Duffy: Pentagon not responding to helicopter inquiries
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Tuesday the Pentagon has not responded to his inquiries about last week's Army helicopter that forced two commercial passenger jets landing at Reagan Washington National Airport to shift course.
When Fox News host Martha MacCallum asked if he had any additional information from the Pentagon on the flyover, Duffy said, 'I don't.
MacCullum noted that she didn't understand why the Pentagon 'hasn't gotten back to you on this yet. But we hope they sure do soon.'
'So do I,' Duffy replied.
U.S. Army spokesperson Capt. Victoria Goldfedib told The Hill that while conducting flight operations into the Pentagon in accordance with published FAA flight routes and DCA Air Traffic Control, a UH-60 Blackhawk initiated a 'go-around' after Pentagon Air Traffic Control told them they were not cleared to land, overflying the Pentagon helipad while maintaining all approved flight procedures.
As a result, DCA Air Traffic Control issued a 'go-around' to two civil fixed-wing aircraft to ensure the appropriate deconfliction of airspace.
'The United States Army remains committed to aviation safety and conducts flight operations within all approved guidelines and procedures,' Goldfedib said.
Some reports said VIPs were on board the aircraft which is why it was approved to enter airspace by Reagan Washington National Airport.
'But who qualifies for a VIP? Is it a two-star general, a three-star general?' Duffy asked in the segment.
Helicopter operations near the airport were restricted in March after a deadly collision between an Army helicopter and an American Airlines passenger plane killed 67 people in January.
'I want to commend Secretary Hegseth. He closed down those HELO missions for two weeks,' Duffy told Fox.
'We're going to look at it together and figure out what is the pathway forward. So they're not flying right now. And we should know as Americans, again, it's a civilian military,' he added.
'They're supposed to work for all of us. We should know who qualifies for that VIP mission. And if you're going to train, why are you training in the middle of the day? Maybe you should train at 2 o'clock in the morning or 3 o'clock in the morning.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
It's a really bad time to be an expert in Washington
At the Pentagon, 14 advisory boards have been dismantled, with curt, thank-you-for-your-service notes sent to Democrats and Republicans alike. Some of the boards dealt with obscure matters. But others focused on vital issues, like rethinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal as China's nuclear buildup, Russian President Vladimir Putin's episodic nuclear threats and Trump's ambitious demand for a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system have changed the nature of nuclear strategy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also gone: the board of experts who were trying to learn lessons from China's astoundingly successful hack into the country's telecommunications networks -- where, by all accounts, the hackers remain to this day. Then came historians at the State Department and the climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which employed experts in weather, oceans, climate and biodiversity. Advertisement The National Weather Service lost so many people that the agency had to hire some back. No such luck for researchers relying on the National Science Foundation, where projects are disappearing every month. Advertisement No one killed off the expert advisory board at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as it deliberated whether healthy children should receive the COVID vaccine. They did not have to. While it weighed the pros and cons, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his colleagues announced that they had already made their decision. When the history of these tumultuous past four months is written, it will doubtless focus on the moments when teams from the Department of Government Efficiency shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, when the president issued tariff threats to much of the world and when he went to war with Harvard. Less noticed, perhaps, may be the devastation of the expert class, which once dominated the city, moving between think tanks and government offices, generating alternative views in its best moments, engaging in groupthink at its worst. Today, the experts are swelling the ranks of Washington's suddenly unemployed. To the MAGA faithful, each one of these disbanded groups is a victory for a trimmer government that follows the president's wishes. To them, the National Security Council was the heart of the so-called deep state, whose members testified against Trump during his first impeachment inquiry. The raft of advisory committees mostly slowed down decision-making, they argued, when they were not undercutting policies they did not like. Worse yet, they were the source of leaks. So if an advisory committee of experts was not needed to help James K. Polk, the 11th president, figure out how to spread the United States to the West Coast, why do we need them to figure out the strategy for adding Greenland and Canada? (The expansionist Polk has been restored to a place of pride in the Oval Office -- his portrait now hangs just below and to the right of Thomas Jefferson's.) Advertisement Part of Trump's problem with experts is their portrayal as neutral arbiters, more interested in the data than presidential spin. That is what has led to the White House this week trying to discredit the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that, yes, the new tax bill could really add $2.4 trillion to the national debt, no matter the spin. Lacking the authority to fire the budget experts there, the White House turned to casting them as politically biased. And while every new president replaces board members and demands some fealty to the new leader's ideology, what has happened in the past four months seems to some in the federal government more like China's cultural revolution, where the only good ideas are the ones that flow from the leader, and both research reports and intelligence findings should support the president's desires. And when they are not, trouble follows. Just ask the National Intelligence Council, a small subset of intelligence experts -- many drawn from academia -- what happened when it came to the conclusion that the Venezuelan government was not controlling a criminal gang, an argument that Trump had used to justify deportations. The experts were told to 'do some rewriting' so the material could not be used against the president and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. After the intelligence findings were left unchanged, the board's leadership resisted and was removed. The whole institution is being moved into Gabbard's organization, where its independent judgments can be better controlled. Advertisement At the Environmental Protection Agency, self-protective action has replaced scientific inquiry. 