Americas

The general in charge of keeping the United States Marine Corps sustained in a fight dismisses the notion that China poses a near-peer threat to the U.S. It’s far more serious and will make the currently paused conflict with Iran pale by comparison should the two superpowers come to blows, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Sklenka, the USMC Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics. 

“There is no threat that looms larger than the People’s Republic of China,” Sklenka said during the 2026 Modern Day Marine Expo in Washington, D.C.. “Don’t listen to this garbage about them being a near peer. They’re a peer because they rival us in nearly every single measure of national influence.”

As the “lead strategist” and former Deputy Commander of U.S. IndoPacom, Sklenka said he “got to be pretty familiar with how General Secretary Xi was thinking and what his intentions are.”

The Chinese leader’s “vision is to upend the international structure [and] supplant us as the global leaders. And in many ways, it’s been Xi’s thinking, his vision, that has helped my own thinking about the demands of modern warfare, particularly when waged in the Pacific and particularly waged against a peer adversary, something that’s new to all of us.”

Epic Fury offers some sobering lessons, Sklenka noted. While the U.S. is able to pour forces into theater via uncontested skies and largely uncontested seas, Iran was still able to inflict a great deal of pain on America and its allies during the fighting. It still is economically through an ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz. A fight with China would be far worse, Sklenka cautioned.

“We’re about two months into combat operations with Epic Fury. We’ve got service members who have tragically been wounded and killed by Iran. They’ve launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles at our bases and our allies throughout the region – Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan – reinforcing the point that the bases that we have, they’re no longer administrative garrison sanctuaries. We really need to start looking at our bases as war fighting formations, just as critical of a war fighting formation as our divisions, wings and [Marine Expeditionary Units] MEUs.”

We’ll talk more about that later in this story.

You can see damage to U.S. bases in the Middle East in the following satellite images.

Iran has “illustrated how a mid-tier power can hold a significantly superior force at risk” Sklenka suggested. “As a learning organization, we ask ourselves, ‘how do we carry every lesson from this fight forward, and how do we ensure that we’re equally prepared to dominate the conflict with China?’”

“Think about the complexities and complications that we’re [facing] with Iran, and then ask yourself, ‘how are we going to respond and act when we’re going up against a nation that’s number two in national GDP?’” he added. “The fact is that Iran doesn’t have anywhere near China’s economic might. They don’t have their industrial base. They certainly don’t have their military modernization trajectory.”

“Over the last 10 to 15 years, the Chinese manufacturing base has been out-producing us” Sklenka posited. “Xi is on a wartime footing. There’s no doubt about that. It’s underpinned by an industrial base that’s out producing the world in ships and steel, precious minerals and satellites, munitions.”

China’s “shipbuilding capacity is reported to be 230 times the capacity that the United States has,” the general continued. “They more than doubled their nuclear powered submarine construction, their arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles is undergoing a rapid expansion.”

First made-in-China aircraft carrier, the Shandong, enters service

“Their nuclear stockpile is the fastest growing in the world. They’re pursuing innovative, intelligentized warfare tactics,” Sklenka pointed out. “They’re using artificial intelligence, drone swarms, exploring the cognitive and innovative domains to achieve their dominance. They’re building a military design to dominate the Pacific, and I believe ultimately beyond the Pacific.”

China’s intent, Sklenka added, “is clear. They want to regain that self-identified moniker of the Middle Kingdom, and they want to resume what they believe is their rightful place in the world. They’re not interested in sharing that position with us or with anybody else. General Secretary Xi’s view is that it’s their time, and this is the context. I bring that all up for our transformation.”

“None of us in uniform today have ever had to operate in a world where a legitimate peer simultaneously contests us in every single domain,” said Sklenka. “We are talking terrestrially and non-terrestrially, kinetically and non-kinetically. We’re going to have to fight to get to that fight, and we’re going to have to embrace these challenges and not operate under the auspices of how we did in the 80s and 90s. History is proven, and our current operations are confirmed, that the society that can project and sustain power and sustain their forces most effectively, ultimately, they prevail.”

Looking to the future, Sklenka echoed warnings that TWZ has made for years about the vulnerability of U.S. military installations, both home and abroad. No increases in magazine depth, additional weapons systems or advancements with AI and other new technologies will ultimately matter “if you can’t get off the installation in the first place,” he stated. “The ability to mobilize and deploy is underpinned by the readiness of our installations. It’s a concept that we’re just now really starting to wrestle with.”

