Transportation secretary pushes multibillion-dollar plan to overhaul air traffic control system
The problems that disrupted flights at New Jersey's largest airport this spring could be repeated anywhere across the country, so Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is trying to sell Congress on his plan to overhaul the nation's air traffic control system that will cost 'tens of billions.'
Duffy provided an update Wednesday on the repairs and staffing efforts that are underway to help eliminate the problems affecting Newark Liberty International Airport, which has been running more smoothly in the past few weeks since the airlines started to cut the number of flights they operate there.
And Duffy emphasized that the Newark radar outages and air traffic control shortage are a prime example of why the antiquated system needs to be improved.
'I'm concerned that we could have more Newarks. And again, why it's so important that we actually begin this build with the money that Congress is going to send us,' he said.
Duffy wouldn't give a price tag for his expansive overhaul of the air traffic control system that he said is clearly needed after the deadly midair collision over Washington, D.C., in January that killed 67 people and all the problems affecting Newark this spring. But he said the $12.5 billion the House included President Donald Trump's massive bill won't be enough because 'it's going to be tens of billions of dollars.'
Duffy has been meeting privately with lawmakers since he unveiled the plan. But he said he wants to let Congress 'do the dance the way the Congress dances' to develop a plan to pay for the program.
The problems that led to hundreds of cancellations and delays at Newark seem to have improved since the Federal Aviation Administration limited the number of flights at the airport so they could handle it with the number of controllers available. The already short-staffed air traffic control facility in Philadelphia that directs planes in and out of Newark lost five controllers to trauma leave after the first radar and communications outage on April 28 and another one is out on medical leave.
That left the facility with only 16 certified controllers and five supervisors. But Duffy said there are another 16 experienced controllers in training that he hopes will start to get certified between now and October.
That is an example of how the FAA remains about 3,000 short on the number of air traffic controllers it wants, so Duffy has also tried to speed up the hiring and training process while offering incentives to keep experienced controllers from retiring early.
The FAA has said that it expects to be able to bump up the number of flights daily in Newark to 34 arrivals and 34 departures once a runway construction project is completed in mid-June. That is also about the time that some of the controllers on a 45-day trauma leave might be scheduled to return. The FAA will revisit the limits in October because it hopes to have more controllers trained by then.
The government also upgraded the software at the air traffic control facility after a second radar outage on May 9. That helped prevent a repeat problem on May 11.
The FAA is also working on the telecommunications problems. Duffy said Verizon worked quickly to install a new fiber optic line between Philadelphia and New York over the past month, but the FAA wants to thoroughly test it out before switching over, so that likely won't be available until July. After that, the FAA plans to also improve the lines between New York and the Newark airport because some of them are still copper wires.
'Clearly something wasn't going right when we experienced these outages,' acting FAA Administrator Chris Rocheleau said. 'Right now, part of this effort, part of this initiative, is to ensure we're acting with decisiveness, right — with focus — to make sure the lines get in, to make sure those redundancies are put in, to make sure the controllers have the tools they need to make the system safe, to operate safely.'
In the meantime, Duffy said it would be a good idea for pilots to brush up on their procedures of how to handle an outage because they can happen. In addition to the problems in Newark, controllers in Denver lost their radios for a couple minutes earlier this month. Duffy said there were also several other outages affecting Newark last year that didn't get public attention.
