Cost

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is waiting for clarity from the Pentagon following President Trump’s back-and-forth on troop levels in Europe, upending the lives of military personnel and potentially costing taxpayers millions of dollars, two U.S. defense officials told the Associated Press.

NATO allies were bewildered in May when Trump said he would send 5,000 U.S. troops to Poland just weeks after ordering the same number pulled from Europe, following a spat with Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the Iran war. The Trump administration says troop reductions in Europe have long been planned and coordinated with allies.

The Republican president announced on social media two weeks ago that he was sending troops to Poland — the same day the Pentagon had officially ordered the cancellation of a rotation of soldiers heading there, one of the defense officials said.

The unit’s equipment was already on the way. Sending it cost the military $32 million, said U.S. Transportation Command, the military agency largely responsible for moving troops and gear across the globe.

The abrupt changes are forcing the military to “retroactively engineer” a policy in line with the president’s latest pronouncement, the official said. Both officials were briefed on the decisions and, along with others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters.

The uncertainty is not only rattling European allies worried about the message being sent to Russia, but it also risks hurting morale among American troops — some of whom had their rotations canceled shortly before departure — and comes as the Army budget is already strained.

Changes to troop deployments to Poland add up

The rotational deployment to Poland of 4,000 troops from the Army’s 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, based in Fort Hood, Texas, was canceled in a memo sent to the military at the beginning of May. European allies found out mid-month.

Some of those troops were told shortly before traveling not to get on a flight to Poland, while those who had been sent ahead — initially around 1,000 troops — are still waiting for confirmation they are being sent back, a U.S. military official said.

The military also is still waiting for details from the Pentagon on how to satisfy Trump’s order to send 5,000 troops to Poland, that official said. The working assumption is that they will come from units already in Europe, rather than an additional deployment from the U.S., the official said.

U.S. Transportation Command had chartered a ship to take the team’s equipment from Texas to Poland and transport a departing unit’s gear back to America. The incoming team’s portion of the cost was $32 million, including chartering the ship and loading and unloading the gear.

Because the ship was chartered to take one unit to Europe and bring another back, it is hard to say if that amount would have been saved had the decision to halt the deployment been made before the new team had already begun moving overseas.

However, the military official said the unscheduled move of personnel and equipment back from Europe is most likely not a cost the Pentagon budgeted for and would be an additional expense.

Total costs of canceling the rotation are hard to quantify because of many factors, said Joe Costa, a former senior Pentagon official who now focuses on challenges faced by the U.S. military as director of the Atlantic Council’s Forward Defense program.

They most likely stem from returning equipment and troops sent ahead of the deployment and would probably be on the low end of the rotation’s overall cost, Costa said. The greater impact is on the readiness of troops who were trained for one mission and may be deployed on another, he said.

U.S. military contracts with private companies to transport troops and equipment contain cancellation clauses that often add extra fees if a deployment is called off, said John Deni, a senior nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council who has studied such costs.

“The question is what additional costs were incurred by deciding to send them back prematurely, changing the arrangements, changing the plan?” said Deni, a former U.S. military advisor and planner who focused on forces in Europe.

It is not clear if the Pentagon can recoup those costs or those associated with moving the unit to Europe. The Defense Department did not answer questions about the costs of changing the deployment plans, and the White House referred a request for comment to the department.

Pentagon officials have repeatedly said they planned to lower troop levels to have Europe shoulder more of its own defense and that the decision was part of a “comprehensive, multilayered process.”

Last month’s memo also led to the cancellation of a deployment to Germany of a battalion trained in firing long-range rockets and missiles.

Pulling troops stationed in Germany would be more expensive

When Trump first threatened to remove 5,000 troops from Europe, Pentagon officials initially suggested pulling back the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, which is based permanently in Germany, the defense official said.

Instead, officials decided to cancel the rotation of the other unit to Poland. Then Trump threw that plan into confusion as well.