“Our bases, posts and stations…are the front lines of decisive terrain. And I’m not just talking about those in the first island chain. This isn’t just [Marine Corps Installations Pacific] MCIPAC. Our CONUS installations are subject to non-kinetic attacks. Non kinetic-attacks, they’re going to be just as debilitating and just as strategically consequential as any kinetic attack that’s going to be out there. And they’re going to carry an air of non-attrition that’s designed to both confuse decision makers and sow chaos during the most critical phases of the fight, the beginning, the first shots of that next war.”

That first salvo, Sklenka said, is most likely not going to be delivered by a missile or bomber.

“They’re likely not going to be fired in the South China Sea or in the Taiwan Strait,” he explained. “They’re going to be a cyber attack against a power grid on our base, a disinformation campaign targeting military families or a drone swarm coming off one of our installations.”

The localized drone attack concern is exactly what TWZ has long predicted and became a reality last year in Russia and Iran. Last June, Ukraine launched Operation Spider Web, an audacious near-field attack on Russian air bases, destroying a large number of strategic bombers with remotely operated drones set up in trucks placed near those installations.

Spider Web was followed about two weeks later by an operation Israel carried out, using drones pre-positioned inside Iran to attack the Islamic Republic’s air defenses.

You can see video of one attack during Operation Spider Web below.

WASHINGTON — The State Department said that it is preparing a limited release of commemorative U.S. passports celebrating America’s 250th birthday that feature a picture of President Trump, who would be the first living president to be featured in the travel document.

The concept for the special passport, including a rendering of Trump’s stern-looking visage, had been under consideration for months before finally being approved late Monday and publicly announced Tuesday. Between 25,000 and 30,000 of the new passports will be available to applicants at the Washington passport office beginning shortly before July 4.

It’s the latest instance of Trump having his name and likeness added to buildings, documents and other highly visible tributes. There are efforts to put Trump’s signature on all new U.S. paper currency, also a first for a sitting president, as well as to include his image on a gold commemorative coin to celebrate the country’s founding.

The commemorative passport will be the default document for people applying in person at the Washington office, although those who want a standard passport will be able to get one by applying online or outside Washington, officials said.

“As the United States celebrates America’s 250th anniversary in July, the State Department is preparing to release a limited number of specially designed U.S. passports to commemorate this historic occasion,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said.

“These passports will feature customized artwork and enhanced imagery while maintaining the same security features that make the U.S. passport the most secure documents in the world,” he said.

The limited release passport will feature Trump’s picture over a gold imprimatur of his signature to an interior page, while the cover will feature the words “United States of America” in bold gold print at the top and “Passport” at the bottom — a reversal of the standard cover.

In addition, a small gold laminate American flag, with the number 250 encircled by stars, will be at the bottom of the back cover.

The Bulwark reported earlier on the commemorative passports.

The only presidents featured in current U.S. passports are in a double-page depiction of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota — George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.

Other depictions include the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and scenes of the Great Plains, mountains and islands. Current passports also contain quotations from Martin Luther King Jr. as well as Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower.

The addition of Trump’s picture and signature to the passport book is the newest step his aides have taken to increase the president’s visibility, including adding his name to the U.S. Institute of Peace building and the Kennedy Center performing arts venue.

Trump also has made waves with his plans for a new White House ballroom and a massive arch to be built at one of the entrances to Washington from Virginia.

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Polls show that record numbers of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. Anxious voters find no shortage of corroboration. Seeming proof of national decline is everywhere–the savings-and-loan bailout, an imperial Congress, overpaid executives at the top of underperforming companies, record murder rates in cities, declining school quality, an intractable drug epidemic, spiraling health-care costs and a flat economy riddled with deep pockets of regional recession. We haven’t felt good about ourselves, our country or our future since the Gulf War.

President George Bush’s decline in the polls mirrors this trend. As long as voters were concerned about foreign policy, his high standing compensated for lower ratings on domestic affairs. The Cold War’s end has changed the issue mix of presidential races forever.

The recession is an immediate problem, but that will decline in importance when the growth most economists predict resumes this spring. But the recession masks a deeper fear that our post-Cold War inheritance is a declining standard of living, with high-paying jobs and prosperity flowing overseas. That fear will not recede quickly.

With the recession ending by spring, campaign planners will be tempted to heave sighs of relief and run a status-quo candidacy against the uncertainties of a switch to the Democrats. That would be a serious mistake.

For Bush will never have more fertile ground to lay out a new GOP agenda that addresses the deep fear voters have about the future of America. He can capitalize on the public’s thirst for certainty by laying out a set of ambitious goals–in government, in jobs, in schools and in social progress.

