Washington airport will halt flights at 6 p.m. Saturday night during Trump Army parade
(Fixes typographical error in headline)
By David Shepardson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Federal Aviation Administration plans to suspend flights at Reagan Washington National Airport from 6 p.m. ET to 9:30 p.m. during U.S. President Donald Trump's Army anniversary parade on Saturday, the agency said Wednesday.
The FAA is expanding the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area and from 6 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. will stop all arrivals and departures at the airport just outside Washington.
Major airlines are offering flexibility to travelers. United Airlines said it is offering a travel waiver for Reagan National, as well as adding two additional departures from and two additional arrivals at nearby Washington Dulles International Airport on Saturday.
American Airlines said it has "adjusted our schedule during this timeframe, temporarily added larger aircraft at DCA to accommodate more customers at alternative times and issued a travel alert that includes flexibility to travel on a different day or through Washington Dulles and Baltimore Washington at no extra cost."
The long-planned celebration for the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary will coincide with the president's 79th birthday. The airport is located less than two miles from the National Mall.
The U.S. Army is bringing 6,500 troops into Washington, along with 150 vehicles and 50 aircraft for the celebration. The flyover will include Apache and Black Hawk helicopters along with Chinooks. Older aircraft like the World War Two-era B-25 bomber and P-51 Mustang will also take part.
The Washington area is the most heavily restricted airspace in the United States. No drones are permitted in Washington without special FAA approval.
The FAA has barred routine Army training and transport helicopter flights around the Pentagon after a May 1 close call and the Jan. 29 collision of an American regional jet and Army helicopter that killed 67.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
36 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."
Buzz Feed
39 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Conservative Ideal America Video Goes Viral
If there's one thing conservatives love to do, it's making American cities feel like dangerous, scary trash heaps that are constantly burning to the ground. To them, New York is unlivable, Minneapolis was a war zone, and now, all eyes are on Los Angeles — a city Donald Trump claims was "once great" but is now being "invaded" by "illegal aliens and criminals." As someone who actually lives in LA, I can tell you that narrative is completely detached from reality. First of all, LA wasn't "once great" — it's always been great, and it's always been an immigrant city, which, contrary to conservative panic, isn't a flaw. It's the foundation. The name is LOS ANGELES, remember? Second of all, the city isn't under "attack" by "criminals and illegal aliens" — fear-mongering buzzwords the right loves to throw around to paint a false picture of chaos. Quite the opposite, actually. In truth, LA is hurting not because of its people, but because ICE is barging into homes and workplaces. The fear here isn't coming from the streets. It's coming from our own federal government. People have been protesting peacefully. Things didn't escalate until Trump sent in 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines. Yesterday, a coworker told me what's usually a 12-minute drive home downtown took him half an hour because the National Guard, not protesters or even local police, were standing around clogging the streets. Even Gov. Gavin Newsom called the move "reckless," "pointless," and "disrespectful to our troops" in a post on X. "This isn't about public safety. It's about stroking a dangerous President's ego," he said. And yet, conservative media keeps pretending the city is being overrun by "insurrectionist mobs" (lest we forget who actually did storm the Capitol). Most people are still just trying to live their lives — working, commuting, taking care of their families — but now under the added weight of fear, anger, and disruption. The protests are mostly peaceful and, relative to the size of LA, contained. Genuinely, I don't think people realize how big this damn city is. It is not the same. Alas, this brings me to everyone's not-so-favorite conservative grifter: Charlie Kirk, who tried to contrast the moment by posting a clip of a "small town" set to the country song "Small Town USA." He wrote, "I wonder why America's small towns are so placid, lovely, and orderly. It's a total mystery." In the clip, a girl proudly shows off her idyllic idea of "small" town Americana. She shows us a covered porch with an American flag: A parade with American flag-waving locals: Cops on horseback: A pickup truck strolling by: A tractor strolling by: And, naturally, racks of American flag merch. She also takes us to a farmer's market. A lake house (with, you guessed it, more American flags). And a beach-themed bar. You get the picture: "placid," patriotic, white. As someone from Michigan myself, I instantly recognized the town; it's Rockford, MI, a wealthy suburb just outside Grand Rapids, the second largest city in the state. And many others did too, pointing out another crucial detail about this "lovely" little town: it voted blue in the last two presidential elections. "I love how every time these LARPers post 'small town' and 'real American' content to contrast with L.A. its always affluent suburbs that vote Democratic," one viral tweet said. Another pointed out: "because this town voted for harris by a 