Pulling the troops stationed in Germany could cost in the low billions because there is no dedicated space and infrastructure in the U.S. to accommodate them and their families, Costa said.

“The other option is basically breaking up the unit,” Costa said. “They move the equipment in different places. They move the people to different places. That carries significant readiness costs because now you’re artificially jamming pieces of units into places where they don’t necessarily belong.”

Pulling or pausing deployments also can hurt morale among soldiers and families because they plan for them months and years in advance, Deni said. The uncertainty can be disruptive.

“That’s often the last thing you want to do to military families,” Deni said.

It is still unclear what will happen to U.S. troops stationed in Europe, the two officials said. Options include moving military units assigned to Germany to Poland, but that could take several years and cost more, the military official said.

Troop changes happen during an Army budget shortfall

The moves come as the Army is facing a budget shortfall, which the service’s top uniformed officer, Gen. Christopher LaNeve, recently acknowledged to Congress.

Estimates put the deficit somewhere between $2 billion and $6 billion, according to an Army official who also spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive defense matters. One impact has been cutting training courses for soldiers nationwide, which ABC News earlier reported.

In a statement, the Army said it has issued guidance to its commands to “make tough and sound resource decisions that optimize and prioritize resources toward their most critical requirements, to include major training and readiness events.”

The Army official also noted that the service has been tasked with missions like the National Guard deployment in Washington, a bolstered presence along the U.S.-Mexico border and its part in the Iran war — all of which have strained its budget.

The Department of Homeland Security expects to reimburse the Army for its role in the border mission.

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll told lawmakers at a May 15 hearing that he was “optimistic” there would progress on those payments “within a week or two.” But to date, the Army has not been reimbursed.

“We want those backfilled payments,” Driscoll said then.

The U.S. military in Europe also is scaling back support for non-combat related training and ruthlessly prioritizing critical functions, the military official said.

Burrows, Finley and Toropin write for the Associated Press. Burrows reported from London.

One savvy traveller has found an alternative way to jet off abroad that not only saves money, but also allows her to visit a plethora of destinations throughout the year

A woman has remarkably been able to visit seven countries in a year for less than £2,000.

Flights can be notoriously expensive, especially to those sought-after destinations. Even flights that are just for a few hours can quickly cost hundreds of pounds, leaving holidaymakers questioning their getaway to Europe.

Yet, that wasn’t going to stop Helen Dalling, 55, from travelling last year. Instead, she looked for alternative ways to travel that not only saved money but also ticked off a plethora of holiday destinations.

In a bid to travel as much as possible and to keep costs considerably low, Helen, from Milton Keynes, swapped longer getaways for short escapes. Some were extreme day trips flying to and from the destination within 24 hours, while others offered an overnight stay.

“I’ve always loved travelling, but as I’m getting older and I’ve got kids and I work full-time, I thought ‘I’m not going to see enough countries in the world’,” Helen told creatorzine.com. “‘If I don’t start going to see a few of them, I need to do them quick and cheap’. That’s really why I started doing it.”

While it’s certainly a little more hectic than a week-long beach getaway, the change in travel meant that the 55-year-old was able to visit seven countries last year for around £1,600. This included the costs of flights, airport parking, hotels, sightseeing, food and drink, and spending money.

In 2025, Helen travelled to Paris, Budapest, Alicante, Malaga, Split, Prague, Amsterdam, and Geneva twice. It varied how long she would stay in each destination, from just a few hours to an overnight stay.

“I went to seven brand new countries”, Helen said. “That’s what I really wanted to do, I thought, ‘I’ve never been to Hungary, so let’s go to Budapest’.”

To help keep costs as low as possible, Helen regularly looks out for deals from different airlines that fly from her nearest airport, London Luton. “When I went to Paris, I was basically just browsing on New Year’s Day, not doing much else, and I spotted that you could get a flight to Paris for £13, one way and £12 the other”, she revealed. “I just booked it – and then when I told a friend, she booked it too and came with me.”