He can start with government. A recent Gallup poll shows 20% blame Bush for the economy’s condition, but 54% blame Congress. Support for term limits and a Trumanesque campaign to fix what’s wrong with Congress will not only pay political dividends, but give him a governing coalition for a second term. Beginning with this week’s State of the Union, Bush should challenge Congress to pass his economic recovery program within 100 days and return it to him for signature. He should also push legislation on health-care reform, education and crime by similarly challenging Congress. To dramatize the push for excellence, he might consider national middle-class merit scholarships for college.

Nor should he give up on trade, despite the Japan trip. Presidential involvement in a few trade confrontations will make his claim to fight for American jobs more credible. Where unfair trading practices are found, executive action on import relief should be swift.

By establishing his vision for the post-Cold War future, contrasting his own activism with Democratic and congressional obstruction, showing that he thinks free trade should benefit us as well as our partners and fighting hard for the middle class–in essence charting a course the country thinks takes us in the right direction and gets us off the wrong track–he’ll win not only reelection but a mandate.

It’s also important to understand this is not the 1984 reelection. Compression of the primary calendar means there are fewer days between the first Iowa caucuses, Feb. 10, and Super Tuesday, March 10, and the Democratic winner-take-all rules could give a front-runner enough momentum to be the apparent nominee by April. There is little prospect for a protracted Democratic primary battle like 1984’s between Gary Hart and Walter F. Mondale.

Because the Democrats won’t be tearing each other apart as long, Bush should engage the Democrats early. But he needs to shore up his own vulnerabilities before he begins to contrast with the Democratic nominee. He needs to sharpen his middle-class message, starting with the economy and people’s fears about the future.

This should be done well before the summer Democratic convention, when the Democratic ticket will have a solid week of national television coverage to engage in Bush-bashing.

It’s also critical to understand this is not 1988. The Democratic nominee will also have learned a lesson from Michael S. Dukakis–define your candidacy before your opponent gets a chance to define it negatively for you. It’s highly unlikely the ’92 Democratic nominee will be kept on the defensive for months as was Dukakis.

This year’s presidential election takes place in politically uncharted territory. It is the first contest of the post-Cold War era, probably the last election with a World War II veteran running for President. World events, from Eastern Europe’s velvet revolutions of 1989 to last summer’s failed Soviet coup, have irrevocably reshaped America’s political landscape.

Foreign policy and defense no longer matter much to voters. Communism’s death also buried anti-communism as an issue. With few external threats, Americans see old relationships through a new prism. They supported the post-war alliance with Japan for mutual security; without the Cold War, that same relationship looks one-sided.

To win reelection, it’s critical to understand what this dramatic shift means. The old rules are gone–now is the time for a new political order in American campaigns. For four decades, we’ve elected presidents against a Cold War backdrop. Now that we’ve won the Cold War, we need a new presidential agenda that’s relevant for the ‘90s.

America’s long-range kamikaze drone, a reverse-engineered clone of the Iranian-designed Shahed-136, was used in combat for the first time during Operation Epic Fury. Before the Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) was known to exist,The War Zone made a detailed case for the Pentagon to mass produced this exact aircraft. Now the U.S. military says LUCAS is a huge success – with CENTCOM’s top officer calling it “indispensable,” – and wants many more of them, we wanted to know more about how these weapons were first developed. One former Pentagon official who pushed for their creation, a drive that began under the Biden administration and came to fruition under Trump, gave us unique insights into LUCAS and its genesis.

Michael C. Horowitz served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Force Development and Emerging Capabilities and Director of the Emerging Capabilities Policy Office in the Pentagon between 2022 and 2024 under the Biden administration. Now a senior fellow for technology and innovation at the Council on Foreign Relations and director of Perry World House and Richard Perry professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Horowitz spoke to us Wednesday. He provided unique insights into why it took so long for the U.S. to fully embrace the use of a weapon that has proved devastating in Ukraine and now across the Middle East, and how it could be used in the future against China.

Some of the questions and answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Q: When did the U.S. first obtain a Shahed from Ukraine and what were your thoughts?

A: It was early 2024 essentially. One of the things my office did was look at what were the emerging capabilities that may be in the services and where there might be a lot of potential, but for whatever reason, weren’t getting the support that they needed. And in May 2024, the question of a potential for this came across my desk.

Q: How did Russia’s experience in Ukraine inform your decision about pursuing such a weapon at the time?

A: Given that we were in the era of precision mass and that the U.S. arsenal has been entirely made up of these exquisite, expensive, difficult to produce capabilities, there was interest in finding lower-cost alternatives – more attritable, more autonomous kinds of systems. And at that point, the world was now familiar with the capabilities of the Shaheds from the thousands that Russia had been launching against Ukraine. And Russia was starting to work on the capability that we now call the Geran-2, their version of the Shahed. The idea was that these should be a complement to the more exquisite, expensive, difficult-to-produce weapons. That this country should be producing these lower-end, precise mass systems for itself. The LUCAS, in some ways, was emblematic of that category, but not necessarily the only plausible example.