52–45 margin." Note: The Kent County margin was 52-46, rounded. Even former Republican Rep. Justin Amash weighed in: "This is Rockford, Michigan, which is a suburb of Grand Rapids, and part of the congressional district I represented. Rockford voted for Biden over Trump in 2020 and Harris over Trump in 2024. I didn't vote for any of those candidates. Just reporting the facts." Another person also remarked the absurdity of calling the area a "small town": "I love the framing of Rockford being a small town lol. 3rd biggest high school in GR and is essentially an annex of the city. But tractor on street." "This is clearly not a small town, which would be obvious if you'd ever spent time in one," another added. And while the county has recently leaned blue, it's still very white — Kent County is 72% white, compared to the national average of 58%. That might explain why Charlie Kirk was drawn to the video in the first place, which, notably, featured almost no Black or brown people. "So what Charlie Kirk is implying here is that small American towns are nice because there are no brown people," one person tweeted. "They don't even hide the blatant racism anymore," added another. All in all, this tweet may have said it best: "People who live in small towns are scared of cities, and people who live in cities are scared of small towns. People who have lived in both are only scared of small towns." As someone who's lived in both small towns (in Michigan too!) and now Los Angeles, I can't say I disagree. But, as always, let me know your thoughts in the comments.
Politico
43 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump wanted ‘90 deals in 90 days.' Instead, he's finding wins where he can.
President Donald Trump is touting this week's trade agreement with China as the latest triumph of his dealmaking acumen. But his celebratory tone belies an uncomfortable reality: For all his optimistic talk on trade, Trump has made little tangible progress since this spring's tariff spree, so far only securing frameworks of agreements with the U.K. and China and leaving American businesses grappling with continued economic uncertainty. Critics and allies alike say Trump's talk about the China 'deal' signals how eager he is to telegraph progress ahead of the White House's July 8 self-imposed deadline to hash out agreements with trading partners. 'We were promised '90 deals in 90 days.' What we have at this point are 'general frameworks' for the U.K. and China,' said Marc Short, who served as Trump's legislative affairs director and Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff during the president's first term, referencing Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro's vow. The administration will 'present it as if they're making significant progress and hail these general frameworks as really significant breakthrough deals,' Short added. But 'other countries are seeing that, if I wait this out, he's going to be overly sensitive to bond market yields, or he's going to get himself into trouble, and then he's going to need to get out of it with a deal.' The White House, however, sees the agreement with China as a true win — proof that it went toe-to-toe with its biggest economic adversary and held its own. 'We're in a solid place going forward in these negotiations, because the country that could most push back here, tried to push back and it didn't really go well for them,' said a White House official, granted anonymity to share the administration's thinking. 'We feel good about negotiations. We're increasingly walking into these discussions being able to demonstrate that we do have the cards.' But even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged that it was 'highly likely' that the July deadline could be extended for 18 trading partners he said are negotiating in good faith. Trump downplayed those comments when asked about them Wednesday night, saying that while he 'would' extend the deadline, he didn't think he'd have to. This week's tentative deal with China offers Trump a bit of a boost as he prepares to meet with major world leaders at the G7 summit next week in Canada. Representatives from foreign countries view the upcoming confab as the next best vehicle to nail down something concrete on trade, after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Wednesday that there will be 'quite a few bilateral meetings.' One Canadian official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said whether progress is made over the next few weeks with any country, 'depends greatly on U.S. bandwidth to respond on tariffs given all other talks.' 'I'd expect if [an agreement] lands, it's much closer to the U.K. document length than 1500+ pages of USMCA,' the official said, referring to the comprehensive North American trade deal known as the U.S.-Mexico Canada Agreement, which Trump negotiated during his first term. The U.S. announced its first trade 'deal' — which was, in reality, the framework for a more detailed future agreement — with the U.K. in May. But that accord has yet to be enacted, with U.S. levies on U.K. exports, including cars, steel and aluminum, remaining in place and provisions on agriculture and other issues still to be hashed out. And this week, Trump quickly declared mission accomplished on China — subject to final approval from both him and China's leader Xi Jinping — even though top negotiators had reached no more than a handshake agreement to deescalate tensions and advance trade talks, after a meeting in Geneva last month failed to move the ball forward. Meanwhile, the administration has continued to promise that deals with major trading partners, like Japan, South Korea, India and the European Union, are 'close' ahead of a July 8 deadline, after which Trump's sweeping and massive 'Liberation Day' tariffs are set to go back into effect. But talks with those countries have yet to bear fruit, and smaller countries, eager to negotiate, are having a hard time getting the administration to consider tweaks to proposals the U.S. has put forward. Even some Trump allies in regular contact with the White House are struggling to understand the administration's approach on trade. If the White House is truly interested in boosting domestic manufacturing, they say, it would move quickly to negotiate deals. That would allow businesses to move forward with some certainty instead of leaving them in limbo. 