Helen continued: “The Budapest flights were about £8.99 each way; you can’t even get them that cheap anymore. I’ve done others that were £15-£20 return; I just book them – when I see the price, I just go for it.”

While she sometimes travels solo, it’s often a great chance to catch up with friends on an extreme day trip. “Instead of going to London for lunch, let’s go somewhere for the day,” Helen said.

“I did Geneva twice last year, but the second one I did at Christmas was with a real old friend of mine who is really into her food. So we went and did a foodie trip to the Christmas markets in Geneva and just went for the day – she’d never done one.

“Everybody that I’ve done one with has said ‘Oh my God, that was amazing’. I’ve got a bit of a queue of people wanting to go as well, but only so much money.”

After visiting seven countries last year, Budapest, which cost £191 for an overnight stay, stood out for Helen. “We just fell in love with Budapest,” she said. “Every time we did something else afterwards, I just said to my friend, ‘It’s not Budapest, though, is it? It’s not Budapest.’

“It was February when we did that, but the sky was blue, and we had the best time.

“It was super cheap, and everything just worked.” She added: “It was so lush. We were just sitting in these massive pools of boiling hot water with the cold air on our skin, just going, ‘This is amazing.'”

Following her extreme trips last year, Helen is determined to do the same this year. She’s already travelled to Palma in Mallorca with a friend for under £120, spent the night in Lithuania, and ventured to Albania for the day.

She confessed: “I’m always buzzing after a day trip. I would definitely do it again, it’s a great way to visit countries you’d never visit by going on one holiday a year.

“Last year I visited seven new countries, and it’s liberating.”

Price breakdown of Helen’s 2025 trips

• Paris – £139 (extreme day trip)
• Budapest – £191 (overnight)
• Alicante – £62 (extreme day trip)
• Malaga – £118 (extreme day trip)
• Geneva – £182 (extreme day trip)
• Split – £315 (overnight)
• Prague – £165.11 (overnight)
• Amsterdam – £290 (overnight)
• Geneva – £138 (extreme day trip)

Total – £1,600.11

Do you have a travel story to share? Email webtravel@reachplc.com

Tests of Ukraine’s new FP-7.X missile could pave the way to a cheaper and more plentiful, albeit far less capable, alternative to the U.S.-made Patriot air defense system effectors. A recent uptick in Russian missile and drone attacks against Ukraine, combined with a critical shortage of Patriot interceptors, underscores the need for more robust air defenses, especially with anti-ballistic missile capabilities. The development parallels a similar program in the United States, which seeks a drastically lower-cost interceptor for the Patriot system.

A video showing a test launch of an FP-7.X missile was published yesterday by its manufacturer, Fire Point, also responsible for the FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile and a series of long-range one-way attack drones. Fire Point’s chief technology officer Iryna Terekh described the depicted test as a “fully controlled maneuvering flight” conducted “just the other day.” The pink-painted missile recalls the early Flamingoes, and now seems to have been adopted as something of a company trademark.

The FP-7.X missile is planned as the stepping-stone toward the productionized Freyja missile, which is primarily intended to provide Ukraine with its first homegrown anti-ballistic missile defense system. While ballistic missile threats are being prioritized here, the system would be equally able to defend against a variety of crewed aircraft threats, as well as drones and cruise missiles.

“No matter how unrealistic and ambitious this goal may sound today, we are exerting all possible and impossible efforts to make it a reality as soon as possible, so that Ukraine can close its skies on its own,” Terekh wrote.

Back in April, Fire Point’s co-founder and chief designer Denys Shtilierman told Reuters that the company was aiming to develop an anti-ballistic missile with a unit cost of less than $1 million.

“If we can decrease it to less than $1 million, it will be … a game changer in air defense solutions,” Shtilierman said. “We plan to intercept the first ballistic missile at the end of 2027,” he added, apparently referring to the aim to field the Freyja system by that date.