Q: What was your argument for using these weapons and what was the pushback, if any, and if so, from who?

A: I don’t think that there was pushback. Nobody looked at this and said ‘Oh, that’s a terrible idea.’ But this is just not something that the United States had done before. We were starting to see growing interest in this kind of thing, conceptually, through something like the Replicator initiative, which my office had also promoted. We were trying to push for funding and capabilities, but it was just a very different kind of thing. It wasn’t a ‘let’s produce the best version of something.’ It was ‘let’s invest in a very much lower-cost capability where the idea is that the quantity has quality of its own.’

Q: What did you think when you first saw the LUCAS concept?

A: I thought that this was exactly the kind of system that we had been looking for in a world where defense procurement needed to become more risk-acceptant and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, given all of the well-known munitions shortages. Even the idea of reverse-engineering a Shahed seemed like an obviously good idea, in some ways, Iran had already perfected. What could we do?

Q: The Wall Street Journal reported that the LUCAS was a mock-up at the time it was selected over other more mature systems. Can you say why?

A: I don’t know the answer to that. As the DASD for Force Development and Emerging Capabilities, my job was to try to figure out, given the different strategies, what were capabilities that we should be pursuing. So something like the LUCAS was right in the wheelhouse that my office was looking for and trying to move money toward, but the specifics of the vendor and how all that was chosen, is a question for Research and Engineering (R&E).

Q: Who did you have to try to convince to pursue this?

A: The amount of money involved was really small given the scale of the Pentagon budget. But because it wasn’t anything that anybody had planned to spend money on, it involved having to go to [Pentagon] elements like R&E and the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), and going to the military services, and making the case that this was an important capability that the joint force needed, and that could potentially be developed very quickly.

Q: How much money are you talking about? Millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds?

A: To the best of my recollection, it was tens of millions.

Q: Who in the Pentagon made the decision to push this forward while you were there?

A: Eventually, we successfully persuaded then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks that, especially at the price point, this was a risk worth taking.

By the way, just to be clear about one thing, [Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Prototyping and Experimentation] Alex Lovett is really the hero of this story in many ways. He both discovered the concept and moved it forward even after all of the original team that supported the LUCAS had left the government. He did incredible work in R&E in making the LUCAS a reality. The people who really deserve the credit are Alex, the CENTCOM team that accelerated it and Arizona-based SpektreWorks, the company that made it.

Q: When the Biden administration left office, where was the LUCAS program?

A: It was moving forward, but not yet a fielded capability. The Trump team deserves credit for seeing the potential and moving this forward and getting it done.

Q: Why has the U.S. been so slow to adopt these types of weapons?

A: Because I think that the American military since the end of the Cold War was built on having the best capabilities. And the idea was that even if we have small numbers of systems, our systems are so good that it doesn’t matter. And it took a while to get the services out of that [mindset] and for people to embrace the idea that second-best military capabilities might have real value. Especially given the very real risk of major conflict.

Q: How could weapons like LUCAS fill in the U.S. magazine depth?

A: I think the math would suggest that building 400 Tomahawks would give you 46,000 LUCAS rounds. And so if you think about this range of capabilities that includes something like LUCAS and like other really super low-cost systems – up through the like family of affordable mass missiles that the Air Force is working on – you’re just talking about like a whole new level of depth in the magazine for the American military.

This is absolutely necessary for the U.S. to continue to compete successfully in the Indo-Pacific in particular, but also in general, as we’re seeing in the Iran context. But the system had been designed for so long to only procure small numbers of the best systems, and it was challenging to [change that]. There’s now a lot of momentum behind that, but it was challenging to get things moving in the other direction.

Q: What was your reaction when CENTCOM first announced that it stood up a LUCAS drone unit and again, when they were first used in combat during Epic Fury.

A: CENTCOM has been on the leading edge of experimentation for years. I saw that firsthand when I was in the Pentagon and so I was not surprised that CENTCOM was leading the way in experimenting with and figuring out what the concepts for use would be for something like the LUCAS and I was not surprised to see CENTCOM figuring out how to apply it successfully in Epic Fury.

Q: What were your thoughts when they were first used in combat?

A: It was a great illustration of how the Pentagon can move fast in developing and fielding emerging military capabilities when it chooses to, but the incentives just haven’t been aligned to do it that way for decades.

Q:  CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper told me LUCAS drones were indispensable. How much do you know about how they were used in Epic Fury, and what are some of the target sets that you think they should be used against?

