recommends you change YouTube settings to limit viewing history. Suddenly, I can't see which videos I've watched, making it harder to return to a YouTube essay I paused before going to sleep. This is the trade-off for privacy. You simply won't be able to use your apps in the same ways you used to. There Is No Panacea for Privacy Nina Jankowicz, the cofounder of The American Sunlight Project, which advocates against online disinformation, said she has started to advise people to lock down their social media not just for the sake of avoiding targeted ads, but to keep from being targeted by the government. She said she offers Block Party free to staff, but even that may not be enough in this age, where her activities as an advocate are receiving more and more scrutiny. Jankowicz said she started bringing a burner cell phone when she travels through and to the U.S. Beyond massaging your social accounts, travelers need to start considering device security. Turning off biometric log-in when you travel is a good start, as experts say law enforcement has less legal liability to unlock your device if they flash your Face ID at your mug. You should avoid saving WhatsApp or Messenger chats to the cloud in case government agents manage to bypass phone security. VPNs, which help hide your IP address and keep you anonymous when online, are also good to have on hand. The fact of the matter is, U.S. officials have the legal ability to detain people at the airport, but as Cope stressed, the U.S. is not legally allowed to keep citizens from entering the U.S. without probable cause. Non-violent political opinions posted to social media still don't meet grounds for an arrest just because Trump is in office. At the same time, Trump's administration has continued to ignore court decrees, and his flaunting of the law may turn on American citizens as well. For now, it's best you know your rights. Refusing to hand over a phone to officers could delay you, but you're only legally required to establish your identity, not to share your phone with anybody. Again, knowing your rights can still lead to delays. 'If there's anything remotely controversial, I would delete that post, privatize the account, or even shut down the account,' Cope said. 'I want to emphasize again it's each individual person's choice, but I think for me, I'd rather not have the government have this particular data point or set of data points about me.' The U.S. already knows what kind of chilling effect this abuse of social media has had on protest efforts. When I asked Jankowicz whether privatizing your social media can make it harder to organize, she responded bluntly: 'Yes.' 'Researchers are a lot more reticent to be on things like Signal group chats or on email chains and message boards,' she said. 'The toll it takes on attempting to muster a collaborative response on anything that's happening to the community is really difficult.' Privatizing your social media can't be a panacea for your travel anxieties, especially if you still want to use these apps to communicate with friends or organize for causes you care about. The best it can do is make a government operator's job harder, and since there are so many accounts to monitor, you may slip through the dragnet. As time goes on, Trump will rely more on technology from firms like Palantir to compile a wider database on every citizen based on government data, according to a recent report from The New York Times. Whether you use apps like DeleteMe and Block Party in tandem or you go out and prune your posts and public persona, get ready for a far more constrained online existence.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Why are administrative judges trying to help China steal American technology?
A panel of judges is openly defying Trump administration policy — and effectively allowing a Chinese firm to keep stealing an American semiconductor technology used in everything from self-driving cars to satellites. These judges are not members of the judicial branch. They are executive branch employees, and the Trump administration has the authority to overrule their dangerous decision. It should do so immediately to protect American workers and uphold the rule of law. But the administration will also need to implement broader reforms — and work with Congress to codify them — to prevent rogue administrative judges from helping Chinese companies pilfer U.S. intellectual property in the future. The administrative patent judges in question work for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a powerful part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. They just sided with Innoscience, a Chinese firm locked in a years-long legal battle with Efficient Power Conversion, a California-based semiconductor innovator. Efficient Power Conversion accused the Chinese firm of stealing its patented technology and selling knockoff chips. It took its case to the U.S. International Trade Commission, which investigates trade violations and protects American industries from unfair competition. After a 16-month investigation — including a trial, depositions, and expert testimony — the commission found that Innoscience had indeed stolen the technology and that Efficient Power Conversion's patent was valid. As a result, the commission barred the Chinese firm from selling the infringing chips in the U.S. And after its mandatory review period, the White House allowed the ruling to stand. That should have settled the matter. But separately, Innoscience challenged Efficient Power Conversion's patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which ultimately invalidated key claims in the patent. This ruling handed Innoscience fresh ammunition to challenge the import ban and try to resume flooding the U.S. market with stolen technology. This is a direct assault on American innovation and the Trump administration's efforts to crack down on Chinese intellectual property theft. Worse still, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should never have taken the case. The first Trump administration issued guidance barring the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from reviewing patents already being litigated in parallel forums. This policy was designed to protect smaller American companies from being overwhelmed by duplicative litigation across multiple venues. Put simply, patent disputes should be handled in court, or at the International Trade Commission, or at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — but not all three. That changed in 2022 when the Biden administration reversed the policy. This gave Innoscience an opening to request a Patent Trial and Appeal Board review in 2023. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board accepted — and in 2024, proceeded with a review of Efficient Power Conversion's patent, even though the International Trade Commission had already completed its exhaustive trial and was days away from issuing its final decision. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, applying lower evidentiary standards than a court, invalidated the patent. It issued its ruling on March 18, 2025 — weeks after the second Trump administration had reversed Biden's policy and reinstated the original rules, which on its own should have blocked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from acting. The director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office can reverse this decision. That should happen immediately. Overturning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 's ruling would align with the commission and block the theft of a vital American technology. But righting this one wrong isn't enough. The system that allowed this must be reformed to prevent future abuses. That means putting the new Patent Trial and Appeal Board guidance through the formal rulemaking process, thus making it harder for a future administration to reverse it arbitrarily. Even more important: Congress must act. Bipartisan legislation like the PREVAIL Act would bar duplicative Patent Trial and Appeal Board challenges and hold it to the same evidentiary standards as federal courts. As a member of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, I know how important it is to protect our innovation from theft by our most determined adversary. Passing this law would reaffirm America's commitment to its inventors, send a clear message to China, and stop unelected bureaucrats from hijacking trade enforcement. America's economic security depends on innovation. We can't afford to let the Chinese Communist Party and other foreign adversaries sabotage our innovators. Nathaniel Moran represents the 1st District of Texas and is a member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
National Portrait Gallery head steps down following Trump attempt to fire her
Kim Sajet, the director of the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian, resigned on Friday. Sajet's resignation was announced in an internal email, obtained by The Washington Post, sent just before noon to Smithsonian staff. In it, Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III wrote, 'We are grateful to Kim for leading the National Portrait Gallery with passion and creativity for 12 years,' and later adding, 'Her decision to put the museum first is to be applauded and appreciated. I know this was not an easy decision.' The email also included a message from Sajet, calling it the 'honor of a lifetime' to lead the gallery. 'Together, we have worked to tell a fuller, more American story — one that fosters connection, reflection, and understanding,' Sajet wrote. Sajet's resignation comes after President Donald Trump announced on May 30 that he had fired her, without citing any legal authority for doing so. Trump called her a 'highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI, which is totally inappropriate for her position.' Sajet continued reporting for work as usual throughout early June. After an all-day meeting on Monday, the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, without directly mentioning the standoff between the White House and Sajet, issued a statement saying that 'all personnel decisions' are directed by Bunch, secretary for the Smithsonian. The board also said that it supported Bunch's 'authority and management' of the institution. The statement also said that the board had directed Bunch to 'articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums' and to 'report back to the Board on progress and any needed personnel changes.' Bunch told Smithsonian staff that Kevin Gover, the undersecretary for museums and culture, would serve as acting director for the National Portrait Gallery. In March, Trump signed an executive order that directed Vice President JD Vance to scrutinize the Smithsonian, which the order said had fallen under the influence of 'divisive, race-centered ideology.'