This compares to a unit price of approximately $5.3 million for each example of the most modern and highly capable PAC-3 MSE variant, which is one of the types provided to Ukraine. This figure comes from the Army’s latest proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. This is up from a historical average of around $4 million for each one of these missiles. These munitions also take years of lead time to produce, meaning that managing limited stocks is a big challenge.

Fire Point has developed the FP-7.X missile on the basis of the previous FP-7 surface-to-surface ballistic missile, a weapon with a range of around 124 miles, and a warhead of approximately 331 pounds. Deriving an anti-ballistic missile from a ballistic missile is an unusual move, but Fire Point will hope that the commonality should accelerate the process.

As it stands, Ukraine’s anti-ballistic missile capabilities are strictly limited. It relies heavily upon the Patriot, batteries and components of which have been provided by Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States.

When the Patriot began to arrive in 2023, it provided Ukraine with an enhanced long-range, high-altitude engagement capability that was previously only offered, to a lesser degree, by Ukraine’s S-300s, with their depleting stocks of missiles. Importantly, the Patriot also brought an anti-ballistic missile capability, something that was previously only provided by the small number of Ukrainian S-300V1 systems, and even those don’t come anywhere close to the Patriot in this regard.

And another S-300V engagement, released as part of the same video.

From what I have seen, these are the third and fourth Ukrainian S-300V engagement videos released since the start of the war. pic.twitter.com/wPHnYbCQKP

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) February 9, 2025

Providing somewhat similar capabilities to the Patriot is the SAMP/T, a joint Franco-Italian SAM system, which has also been supplied to Ukraine, but only in limited numbers. Overall, the SAMP/T is limited simply by the fact that it is produced in relatively small numbers.

As for the Patriot, this has claimed notable successes and high-profile victims in Ukrainian hands. However, as Russia has adapted its ballistic missiles, specifically adding enhanced maneuvering capabilities, the effectiveness of the U.S.-made system has been reduced.

According to Shtilierman, the Patriot system often requires two or three air defence missiles, each costing several million ​dollars, to bring down a ballistic projectile. This is a mismatch that Fire Point also hopes to address with the Freyja.

It is notable that the U.S. Army is currently also pressing defense contractors to come up with proposals for a new interceptor for the Patriot system with a unit cost under $1 million, as you can read more about here. Whether by design or coincidence, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano, the Army’s Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Fires (PAE Fires), included a rendering of the FP-7.X in a recent LinkedIn post, as seen below, to illustrate a notional low-cost interceptor.

hahah look at that! Good find!

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) May 18, 2026

The latest development comes as Ukraine’s political and military leaders continue to warn about critical shortcomings in the country’s air defense capabilities. As well as expending the missiles it already has, the United States has reportedly suspended further Patriot deliveries to Ukraine because of concerns over the state of its own stockpile.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly urged U.S. President Donald Trump and members of Congress to provide additional missiles for its Patriot systems, warning that Ukraine faces a severe air defense shortfall.

We were receiving PAC-3 missiles from our partners in certain quantities, but later that monthly volume was cut several times over. It wasn’t due to a lack of funding, but because of the war in the Middle East. This affected different types of weapons. Whatever we could, we… pic.twitter.com/qwPFydwAzC

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) June 3, 2026

Yesterday, Zelensky said that Ukrainian officials have one week to finalize outstanding legal, financial, and technical issues related to the purchase of additional Patriot systems.

Zelensky said that a political agreement to buy the systems has already been reached, but the process has stalled.

Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States, Olha Stefanishyna, added that Kyiv is prepared to finance additional Patriot systems and interceptor missiles if Washington agrees to deliver them.

Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Oleksandr Syrsky also recently pointed to Ukraine’s lack of sufficient modern air defense systems and interceptor missiles.

Clearly, continued Russian missile and drone strikes are putting a heavy strain on Ukraine’s air defenses.