A: I genuinely don’t know the answer to that. I think someone inside the conflict would be in a better position to answer that.

Q: What would your recommendation be about how they should be used and against what kinds of targets?

A: These weapons are accurate. They’re just pretty easy to shoot down. So in some ways, you could either imagine using these against military targets in large volumes to try to overwhelm defenses, or you could use them in combination with more exquisite weapons to try to trick adversarial defenses and clear the path, in some ways, for more exquisite weapons.

Q: The Russians are doing that in Ukraine, both to overwhelm systems, but they’ve been a very effective strike weapon. If you were still at the Pentagon, how would you recommend they be used in a campaign like Epic Fury and across the military as a whole. And how widely should they be fielded, and what would be ideal numbers? 

A:  It would not be for somebody like me to decide given my role. But these are essentially inexpensive precision weapons, so any target you would be comfortable using a precision weapon against, in theory, you could use LUCAS against. What’s important is that any weapon has been through the testing and evaluation cycle so you can prove that it works effectively and reliably.

Q: Images released by CENTCOM show what appears to be a gimbaled camera system mounted on its nose and, most importantly, a miniature beyond-line-of-sight satellite datalink mounted on the spine of some LUCAS drones. Being able to be controlled dynamically after launch at great distances, do you see these as a strike weapon to hit moving targets, targets of opportunity and operate in swarms?

A: The missions you could use a weapon like LUCAS for is a software question as much as a hardware question. There’s no reason in principle it couldn’t be used to hit moving targets, or in coordination.

Q: How widely should they be fielded by the U.S. military? What are ideal numbers?

A: I think incredibly widely. This is whether it is LUCAS specifically, or related precision systems. I think if you are looking for the trade space to increase defense production short term – over a couple of years period, as opposed to a decade – are in these lower-cost capabilities that you can scale through more commercial manufacturing. So I would think that there’s an opportunity to have tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of these kinds of systems to complement exquisite capabilities like Tomahawk.

Q: With a far smaller warhead, they wouldn’t replace Tomahawk, though, right?

A: The LUCAS is a much smaller weapon than the Tomahawk, among other things. It’s not a replacement. What we need is a high-low mix with both types of systems.

Q: How would they be helpful in a fight against China?

A:  If you think about the potential range that LUCAS variants could get to – if you look at the max range of the Geran-2 or the Shahed – and then we could do better. I think that means that you now have new attack vectors and the ability to flood the space with munitions in a way that could substantially complicate Chinese defenses.

Q: The LUCAS drone used by CENTCOM was developed by SpektreWorks in cooperation with the U.S. military. Did you ever work with them?

A: No.

Q: SpektreWorks received a $30 million contract in Fiscal Year 2025 from the Accelerate the Procurement and Fielding of Innovative Technologies (APFIT) program to provide procurement funding for innovative projects that have completed development and are ready to transition into operational use. Is APFIT helpful in speeding up the procurement process for LUCAS-type drones?

A: APFIT is a bridge to production for capabilities that are ready to start scaling but not yet programs of record. So APFIT funding is a starting point not the end point.

Q: What are the bottlenecks for the production of LUCAS drones?

A: I think the supply chain issues for the LUCAS and other precise mass systems are different than those facing AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM) OR AGM-158 Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). That you can make them with modified commercial manufacturing means that the constraints are simply lower from a production perspective.

Q: What can the government do to speed up the process of  procuring LUCAS-type drones?

A:  The government should speed up the process by pursuing a Liberty Ship model. Since the government owns the IP, you can have lots of vendors produce the Lucas simultaneously and then increase orders with the vendors who excel the most.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

I’VE never tried synchronised swearing before – but then again, I’ve never been in a crowd being buzzed by a low-altitude jet fighter.

F***!! we yelled as a Blue Angels “sneak” pilot screamed over us and we watched the other five planes from the flight soaring in perfect formation high in the sky.

What made it even more exciting was that we were on a boat in the Gulf of Mexico, basking in 30C heat.

It was a highlight of our visit to Pensacola in the Florida panhandle (the top bit).

While still new to many Brits, this was familiar territory to our ancestors.

It has a claim to be America’s oldest city, established by Spanish conquerors in 1559, and is now known as The City Of Five Flags as it has also been ruled by France, the good guys from Great Britain, the Confederate States of America and, of course, the US.

DRINK IT IN

Adult-only campsite in the middle of a cider farm & you can stay for £17 each

NO KID-DING

Train company launches adult-only carriages – and kids are BANNED

The latter were fighting for strategic military importance, which is why it is now home to a US Navy base — and that formation- flying team, the oldest in the English- speaking world.

But forget the strategic importance, just go here for the beaches.