'We have to look at the real world around us and some of the issues that come up and make sure we are brushed up and ready to go, should there be a brief outage,' Duffy said. 'And again, that there's a lot of redundancy and a lot of procedures that keep people safe should this happen.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The AI lobby plants its flag in Washington
Top artificial intelligence companies are rapidly expanding their lobbying footprint in Washington — and so far, Washington is turning out to be a very soft target. Two privately held AI companies, OpenAI and Anthropic — which once positioned themselves as cautious, research-driven counterweights to aggressive Big Tech firms — are now adding Washington staff, ramping up their lobbying spending and chasing contracts from the estimated $75 billion federal IT budget, a significant portion of which now focuses on AI. They have company. Scale AI, a specialist contractor with the Pentagon and other agencies, is also planning to expand its government relations and lobbying teams, a spokesperson told POLITICO. In late March, the AI-focused chipmaking giant Nvidia registered its first in-house lobbyists. AI lobbyists are 'very visible' and 'very present on the hill,' said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) in an interview at the Special Competitive Studies Project AI+ Expo this week. 'They're nurturing relationships with lots of senators and a handful of members [of the House] in Congress. It's really important for their ambitions, their expectations of the future of AI, to have Congress involved, even if it's only to stop us from doing anything.' This lobbying push aims to capitalize on a wave of support from both the Trump administration and the Republican Congress, both of which have pumped up the AI industry as a linchpin of American competitiveness and a means for shrinking the federal workforce. They don't all present a unified front — Anthropic, in particular, has found itself at odds with conservatives, and on Thursday its CEO Dario Amodei broke with other companies by urging Congress to pass a national transparency standard for AI companies — but so far the AI lobby is broadly getting what it wants. 'The overarching ask is for no regulation or for light-touch regulation, and so far, they've gotten that," said Doug Calidas, senior vice president of government affairs for the AI policy nonprofit Americans for Responsible Innovation. In a sign of lawmakers' deference to industry, the House passed a ten-year freeze on enforcing state and local AI regulation as part of its megabill that is currently working through the Senate. Critics, however, worry that the AI conversation in Washington has become an overly tight loop between companies and their GOP supporters — muting important concerns about the growth of a powerful but hard-to-control technology. 'There's been a huge pivot for [AI companies] as the money has gotten closer,' Gary Marcus, an AI and cognitive science expert, said of the leading AI firms. 'The Trump administration is too chummy with the big tech companies, and basically ignoring what the American people want, which is protection from the many risks of AI.' Anthropic declined to comment for this story, referring POLITICO to its March submission to the AI Action Plan that the White House is crafting after President Donald Trump repealed a sprawling AI executive order issued by the Biden administration. OpenAI, too, declined to comment. This week several AI firms, including OpenAI, co-sponsored the Special Competitive Studies Project's AI+ Expo, an annual Washington trade show that has quickly emerged as a kind of bazaar for companies trying to sell services to the government. (Disclosure: POLITICO was a media partner of the conference.) They're jostling for influence against more established government contractors like Palantir, which has been steadily building up its lobbying presence in D.C. for years, while Meta, Google, Amazon and Microsoft — major tech platforms with AI as part of their pitch — already have dozens of lobbyists in their employ. What the AI lobby wants is a classic Washington twofer: fewer regulations to limit its growth, and more government contracts. The government budget for AI has been growing. Federal agencies across the board — from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to the IRS and the Department of Veterans Affairs — are looking to build AI capacity. The Trump administration's staff cuts and automation push is expected to accelerate the demand for private firms to fill the gap with AI. For AI, 'growth' also demands energy and, on the policy front, AI companies have been a key driver of the recent push in Congress and the White House to open up new energy sources, streamline permitting for building new data centers and funnel private investment into the construction of these sites. Late last year, OpenAI released an infrastructure blueprint for the U.S. urging the federal government to prepare for a massive spike in demand for computational infrastructure and energy supply. Among its recommendations: creating special AI zones to fast-track permits for energy and data centers, expanding the national power grid and boosting government support for private investment in major energy projects. Those recommendations are now being very closely echoed by Trump administration figures. Last month, at the Bitcoin 2025 Conference in Las Vegas, David Sacks — Trump's AI and crypto czar — laid out a sweeping vision that mirrored the AI industry's lobbying goals. Speaking to a crowd of 35,000, Sacks stressed the foundational role of energy for both AI and cryptocurrency, saying bluntly: 'You need power.' He applauded President Donald Trump's push to expand domestic oil and gas production, framing it as essential to keeping the U.S. ahead in the global AI and crypto race. This