FAA meeting with Pentagon officials as agency considers new restrictions on military helicopter flights near DCA
The Federal Aviation Administration is meeting with Pentagon officials Thursday as the agency is considering slapping new restrictions on military helicopter flights near Reagan National Airport.
'Everything's on the table right now,' FAA Deputy Chief Operating Officer Franklin McIntosh told a hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. McIntosh said that the FAA is now reviewing helicopter flights transporting military officials on non-emergency missions and is discussing 'possible restrictions' with the Department of Defense.
The new moves follow the closure of the helicopter route that was in use at the time of the January 29 midair collision of a US Army Blackhawk helicopter on a training flight and a landing American Airlines regional flight, killing 67 people. On May 1, a helicopter from the same Army unit landing at the Pentagon caused air traffic controllers to order 'immediate go-arounds' for two nearby commercial flights.
The FAA revealed in a congressional hearing Wednesday the 'hotline' between air traffic controllers at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and the Pentagon, intended to coordinate aircraft, has not worked since March 2022.
After he was grilled by a Senate committee Wednesday, McIntosh insisted to Thursday's House committee hearing that the hotline will be repaired.
'That allows for immediate notification to the controllers,' McIntosh said. 'The issue really is making sure that that hotline is fixed.'
The FAA was not aware the direct line was broken until a May 1 incident where a helicopter circled the Pentagon and caused two flights to abort landings, McIntosh testified Wednesday.
Military flights to the Pentagon have been suspended since the incident and will not resume until the hotline is fixed, McIntosh said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth says troops in LA are lawful. He just can't explain why.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday insisted the Pentagon's deployment of troops to Los Angeles was lawful. He just couldn't cite the law he was following. The Pentagon chief clashed with several lawmakers at a Senate budget hearing as he sought to defend President Donald Trump's decision to send thousands of troops, including 700 active-duty Marines, to California in response to mass deportation protests. But when asked to explain the legal underpinning that justifies the Marine deployment, the Defense secretary blanked. 'I'd have to pull up the specific provision,' he told Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). 'But our Office of General Counsel, alongside our leadership, has reviewed and ensured, in the order that we set out, that it's completely constitutional for the president to use federal troops to defend federal law enforcement.' When Baldwin pushed again, Hegseth said, 'It's in the order, ma'am, but we'll make sure we get it to you as well.' Hegseth, a former Fox News anchor who appears calm in front of the camera, faced a tougher time at Wednesday's Senate defense appropriations subcommittee than he did at a House budget hearing the day before. Democrats peppered him with questions about the domestic deployments, research budget cuts and the impact of tariffs on the defense industrial base. Republicans largely avoided focusing on Los Angeles, although they lashed out at him on Trump's tardy budget and approach to Ukraine. The Defense secretary argued the deployments to Los Angeles and along the southern border, where the military has 13,000 National Guard and active-duty troops, are necessary to protect the country. 'We very much support President Trump's focus on defending [the] homeland on our southern border,' he said, 'as well as supporting law enforcement officials doing their job in ICE in Los Angeles who deserve not to be assaulted, accosted and rioted while rounding up one of the 21 million illegals allowed in as an invasion under the previous administration.' But Democrats questioned whether the moves violated laws that govern the use of the military on U.S. soil. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) pressed Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine about the argument underpinning the orders. 'Is the United States being invaded by a foreign nation?' he asked. 'I don't see any foreign state-sponsored folks invading,' Caine replied. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) raised concerns about Trump politicizing the military, asking Hegseth whether he supported deploying the National Guard to the Capitol in response to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection that sought to overturn the election. Hegseth would not say. 'All I know is it's the right decision to be deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles to defend ICE agents,' he said. Murphy called Hegseth's response evidence of a double standard. 'You are not willing to defend against attacks made on our democracy by supporters of the president, but you are willing to deploy the National Guard to protect against protestors who are criticizing the president,' he said. But it was Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the usually restrained Senate Armed Services Committee's ranking member, who was the most forceful in tone. He raised alarms about the Los Angeles deployment, as well as several Homeland Security requests for 20,000 more troops to assist at the border, for 'military forces to detain or arrest American citizens,' and to provide drone surveillance. 