They are incredible. White sand, warm water, more dolphins than you can shake a flipper at, and plenty of pelicans.

There are also hundreds of restaurants, bars, coffee and souvenir shops, and a host of top hotels including the Hilton Pensacola Beach where we stayed.

The latter is a great stay, with charming staff, superb pools, a welcoming outdoor bar and a fine restaurant.

Best of all was its location, though it’s not in “downtown” Pensacola.

It’s on, as its name suggests, Pensacola Beach — an offshore resort on the island of Santa Rosa, linked by bridge to its big brother.

If you’re not driving, there’s the Pensacola Bay City Ferry, shuttling between downtown, Pensacola Beach and the historic Fort Pickens, well worth a visit in its own right. You can buy daily hop-on, hop-off tickets.

Also, when the Blue Angels practise, most Tuesdays, you can do what we did and, for about £25, book a cruise out to sea to catch all the action.

Pensacola and Pensacola Beach provides you with the ideal two-centre holiday without much travelling.

Head downtown and you can revel in rich history — with lots of helpful signage, marked walking paths and the Veterans Memorial Park — as well as enjoying art shops and museums and event spaces.

Our visit coincided with the Pensacola Seafood Festival. Stalls sell everything from cheese-flavoured popcorn and artisan beers to, er, mermaid outfits.

We didn’t buy much, as wifey had blown our budget on a painting of a seahorse from a lovely art shop on the main drag, Palafox Street.

Once you are tired of the culture and shopping, and have eaten and drunk your fill — check my guide, above, to Pensacola dining — what are you going to do? That’s right, head back over the bridge to the beaches.

Get yourself a boat trip to go dolphin-spotting — you can see them while you are driving over the bridge but it is an offence to stop there.

We went with Captain Steve after booking with friskyboattours.com — and that man knows how to find a dolphin.

He’s also really good at explaining the area, and identifying passing birds.

One of those passing birds was an osprey, and we ventured a little farther afield one day to see if we could find some more.

It meant sacrificing the beaches for a while as we headed inland to Tarkiln Bayou State Park, where a marked trail — the Americans are good at that — tells you what you may see.

It leads you on a beautiful, tranquil route, past rare carnivorous pitcher plants (I read the sign) to a hidden lake. It was lovely but there were no ospreys, which was surprising given the number of tasty fish we saw swimming around.

No problem, they were there at next stop, Big Lagoon State Park.

Observation towers give you a great view of the wildlife — the resting osprey being trumped for me by a great blue hero flapping past at eye level.

I did mention not many Brits know about Pensacola — whose social-media marketing message is #thewaytobeach — and some of the locals would like to keep it that way.

We had flown from Heathrow on a Virgin Atlantic booking with partner airline Delta, changing planes at Atlanta.

It wasn’t as fast as the Blue Angels, but it was much less noisy and much more comfortable.

While we were waiting for our connecting flight to Pensacola, we chatted to a couple who, it turned out, had a condo on Pensacola Beach.

They were puzzled why we were going there and I explained I was writing a piece for a British newspaper.

“Don’t”, they said, “It’s our secret.”

Sorry.

CRAB CAKE OR TACOS?

YOU won’t go hungry or thirsty in Pensacola. Here’s our guide to dining of all kinds, from flip-flop to fine, at the beach and downtown.

BEACH

Flounder’s Chowder House: Big portions and bargain Bushwhackers (the local signature cocktail, a chocolatey rum-based concoction). Family-friendly with great play areas.

Bamboo Willie’s: Home of frozen cocktails, a perfect spot to chill.

Casino Beach Bar and Grille: Overlooks the pier. Totally relaxing, with great views and food.

The Grand Marlin: A wonderful atmosphere, tremendous seafood, views to die for.

Native Cafe: All-day breakfast joint the locals love. Try Crab Cakes Benny – muffin, crab cakes and poached eggs with hollandaise sauce.

Red Fish Blue Fish: The perfect beachfront restaurant and bar. Go for the shrimp tacos.

Salt: Signature restaurant at the Hilton Pensacola Beach. Beautifully prepared seafood and the best steak I’ve had in ages.

DOWNTOWN

Bodacious Shops: Classy coffee and breakfast staples plus artisanal olive oils and vinegars to buy.

The Fish House: Go for baked oysters. Also home to Grits à Ya Ya – tasty shrimp on a savoury porridge.

Jaco’s Bayfront Bar and Grill: Perfect spot next to the ferry port. Try the crab cakes or mahi tacos.

Maker’s Cafe: Welcoming spot, perfect for coffee and cake.