is a huge turnaround from a year ago, when AI companies faced a very different landscape in Washington. The Biden administration, and many congressional Democrats, wanted to regulate the industry to guard against bias, job loss and existential risk. No longer. Since Trump's election, AI has become central to the conversation about global competition with China, with Silicon Valley venture capitalists like Sacks and Marc Andreessen now in positions of influence within the Trump orbit. Trump's director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is Michael Kratsios, former managing director at Scale AI. Trump himself has proudly announced a series of massive Gulf investment deals in AI. Sacks, in his Las Vegas speech, pointed to those recent deal announcements as evidence of what he called a 'total comprehensive shift' in Washington's approach to emerging technologies. But as the U.S. throws its weight behind AI as a strategic asset, critics warn that the enthusiasm is muffling one of the most important conversations about AI: its ability to wreak unforeseen harm on the populace, from fairness to existential risk concerns. Among those concerns: bias embedded in algorithmic decisions that affect housing, policing, and hiring; surveillance that could threaten civil liberties; the erosion of copyright protections, as AI models hoover up data and labor protections as automation replaces human work. Kevin De Liban, founder of TechTonic Justice, a nonprofit that focuses on the impact of AI on low income communities, worries that Washington has abandoned its concerns for AI's impact on citizens. 'Big Tech gets fat government contracts, a testing ground for their technologies, and a liability-free regulatory environment,' he said, of Washington's current AI policy environment. 'Everyday people are left behind to deal with the fallout.' There's a much larger question, too, which dominated the early AI debate: whether cutting-edge AI systems can be controlled at all. These risks, long documented by researchers, are now taking a back seat in Washington as the conversation turns to economic advantage and global competition. There's also the very real concern that if an AI company does bring up the technology's worst-case scenarios, it may find itself at odds with the White House itself. Anthropic CEO Amodei said in a May interview that labor force disruptions due to AI would be severe — which triggered a direct attack from Sacks, Trump's AI czar, on his podcast, who said that line of thinking led to 'woke AI.' Still, both Anthropic and OpenAI are going full steam ahead. Anthropic hired nearly a dozen policy staffers in the last two months, while OpenAI similarly grew its policy office over the past year. They're also pushing to become more important federal contractors by getting critical FedRAMP authorizations — a federal program that certifies cloud services for use across government — which could unlock billions of dollars in contracts. As tech companies grow increasingly cozy with the government, the political will to regulate them is fading — and in fact, Congress appears hostile to any efforts to regulate them at all. In a public comment in March, OpenAI specifically asked the Trump administration for a voluntary federal framework that overrides state AI laws, seeking 'private sector relief' from a patchwork of state AI bills. Two months later, the House added language to its reconciliation bill that would have done exactly that — and more. The provision to impose a 10 year moratorium on state AI regulations passed the House but is expected to be knocked out by the Senate parliamentarian. (Breaking ranks again, Anthropic is lobbying against the moratorium.) Still, the provision has widespread support amongst Republicans and is likely to make a comeback.
41 minutes ago
Pentagon watchdog investigates if staffers were asked to delete Hegseth's Signal messages
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon watchdog is looking into whether any of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's aides was asked to delete Signal messages that may have shared sensitive military information with a reporter, according to two people familiar with the investigation and documents reviewed by The Associated Press. The inspector general's request focuses on how information about the March 15 airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen was shared on the messaging app. This comes as Hegseth is scheduled to testify before Congress next week for the first time since his confirmation hearing. He is likely to face questions under oath not only about his handling of sensitive information but also the wider turmoil at the Pentagon following the departures of several senior aides and an internal investigation over information leaks. Hegseth already has faced questions over the installation of an unsecured internet line in his office that bypassed the Pentagon's security protocols and revelations that he shared details about the military strikes in multiple Signal chats. One of the chats included his wife and brother, while the other included President Donald Trump's top national security officials and inadvertently included The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. Neither the Pentagon nor the inspector general's office immediately responded to Friday requests for comment on the investigation. Besides finding out whether anyone was asked to delete Signal messages, the inspector general also is asking some past and current staffers who were with Hegseth on the day of the strikes who posted the information and who had access to his phone, according to the two people familiar with the investigation and the documents reviewed by the AP. The people were not authorized to discuss the investigation and spoke on the condition of anonymity. Democratic lawmakers and a small number of Republicans have said that the information Hegseth posted to the Signal chats before the military jets had reached their targets could have put those pilots' lives at risk and that for any lower-ranking members of the military it would have led to their firing. Hegseth has said none of the information was classified. Multiple current and former military officials have said there is no way details with that specificity, especially before a strike took place, would have been OK to share on an unsecured device. 