'We've taken the words 'climate' and 'green energy' off every project document,' one scientist still in the government's employ said recently, refusing to speak on the record for obvious reasons. Veterans of Trump's first term say these changes are a manifestation of the president's bitter memories. 'I think somebody convinced President Trump, based on his experience in his first administration, that his own staff would be the biggest obstructionists,' H.R. McMaster, Trump's second national security adviser, said at a conference on artificial intelligence and national security Wednesday. (Trump's current national security adviser, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is one of around a half dozen across both terms.) While McMaster, now at Stanford, said he did not object to shrinking the National Security Council staff, he worried that also lost would be the capacity to run 'a deliberative process, which I think would be kind of nice on some of these issues, like tariffs, to clarify what you are trying to achieve.' 'Deliberative process' appears to be exactly what Trump is trying to avoid. And if that means eviscerating the expert class, so be it. It helps explain why the Department of Government Efficiency was given license to wipe out USAID. McMaster is hardly alone in concluding that some of the aid agency's programs had 'drifted.' Many Democrats say they agree, though almost never on the record. But McMaster gave voice to the question raised all over Washington when he asked, 'Should you just crush the entire organization or recognize there is a mission for that organization to advance American interests?' It was crushed, with foreign service officers, child health experts and others locked out of the offices. And that has led to both professional and personal angst. Advertisement 'If you work in the field of maternal and child health, you are in trouble,' said Jessica Harrison Fullerton, a managing director at the Global Development Incubator, a nonprofit that is trying to fill some of the gaps USAID's dismantlement left. 'Not only are you devastated by the impacts on the people you have been serving, but your expertise is now being questioned and your ability to use that expertise is limited because the jobs are gone.' In fact, what many of Washington's experts discovered was that crushing the organizations -- and putting their experts out on the street -- was the point of the exercise. It helped create a frisson of fear, and reinforced the message of who was in control. It has also led to warnings from more traditional Republicans that Trump's demand for loyalty over analysis is creating a trap for himself. 'Groupthink and a blinkered mindset are dangers for any administration,' said Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Center for a New American Security, which, in the days of bipartisanship, described itself as a bipartisan think tank. 'Pulling from multiple sources in and outside of government to develop solid options for foreign policy decision makers is the way to go.' Well, maybe in the Washington of a previous era. Within a 200-yard radius of USAID, DOGE teams moved into the Wilson Center, a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank that had significant private funding and money from Congress. They shuttered it, from its Cold War archives to the Kennan Institute, one of the country's leading collections of scholars about Russia. At a moment when superpower conflict is back, it was the kind of place that presented alternative views. Advertisement DOGE was unimpressed. Like their USAID colleagues in another part of the Ronald Reagan Building, they were soon stuffing their notes into cartons and discovering their computer access had been shut down. (The Wilson Center also sponsored book writers, including some from The New York Times.) The war on expertise has raised some fundamental questions that may not be answerable until after the Trump administration is over. Will the experts stick around -- after hiding out in the private sector or changing professions -- only to reoccupy the 'swamp'? And more immediately, what damage is being done in what may be the country's defining challenge: the competition with China over artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons, electric vehicles, quantum computing? That is what many in the intelligence agencies worry about, not least because Europe is already openly recruiting disillusioned American scientists, and China's intelligence services are looking for the angry and abandoned. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who writes often on the U.S.-China technological and military competitions, told an audience at the AI Summit on Wednesday that America is not acting like it understands that 'China has emerged as a full-spectrum competitor.' 'Our secret sauce,' he said, has been the American ability to 'recruit the most talented people in the world. Einstein didn't come from America.' 'The idea that we would be taking action that would undermine that makes no sense to any strategic thinker,' he said. Of course, those strategic thinkers rank among the suspect class of Washington experts. This article originally appeared in
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
NASA, Pentagon push for SpaceX alternatives amid Trump's feud with Musk
Federal officials at NASA and the Pentagon moved swiftly this week to urge competitors to Elon Musk's SpaceX to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft after President Donald Trump threatened to cancel Space X's contracts and Musk's defiant response. Government officials were especially stunned after Musk responded to Trump with a salvo of his own: SpaceX would stop flying its Dragon spacecraft, a move that would leave the space agency with no way to transport its astronauts to the International Space Station.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Where are the compassionate and moderating voices on Trump's travel ban?