'Is it your intent to approve these requests?' Reed asked. 'Are you prepared to authorize DHS to use drones and also to authorize military forces to detain or arrest American citizens?' Hegseth did not respond directly, but defended the administration's actions. 'Every authorization we've provided the National Guard and the Marines in Los Angeles is under the authority of the President of the United States — is lawful and constitutional,' he said. 'They are assisting in defending law enforcement officers … executing their job in the city of Los Angeles.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate Democrats spar with Hegseth over legality of Los Angeles deployments
Senate Democrats sought to pick apart the Trump administration's legal rationale for sending National Guard troops and active-duty Marines into Los Angeles this week in what they called a wildly out-of-proportion response to sometimes violent protests against President Trump's escalating immigration sweeps. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) berated Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during an Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the Pentagon's budget plans, saying the actions were undermining the readiness of America's military. 'You are deploying the American military to police the American people; you are sending the National Guard into California without the governor's request, sending the Marines not after foreign threats, but after American protesters; and now President Trump is promising heavy force against peaceful protesters at his D.C. military parade,' Murray said. 'Those sorts of actions and that sort of rhetoric from a president of the United States should stop every one of us cold,' she continued. 'Threatening to use our own troops on our own citizens at such scale is unprecedented, it is unconstitutional, and it is downright un-American.' Hegseth repeatedly told senators that every move taken by the Pentagon was constitutional, stemming from the president's authority, and that troops were in Los Angeles to protect federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers carrying out their duties in the city. 'It's about maintaining law and order on behalf of law enforcement agents who deserve to do their job without being attacked by mobs of people,' the Defense secretary told Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'And what your military is doing right now is laying concertina wire, guarding buildings, maintaining vehicles for other services,' Reed replied. 'This is not only, I think, illegal, but also a diminution of the readiness and the focus of the military.' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) tried to drill down on how broadly Trump's orders to mobilize armed forces at anti-ICE protests could be applied across the country, noting that the initial order did not mention California specifically or any particular military units. 'It's just like, I get your justification. We disagree about the circumstances. I'm just trying to figure out, did you just potentially mobilize every guard everywhere, and every service member everywhere? I mean, create the framework for that, I understand you didn't,' Schatz said during the hearing. 'I'm saying, what does the document do, in your opinion?' Hegseth noted that orders had been issued for new batches of troops since that initial order, but he suggested it was meant to describe a nationwide authority. 'So, part of it is getting ahead of a problem,' he told Schatz. 'So that if in other places, if there are other riots, in places where law enforcement officers are threatened, we would have the capability to surge National Guard there, if necessary.' 'And thankfully, in most of those states, you'd have a governor that recognizes the need for it, supports it, and mobilizes it, him or herself,' the Pentagon chief continued. 'In California, unfortunately, the governor wants to play politics with it.' Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) later tried to pin down Hegseth on the precise constitutional statutes Trump was relying on to justify the troop deployments. 'The president made it clear that he relied on Section 12406 of Title 10 with regard to the National Guard troops,' Baldwin said. 'I need to know the authority that he is relying upon in terms of active-duty Marines being deployed to California.' Hegseth cited constitutional powers, which he said were outlined in Trump's order, but said he'd have to follow up with specific statutes. The president has also doubled down on his decision to deploy troops while calling out California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for not ensuring federal agents were protected. 'The INCOMPETENT Governor of California was unable to provide protection in a timely manner when our Ice Officers, GREAT Patriots they are, were attacked by an out of control mob of agitators, troublemakers, and/or insurrectionists,' Trump wrote on Truth Social early Wednesday. In a subsequent post, the president added, 'If our troops didn't go into Los Angeles, it would be burning to the ground right now, just like so much of their housing burned to the ground. The great people of Los Angeles are very lucky that I made the decision to go in and help!!!' Newsom blasted Trump in a televised address on Tuesday night, warning his overreach would not remain isolated to California. 'This is about all of us. This is about you. California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next,' Newsom said. 'Democracy is under assault before our eyes. This moment we have feared has arrived.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Pentagon to review AUKUS submarine deal with Australia and Britain