'You meet with officials at all these agencies, you even meet with Cabinet secretaries, and they all agree that the intent of the tariffs was never to hinder companies who are expanding, or trying to onshore supply chains here,' said one of those allies, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the trade discussions. 'I have no fucking clue what their strategy is.' A second Trump ally was more optimistic, acknowledging that the deals seem 'elusive' but voicing confidence the administration 'can get them done.' Talks with South Korea, for instance, appear to be ramping up after the country's new president, Lee Jae-myung, spoke with Trump last week and selected on Tuesday a chief trade negotiator, Yeo Han-koo. While negotiations between the two countries have been ongoing, the South Korean government had made clear it was not possible to make a deal until a new president was in place after its June 3 elections. Leaders in India, who were negotiating with the administration on trade even before Trump announced its 'Liberation Day' tariffs, appear optimistic that the pace of negotiations is picking up ahead of the July deadline. India's foreign minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar told the French paper Le Figaro earlier this week he was 'hopeful' the country would soon reach an agreement with the U.S. And conversations with the EU — which had stalled, nearly triggering a trade war last month — have moved into a negotiating stage, though progress still remains elusive. The EU has expressed a willingness to engage on issues that have long irritated the U.S., like energy, semiconductors, steel and aluminum and autos, but the U.S. has indicated it will only make concessions on tariffs implemented since Trump took office, and that its flat 10 percent 'baseline' tariff on all countries is off the table for negotiations. That's clouded talks, despite a positive readout from U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer after a meeting with E.U. trade czar Maroš Šefčovič in Paris last week. 'The erratic behavior of the Trump administration has to stop if we want to reach a deal,' Italian Member of the European Parliament Brando Benifei said in an interview. Benifei, who chairs the European Parliament's Delegation for relations with the United States, added that the Trump administration's decision to hike tariffs on steel and aluminum in the middle of trade talks 'is damaging the ongoing negotiations, increasing more uncertainty also for the global economy.' Japanese officials, meanwhile, left Washington empty handed last week following a fifth round of trade talks. The country's trade negotiators said that while talks had 'progressed' Japan had yet to find 'common ground' with the U.S. Prospects for a deal are slightly better for Mexico. President Claudia Sheinbaum said it was 'very likely' that she would speak with Trump at the G7 summit, which she will attend as a guest of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The countries are closing in on a narrow deal that could remove the U.S.'s flat 50 percent tariffs on steel, Bloomberg News was first to report. A person close to the White House, granted anonymity to discuss details of the negotiations, told POLITICO that the countries are weighing a quota-based system, and could reveal more details at next week's G7 summit. Those plans, they said, are not final, and the administration is grappling with pressure from its more protectionist factions that have long requested Trump remain focused on reciprocal tariffs in trade talks. Both Mexico and Canada are not impacted by so-called reciprocal tariffs, and received some exemptions for sector-specific duties because of the pre-existing North American trade deal. Other tariffs, such as those on steel and aluminum, remain in full force. Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), a staunch Trump ally, argued the pressure to make deals is on foreign governments, not the White House, at this point. 'There's a lot in the hopper. There's pressure on those other countries because quite frankly it's embarrassing to the EU, it's embarrassing to Japan, it's embarrassing to South Korea that we're making a deal with China first,' Moreno said. 'The reality is that those countries just need to step up, acknowledge that we've had a tilted relationship with them for decades and then they need to fix that and come to the table with a legitimate offer to rebalance our trade.' Even without substantial deals, some on the right continue to point out how U.S. tariffs have already significantly shifted the economic conversation. Baseline reciprocal tariffs of 10 percent remain in effect globally, with tariffs in China at an even higher level of about 55 percent, on average. 'Some, they want to call it 'caving' or 'giving in' or something like that,' said Mark DiPlacido, policy advisor at American Compass, a think tank that embraces economic populism. 'But they're not comparing it to the baseline of where things were at at the beginning of the year.'