Union Public House and The Well: Neighbouring venues – a great gastro pub and a cocktail bar where they mix a drink to match your mood.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — A statue of Christopher Columbus has been placed on the grounds of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, the latest effort by President Trump’s administration to recognize the controversial explorer.

The statue is a replica of one that was tossed into Baltimore’s harbor in 2020 during Trump’s first term at a time of nationwide protests against institutional racism.

Trump endorses a traditional view of Columbus as a leader of the 1492 mission seen as the unofficial beginning of European colonization in the Americas and the development of the modern economic and political order. In recent years, Columbus also has been recognized as a primary example of Western Europe’s conquest of the New World, its resources and its Native people.

“In this White House, Christopher Columbus is a hero, and President Trump will ensure he’s honored as such for generations to come,” the White House posted on X.

“We are delighted the statue has found a place where it can peacefully shine and be protected,” said John Pica, a Maryland lobbyist and president of the Italian American Organizations United, which owns the statue and agreed to lend it to the federal government for placement at or near the White House.

The statue, made mostly of marble, was created by Will Hemsley, a sculptor based in Centreville on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

The original statue was toppled by protesters July 4, 2020, and thrown into Baltimore’s Inner Harbor during the national social justice reckoning in the months after the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. It was one of many statues of Columbus that were vandalized around the same time, with protesters saying the Italian explorer was responsible for the genocide and exploitation of Native peoples in the Americas.

In recent years, some people, institutions and government entities have displaced Columbus Day with the recognition of Indigenous Peoples Day. President Biden in 2021 became the first U.S. president to mark Indigenous Peoples Day with a proclamation.

Trump dismisses the shifting views on Columbus as the work of “left-wing arsonists,” bending history and twisting Americans’ collective memory. “I’m bringing Columbus Day back from the ashes,” he declared last April. Echoing his 2024 campaign rhetoric, he complained that “Democrats did everything possible to destroy Christopher Columbus, his reputation, and all of the Italians that love him so much.”

Witte writes for the Associated Press.

The same day she announced her surprise bid for mayor, Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman called a member of the local Democratic Socialists of America chapter.

She wanted to meet with the group’s leadership to explain her late-breaking decision to challenge Mayor Karen Bass, her longtime ally, which took just about everyone in the city by surprise.

Two days later, Raman gathered at her Silver Lake home with leaders of DSA-LA, which has endorsed her two runs for City Council but has been at odds with her on some issues.

Leslie Chang, a co-chair of the 5,000-member chapter, recalled Raman saying, “‘The media is going to paint me as a DSA candidate, and I have a relationship with you, and I’m interested in maintaining that relationship. So let’s talk.’”

DSA-LA, which had declined to endorse in the mayor’s race, will decide on Saturday whether to reopen its endorsement process.

Some members believe that a mayoral endorsement would take valuable phone-banking and door-knocking resources away from the slate of six local candidates they have already endorsed.

If the process moves forward, the question would then be whether to back Raman or Rae Huang, a housing activist viewed by some members as more aligned with socialist principles, while others see her as less electable. The group could also decide not to endorse either candidate.

Leslie Chang, co-chair for the Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, at a rally at Molina Grand Park in Los Angeles on March 18.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Going to bat for a mayoral candidate would be the highest-profile drive the local organization has run in a city where its influence has expanded since it knocked on doors for Raman’s first council campaign in 2020. In addition to Raman, three other DSA-backed politicians now occupy seats on the 15-member City Council.

In New York, DSA member Zohran Mamdani was recently elected mayor on a platform of rent freezes and free city buses.

“It would be a major coup for DSA to have one of their candidates be elected mayor [of Los Angeles],” said Sara Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College.

The Rev. Rae Huang, who is running for mayor of Los Angeles, joined the Fair Games Coalition to announce the launch of the Overpaid CEO Tax Initiative in front of the Tesla Diner in West Hollywood on Jan. 14.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

As a city council member, Raman has delivered several major wins celebrated by DSA members, including strengthening renter protections and passing the first reform to the city’s rent stabilization ordinance in decades.

But she has sometimes been out of step with the group, approving budgets that increased police spending and seeking to revise Measure ULA, also known as the city’s “mansion tax,” to offer a 15-year exemption to developers of multifamily and commercial projects.

Raman’s most visible split with DSA occurred over the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack that killed more than 1,200 Israelis.

DSA released a statement saying “this was not unprovoked.” Raman called the statement “unacceptably devoid of empathy for communities in Israel.”

In early 2024, DSA censured Raman for seeking and accepting an endorsement from Democrats for Israel-Los Angeles, a liberal Zionist group, chiding her for “accepting support from [DSA’s] enemies.”