Before he secured the Republican nomination for president in 2016, Donald Trump announced that he would seek 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.' Reaction, including from human rights organizations and fellow Republicans, was swift, and, for the most part, was characterized by astonishment, outrage and condemnation. Marco Rubio posted online, 'I disagree with Donald Trump's latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together.' At that time, Trump was an unknown entity in politics, and many believed he would never actually seek to implement the outrageous things he said. Unfortunately, one of Trump's first actions as a newly inaugurated president in January 2017 was to sign an executive order banning nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. This was immediately met with lawsuits and protests. The order was amended two different times in response to court challenges; eventually, a scaled-back version was upheld by the Supreme Court. To their credit, many leaders and members of the president's party were dismayed by this ban at the time. They saw it for what it was — a threat to the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. They could see it as a clear attack on the pluralism that has long guaranteed that our nation — a nation of immigrants — remains a haven for people seeking to practice their religion according to their conscience while also contributing to society. When candidate Trump first voiced his pledge to prevent Muslims from entering the U.S. in 2015, Utah Governor Herbert spoke out strongly against this idea: 'I am the governor of a state that was settled by religious exiles who withstood persecution after persecution, including an extermination order from another state's governor. In Utah, the First Amendment still matters. That will not change so long as I remain governor.' We remember both the early rhetoric of candidate Trump and the later actions of President Trump well. It was shocking and disorienting to watch his efforts to discriminate against others. It was disheartening to watch a political party descend into unchristian and uncharitable legalese, all with the aim to exclude others based solely on their faith or nationality. Mormon Women for Ethical Government was born in response to these efforts. At the outset, MWEG's founders envisioned a small group of women working together through peaceful, faithful, nonpartisan and proactive ways to counteract the unbelievable turn the government was making. But these women were not alone in their desire to take action. They were quickly joined by thousands of other women of faith who were ready to work for a more peaceful, just and ethical world. Over time, MWEG has become a strong voice in advocating for compassionate and moderating forces in government. The organization continues to attract women who want to proactively and peacefully support systems rooted in constitutional principles and the rule of law. We now have women in all 50 states engaging in the political arena as informed and principled citizens. Though much has changed since the formation of MWEG eight years ago, immigration remains a central and divisive issue. Immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, have been victims of dehumanizing language and unfair stereotyping. The current administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process. It has detained students without cause, deported a man by mistake and refused a Supreme Court order to facilitate his return, attempted to end birthright citizenship, revoked student visas, ended temporary protected status for many, and suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). This week, President Trump signed another proclamation that bans citizens from 12 countries from entering the U.S. In comparison to eight years ago, the large-scale response has been muted or even resigned. As the world has changed and political rhetoric has become ever more extreme, have we changed with it? Do things that were once the source of personal outrage and deep concern still concern us? Has our once-strong commitment to love our neighbor as ourself weakened? And, if we cannot love them, are we at least as committed to maintaining their claim to Constitutional protections as we were eight years ago? As an organization, MWEG is committed to amplifying the best aspects of our Christian faith. That faith is rooted in a gospel of generosity. We are also committed to preserving the Constitution that, among other things, protects our ability, as members of a minority faith, to participate freely in civic life, to express our views and to practice our religion without fear of repercussions. Actions like this ban seem directed at a particular group, but they actually undermine the constitutional rights that protect all of us from government overreach. As citizens of a free nation, we can and should speak out when we see those rights being violated. In 2017, the threat was widely recognized by leaders and citizens from both parties. It is worth contemplating why this is no longer the case.