The Pentagon is reviewing the AUKUS agreement on sharing nuclear-powered submarine technology with Australia and the United Kingdom — a decision immediately condemned by congressional Democrats and one that may cause angst among U.S. allies. 'The Department is reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous Administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda,' a Pentagon spokesperson wrote in a statement Wednesday. The spokesperson did not say who was involved in the effort, when it would conclude or why it was initiated — except to say that the Pentagon was concerned about the readiness of its forces and the U.S. defense industry. 'This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria,' the statement continued. AUKUS countries update rules on sharing defense kit The Financial Times first reported news of the review. As part of the trilateral defense pact, Britain and Australia will build a nuclear-powered submarine, with the United States selling Virginia-class boats to Canberra in the interim. The agreement also includes a separate goal for the three countries to develop advanced technology together, such as quantum computing and hypersonic missiles. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth traveled to Singapore just over a week ago, where he met with his Australian counterpart, Richard Marles, multiple times. In a major speech on the Trump administration's Asia policy, Hegseth didn't mention AUKUS, something Marles dismissed in an interview with Defense News later. 'We've spoken extensively about AUKUS — both of our countries, including Secretary Hegseth himself. We don't feel a need to keep reiterating it on every single occasion,' Marles said, arguing the program was 'on track.' In his March confirmation hearing, Pentagon head of policy Elbridge Colby expressed some hesitancy about AUKUS — in particular, America's difficulty increasing its own production of nuclear-powered submarines, which would conceivably make it harder to sell extra boats to Australia. 'If we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can't, that becomes a very difficult problem because we don't want our servicemen and women to be in a weaker position,' Colby said. 'It should be the policy of the United States government to do everything we can to make this work,' Colby continued. Colby has also argued that Australia, which is increasing defense spending to around 2.4% of GDP by the mid-2030s, should raise its defense budget far faster. In a Pentagon readout after Hegseth and Marles met, the U.S. said it wanted that number to be 3.5% of GDP. In April, the head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Samuel Paparo, defended the initiative's value in testimony before the House and said the effort on nuclear submarines was 'meeting every milestone' operationally. 'AUKUS delivers something to INDOPACOM that is critical and could be a key advantage, and that is a Indian Ocean submarine base. This gives us faster response time to the South China Sea than in Hawaii, in Washington, in San Diego,' Paparo said. To help America build more submarines, Congress has spent billions of dollars in recent defense bills targeted at the effort. Australia, too, has pledged $3 billion in its own funding to help the U.S. build more of the boats, which Marles referenced in his interview with Defense News. 'It is a challenge, but I think it's a challenge we can meet,' he said. The Australian embassy didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the British embassy, meanwhile, responded to the news with reassurance. 'It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the U.K. did last year.' Senate Democrats criticized the White House for casting doubt on the future of the AUKUS agreement. 'If this administration is serious about countering the threat from China — like it has said as recently as this morning — then it will work expeditiously with our partners in Australia and the U.K. to strengthen this agreement and ensure we are taking steps to further boost our submarine industrial base,' Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement. 'Anything less would play directly into China's hand.' Fellow Senate Armed Services Committee member Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., said the news that Trump may abandon AUKUS 'will be met with cheers in Beijing' and further weaken America's standing in the world. 'At a moment when we face mounting threats from [China] and Russia, we should be encouraging our partners to raise their defense spending and partnering with them on the latest technologies — not doing the opposite,' she said. Military Times reporter Leo Shane III contributed to this story.