'I said repeatedly, nobody is texting war plans,' Hegseth told Fox News Channel in April after reporting emerged about the chat that included his family members. 'I look at war plans every day. What was shared over Signal then and now, however you characterize it, was informal, unclassified coordinations, for media coordinations and other things. That's what I've said from the beginning.' Trump has made clear that Hegseth continues to have his support, saying during a Memorial Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia that the defense secretary 'went through a lot' but 'he's doing really well.' Hegseth has limited his public engagements with the press since the Signal controversy. He has yet to hold a Pentagon press briefing, and his spokesman has briefed reporters there only once. The inspector general is investigating Hegseth at the request of the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and the committee's top Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island. Signal is a publicly available app that provides encrypted communications, but it can be hacked and is not approved for carrying classified information. On March 14, one day before the strikes against the Houthis, the Defense Department cautioned personnel about the vulnerability of the app. Trump has said his administration targeted the Houthis over their 'unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence and terrorism.' He has noted the disruption Houthi attacks caused through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, key waterways for energy and cargo shipments between Asia and Europe through Egypt's Suez Canal.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Trump's tariff strategy could pay for his tax bill, but only if they stick, experts warn
The White House and congressional Republicans have said that President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs would help pay for his mammoth tax bill, but tax experts say it depends on whether the president stays consistent. Senate Republicans are in the midst of hashing out their plan to tweak and reshape the president's "big, beautiful bill," which includes Trump's desire to extend and make permanent his first-term tax policies. However, the tax portion of the bill alone is expected to cost roughly $4 trillion. And when factoring in spending cuts and other revenue and economic drivers, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found in a report earlier this week that, in all, the colossal legislative package would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. The CBO, which has come under recent scrutiny from congressional Republicans unhappy with the scoring of the president's "big, beautiful bill," also found that Trump's tariffs would reduce the deficit by $2.8 trillion over the same period. Joe Rosenberg, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told Fox News Digital that the reconciliation package's potential impact on the debt is more concerning now than in 2017, due to higher debt levels and rising interest rates. When Republicans were putting together the president's original tax package, the national debt was roughly $20 trillion. Eight years later, that number has ballooned to over $36 trillion and counting. Rosenberg contended that if the CBO's report were taken as is, then Trump's tariffs would make the bill deficit neutral and then some. But the report assumed that the eye-popping sums that Trump's tariffs could generate were based on whether they were permanent. "I think what we've seen is that the tariff policy, again, seems to change day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute," he said. "And the administration is a little bit inconsistent about whether they view tariffs as purely a revenue source versus essentially a negotiating tool." The report also found that in exchange for trillions in deficit reduction, household wealth would drop, and the economy would shrink each year over the next decade. Tad Dehaven, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, argued that this factor—along with Trump's tariffs being tied up in court over constitutional challenges and their shifting application—makes any projected benefits "extraordinarily unlikely." "Let's pretend that these tariffs are going to remain in place for 10 years at some level delineated today. That's a major tax increase, so whatever alleged benefit you're receiving from the tax cut in the reconciliation package, it's being offset by a tax increase," he said. "And a rather economically inefficient one." Mike Palicz, director of tax policy at the conservative Americans for Tax Reform, scoffed at the CBO's recent scoring, and lamented the agency as "a bunch of bean counters" that often miss the mark on key pieces of legislation, like the president's original Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. He argued that none of the outside noise should matter, telling Fox News Digital that "you cannot go out and explain to a normal person or business that their taxes aren't increasing next year if the Trump tax cuts are allowed to expire." "That's what the whole point of this exercise is, preventing the expiration of tax cuts, preventing the largest tax increase in American history," he said. "And no conservative, no Republican, should think that you address the deficit by raising taxes."