Plugging the gaps with the Freyja system would make a lot of sense, providing a locally developed and manufactured solution to the problem, provided that the technical hurdles can be overcome.

Even so, the deadline of the end of 2027 is very ambitious for such a project.

With that in mind, Ukraine is also looking to foreign support for the Freyja program.

Earlier this year, Fire Point confirmed it was in talks to get European and Middle Eastern companies onboard the program. With various nations struggling to meet their air defense needs amid the demands of the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, investing here could also bring dividends.

Shtilierman told Reuters in April that he was awaiting government approval for an investment in Fire Point by a Middle Eastern conglomerate, which would provide a major boost to Freyja and other programs, including longer-reaching ballistic missiles.

In terms of European companies, Shtilierman mentioned his interest in collaborating on radar, missile target-seeking, and communications systems. He named Hensoldt, Saab, and Thales as potential suppliers of radar solutions, an area where Fire Point lacks expertise.

Fire Point has also previously described the Freyja interceptor being fitted with an infrared imaging seeker for the terminal phase, as well as a semi-active radar homing seeker from Diehl Defence of Germany.

Few details are available about the launch system, other than reports of a lightweight, mobile launcher of domestic origin.

Globally, there is a clear demand for alternatives to the increasingly hard-to-source Patriot, especially for anti-ballistic missile defense.

A video shows a PAC-2 in a test against a Lance ballistic missile:

MIM-104C Patriot PAC-2 vs. Lance TBM

Ukraine’s combination of battlefield experience, rapid innovation, and low-cost defense technologies could put it in a good position to fill the gap. Even if the Freyja ends up with a significantly lower kill rate per missile than the Patriot, if it is far cheaper, that would be less of a problem.

At the same time, it remains unclear if Fire Point is able to fulfil the promises it has made in terms of output. In the past, the company has said it aims to build at least seven of its Flamingo cruise missiles per day, for a total of 2,555 built annually. To reach this target, the firm might need to call upon foreign partnerships to help expand its production capacity. The same would likely be the case for Freyja. By way of comparison, in 2024, Lockheed Martin produced more than 500 PAC-3 MSEs, with a plan to increase this to 600 in 2025.

A video of the Flamingo cruise missile in action:

Випробувальний пуск ракети “Фламінго”

One unknown factor in this is the possibility that Ukraine and/or NATO allies in Europe might obtain additional licenses for local production of Patriot missiles. Zelensky wants Patriot production in Ukraine and has said he has been discussing it with the United States. Still, while these might address the production capacity issues for the weapons, it would still be a more expensive solution than what Fire Point is proposing and it would take years to realize any output.

For now, the FP-7.X appears to be an early-stage technology demonstrator, and turning it into the operational Freyja interceptor by 2027 will require overcoming massive technical and logistical hurdles — as well as holding off Russian air attacks in the meantime.

However, the program reflects a broader trend in Ukraine’s wartime defense sector: rapidly developing indigenous capabilities to fill critical gaps left by limited and/or unreliable foreign supplies. If Fire Point can translate its ambitions into a viable anti-ballistic missile system, Ukraine could gain not only a more sustainable means of defending its skies, but also a potentially attractive export alternative in a global market increasingly hungry for affordable air defense solutions.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The cost to connect each of the U.S. military’s Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) one-way attack drones to space-based networks has risen from $5,000 to $25,000 a month, according to a new report. This is said to be the result of a switch from using the commercial Starlink network to its more secure government-focused cousin Starshield, which SpaceX demanded after extensive use of LUCAS drones in the latest conflict with Iran. The Pentagon has pushed back on the story, but it still highlights how critical SpaceX’s networks and other space services have become across the U.S. government, which TWZ has previously explored in detail.

Reuters first reported on the price increase to connect the datalinks on LUCAS drones to SpaceX’s space-based networks earlier today. The story cites anonymous sources, as well as Pentagon documents the outlet says it reviewed. This follows the recent announcement that the Pentagon is working to make LUCAS more autonomous with new artificial intelligence (AI) driven swarming capabilities, which could impact future connectivity demands.