“Why are people wary of endorsing Nithya for mayor? A lot of people who were in leadership at the time are hesitant because of that situation,” said Noah Suarez-Sikes, a member of DSA-LA’s steering committee.

In a statement to The Times, Raman called herself an “independent leader.”

“While I share the DSA’s emphasis on uplifting the working class and those who have been left behind by the political establishment, I don’t always agree with my allies on how to accomplish our goals,” she said.

Some DSA members see Huang, who has little citywide name recognition or political experience, as more connected to the group’s platform than Raman. Huang has called for “Fast and Free Buses” as well as for more public input on the city budget.

Huang highlighted her support for keeping the “mansion tax” as is, also telling The Times that she would reduce the Police Department budget and the number of officers.

Raman has said she believes the Los Angeles Police Department should maintain its current staffing of around 8,700 sworn officers.

Konstantine Anthony, a DSA member and Burbank City Council member who gathered signatures to reopen the endorsement window, is supporting Huang.

“She is the exact candidate DSA across the country should be running for every seat,” he said.

Keshav Kundassery, a DSA member since 2019, supports Raman.

While he called Huang’s campaign for mayor “inspiring,” Kundassery said he does not think that she can get enough support.

“DSA should be in the business of running campaigns to win,” he said.

DSA-LA has already endorsed in four city council races, backing incumbents Hugo Soto-Martínez and Eunisses Hernandez; Faizah Malik, who is running against incumbent Traci Park on the Westside; and Estuardo Mazariegos for an open South L.A. seat.

The group is also backing Marissa Roy, who is challenging City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, and Rocío Rivas, an incumbent L.A. Unified school board member.

“Any consideration we make now we will make understanding the balance of resources of our six candidates and a potential seventh,” said Chang, the DSA-LA co-chair.

Times staff writer David Zahniser contributed to this report.

A new report has expressed alarm at what it describes as backsliding press freedoms across the Americas, with the United States seeing the steepest decline.

The Inter American Press Association (IAPA) released its latest press freedom index on Tuesday, ranking last year as the lowest point for freedom of expression since the report began in 2020.

Researchers found that the Americas have experienced a “dramatic deterioration” in unrestricted speech, according to the report.

“This is one of the worst years for journalism in the region, marked by murders, arbitrary arrests, exile, and rampant impunity in countries such as Mexico, Honduras, Ecuador, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Cuba, and Venezuela,” the report said.

It added that enhanced restrictions on free speech have occurred in countries of various ideological persuasions, whether right-wing or left-wing.

The US, however, was singled out as an area of “alarming decline”. In a ranking of 23 countries across the hemisphere, the US dropped from fourth place to 11th, indicating that journalists operate with increased restrictions.

Changes under President Donald Trump, who returned to office last year, were cited as a primary factor.

“Even though journalistic practice in the United States remains protected by the Constitution and laws, last year’s events saw the erosion of safeguards,” the report explained.

Trump, it said, had contributed to the “stigmatisation of critical journalism”. The report also pointed to developments like cuts to public media funding and the closure of Voice of America, a government-funded broadcaster, as detriments to the free press.

In total, the report tallied 170 attacks against journalists in the US last year, and it cited interactions with federal immigration agents as an area of concern.

The report also noted that Nicaragua and Venezuela continue to rank as “without freedom of expression”.

In Venezuela’s case, for instance, it cited the closure of more than 400 radio stations and the detention of 25 journalists in the wake of the controversial 2024 presidential election.

On a scale of 100, the report ranked press freedom in the country at 7.02. It remains in last place on the report’s list of 23 countries.

El Salvador also dropped in the index’s latest evaluation, now in 21st position on the press freedom list, just ahead of Nicaragua and Venezuela.

In an accompanying statement, Sergio Arauz, the president of the Association of Journalists of El Salvador (APES), denounced what he called the “escalating repression” under the government of President Nayib Bukele.

Arauz noted that 50 Salvadoran journalists had been pushed into exile in the last year amid a campaign of harassment by the government.

“There are no possibilities of practicing journalism fully without facing consequences when there is an Executive branch with virtually unlimited powers and no effective legal oversight,” said Arauz.

Since 2022, Bukele and his government have placed the country under a state of emergency that suspended key civil liberties and granted wide latitude to state security forces, in the name of addressing crime.

Tuesday’s report pointed to the state of emergency as a factor in undermining free speech, and also cited El Salvador’s new Foreign Agents Law, which gives the government the power to dissolve organisations that receive funding from abroad.

El Salvador is one of eight nations categorised in the index as “high restriction”, along with Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, Peru, Mexico, Haiti and Cuba.

The Dominican Republic, Chile, Canada and Brazil were ranked among the highest for protecting press freedoms.