Produced by SpektreWorks, LUCAS was developed in close cooperation with the U.S. military. It is a reverse-engineered clone of the Iranian-designed Shahed-136 and has a unit cost of around $35,000. The American drone already comes in multiple variations, and there is a related target drone design for use in training and test and evaluation activities. Versions fitted with miniature beyond-line-of-sight satellite datalinks, allowing for dynamic control and for their progress to be otherwise monitored after launch, have been a fixture in official pictures of LUCAS drones in the Middle East.

In the video in the social media post below, the satellite communications terminal can be seen hanging from a cord on a LUCAS drone said to have been recovered largely intact in Iraq.

The U.S. military announced it had begun fielding LUCAS drones operationally last December with a special operations-led task force in the Middle East. LUCAS’s official combat debut came in the opening wave of strikes on Iran on February 28. U.S. Navy Adm. Brad Cooper, head of U.S. Central Command, subsequently described the one-way attackers as an “indispensable” component of that operation, dubbed Epic Fury.

What we know about SpaceX’s reported upcharge for LUCAS

“Within weeks of the United States launching its bombing campaign, SpaceX executives met Pentagon officials and argued ​the military had been paying about $5,000 for connection per terminal while effectively using a higher tier of service worth closer to $25,000,” according to Reuters. “SpaceX argued the ⁠LUCAS drones were operating under conditions that aligned more closely with its aviation tier subscription rather than a lower priced land or mobility service. Pentagon officials argued that the $25,000 price tag – a monthly fee – was designed for aircraft, not kamikaze drones that used Starlink connection for a matter of minutes ​or hours.”

“The Pentagon, which was ramping up strikes on Iran, ultimately agreed to pay SpaceX’s proposed price increase,” Reuters‘ report added.

The story also said this reflected broader “tensions” between the Pentagon and SpaceX that have been growing recently over Starlink fees.

“The Fake News media has the story wrong, again,” top Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell subsequently wrote in a post on X. “The claims in this article are simply not based in reality and do not reflect the close, effective collaboration between our teams.”

When reached for comment by TWZ earlier today before Parnell’s post, the Pentagon did not directly address Reuters‘ report.

“The Department of War is committed to fostering a competitive environment for commercial satellite communications and is conducting comprehensive market research to continuously monitor commercial offerings that align with government requirements,” a Pentagon official told us. “We are actively engaging with industry to identify innovative solutions and new entrants, ensuring acquisitions are inclusive of a diverse range of capable vendors.”

“The Commercial Satellite Communications Office is working on additional options with other proliferated low earth orbit partners as part of its strategy to leverage the unprecedented capabilities provided by the commercial SATCOM industry,” that same official added. “The U.S. Space Force is operating in accordance with the terms and conditions of its contracts.”

TWZ has also reached out to SpaceX for more information.

“It is a violation of commercial Starlink terms of service to use the terminal for weapon systems. This applies to all users and is shut down when discovered,” Elon Musk, who is the founder and CEO of SpaceX among his other endeavors, had written on X on March 1 in response to a post about LUCAS making use of Starlink. “There is a separate network called Starshield, which is operated by the US government. This is not under SpaceX control.”

SpaceX’s networks and the LUCAS cost equation

Though described as a “monthly fee,” Reuters‘ report indicates that the U.S. military pays the $25,000 only once to employ a LUCAS drone. As the piece points out, the Pentagon reportedly argued that it should get to pay the lower $5,000 rate because it was only using the network to support LUCAS in timeframes measured in “minutes ​or hours.” This is also in line with Reuters describing the added cost as effectively approaching doubling the LUCAS drone’s $35,000 unit price.

The entire point of these one-way-attack drones is to offer a lower-cost complement to traditional exquisite long-range strike munitions. The Tomahawk cruise missile, the unit cost of a current-generation version of which is generally said to be in the $2 to $2.5 million range, is often used as a point of comparison, although they are far from equal in many ways. The underlying argument for LUCAS also relies on the drone being relatively cheap and easy to produce, as well as employ in large volumes. TWZ laid all of this out in a detailed case for the Pentagon acquiring exactly these kinds of drones in mass, which we published just three months before LUCAS was confirmed to be in operational service.

A combined price tag of some $60,000 (the unit cost plus one month’s fee to connect to Starshield, as reported by Reuters) would still be far less expensive than the cost of a single Tomahawk. Using Starlink/Starshield terminals to begin with, beyond their connectivity advantages, offers the benefit of miniaturized high-bandwidth hardware that is being produced at a commercial scale.

Plans to make LUCAS more autonomous through the addition of new swarming capabilities could affect future network connectivity requirements for the drones. This will be enabled by the integration of Shield AI’s Hivemind autonomy software, as you can read more about here.

Shield AI flies Hivemind AI Pilot on 6th Aircraft

As TWZ recently wrote:

“For the time being, the U.S. military demands a human operator is ‘in or on the loop’ for kinetic or otherwise potentially deadly actions, as opposed to letting autonomous weapons choose what targets to attack on their own without any extra authorization. While less controversial morally, this can also be a tactical hindrance, slowing the swarm’s potential and adding complexity and vulnerabilities to its operations. The debate around this choice will only get more heated as adversaries bypass this elected restriction in order to get an upper hand in future combat scenarios.”

“As we pointed out in our initial reporting on LUCAS’s emergence, the fact that some of the LUCAS drones already include miniature SATCOM terminals is very noteworthy. After all, ‘human in the loop’ swarming would not be possible without this form of communications at the beyond line-of-sight ranges these drones fly. At the same time, an entire swarm can be controlled in this manner, even if just a handful are equipped with SATCOM terminals. While a swarm can be mesh networked within line-of-sight, it has to relay all the important information back to an operator. By using some of the drones as SATCOM relay nodes, the entire swarm can be controlled remotely from most places on the planet.”

“Regardless, the Hivemind AI pilot will allow appropriately equipped LUCAS drones to perceive their environment, make decisions, and act autonomously without continuous human input. Unlike conventional autopilots tied to fixed flight paths, Hivemind is designed to dynamically adjust mission plans, react to unforeseen conditions, avoid obstacles, and carry out complex tasks with minimal operator oversight.”

An increase in fees to connect individual SATCOM terminals to SpaceX’s networks, as well as cost savings on hardware, might further push the Pentagon toward a hub-and-spoke mesh-like networking arrangement like the one described above. LUCAS drones could also be employed in other contexts where satellite connectivity throughout the course of a mission might not be required, including if used essentially as fire-and-forget missiles aimed at fixed target coordinates. A SATCOM terminal would not be necessary at all for this kind of mission set, although it would be beneficial.

There is also a question about the total bandwidth that might be required to support swarms of LUCAS drones. From Reuters‘ reporting today, the increased load on its networks was a central factor in SpaceX’s demands for higher fees after strikes on Iran began. That being said, as already mentioned, Starlink/Starshield terminals are already designed with relatively high bandwidth use in mind.

These same considerations will apply to current and future programs that rely heavily on SpaceX’s satellite communications networks.

Dependence on SpaceX and U.S. national security

Specific cost figures aside, the LUCAS drone’s reliance on Starlink/Starshield underscores SpaceX’s dominance in the satellite communications market globally. It also highlights how essential the company’s space-based networks have already become for the U.S. military. TWZ explored this reality in detail amid open feuding between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk last year. The relationship between Trump and Musk has since rebounded, with the latter accompanying the President on his recent state visit to China.

Reuters reported today that there are some 10,000 satellites in SpaceX’s constellation supporting Starlink and Starshield, and that this represents more than 60 percent of all satellites currently in orbit. The company’s space-based networks, far and away, dominate the commercial satellite communications space globally. Offerings from competitors like OneWeb and Amazon Leo are more limited in scale and scope.

Watch SpaceX deploy Starlink satellites into space

This is reflected in the U.S. government’s ever-growing use of Starlink/Starshield on aircraft, ships, and in settings on land. This includes integration on some very high-value assets, including the U.S. Marine Corps’ VH-92 Patriot presidential helicopters and U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. There has also been a steadily growing push to use these networks to support tactical operations, as now highlighted by the link to LUCAS. The U.S. military had first demonstrated the ability to use Starlink to transmit targeting data years ago.

The U.S. government’s increasing use of Starlink/Starshield has already prompted operational security questions, even just in the context of supporting day-to-day peacetime operations, as you can read more about here. Starshield is designed to be more secure to help address these concerns for government customers.

At the same time, heavy use of Starlink on both sides of the conflict in Ukraine, including as a means of guiding one-way attackers in the air and at sea, has further underscored potential risks associated with the use of the networks in tactical scenarios. SpaceX and CEO Musk have faced particularly significant criticism in the past over limiting some Ukrainian use of the network. Actions SpaceX took earlier this year to block unregistered Starlink terminals also had major consequences for Russian forces, which were sent scrambling to find alternatives to fill the massive resulting communications gaps.

What SpaceX might have been prepared to do if the Pentagon did not agree to pay increased fees to support LUCAS is unknown. We also do not know what kind of protections are currently baked into U.S. contracts with SpaceX to prevent government users from being suddenly disconnected without warning. Regardless, as noted earlier, the Pentagon could deploy LUCAS swarms with just a handful of drones equipped with terminals to relay the critical info needed to control the rest of the formation, and LUCAS can still be used as a fire-and-forget weapon without any beyond line-of-sight connectivity, although this would greatly curtail its flexibility and, in some cases, its efficacy.

As the Pentagon official noted to TWZ today, there is a push to explore commercial alternatives to Starlink/Starshield and promote further competition in this space. At the same time, part of the attractiveness of Starlink/Starshield for the U.S. government has been the relatively low costs and other benefits associated with leveraging such well-established networks, as well as the knowledge base that comes along with that pedigree. Just today, the U.S. Space Force announced it had finalized a new Other Transaction Authority (OTA) agreement with SpaceX, valued at $2.29 billion, for work on the Space Data Network (SDN) Backbone program. The SDN is tied to work on new space-based sensing and targeting capabilities, particularly for missile defense, which could now feed into the Golden Dome initiative.

Beyond satellite communications, SpaceX is reportedly also now a critical player in U.S. military efforts to increasingly move air and ground moving target indicator (AMTI/GMTI) tasks into orbit.

On top of all this, SpaceX is also by far the top provider of space launch services globally, as well as other space-related services, including for the U.S. government. The core elements of Golden Dome, including the sustainment of planned batteries of space-based interceptors, require reliable, routine access to space at a frequency that only SpaceX can provide within budget constraints.

SpaceX looks set to remain a dominant force in this market space worldwide for the foreseeable future, and it continues to expand its presence, driven heavily by commercial demand. The company’s government contracts, though substantial, only account for around a fifth of its annual revenue, according to Reuters.

Despite the Pentagon’s response to the particulars of Reuters’ story today, being so heavily reliant on one provider for critical technologies still raises important questions not just for LUCAS, but for other efforts across the U.S. military that rely on robust and secure satellite communications connectivity.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

For thieves looking to strip Los Angeles for parts, copper has become a fast-moving currency.

The problem has become so persistent that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is now asking for its own armed police force to protect vulnerable utility equipment, street lighting and critical infrastructure, insisting that the department’s contracted and unarmed security guards aren’t cutting it.

“They lack the authority to detain or arrest suspects, intervene in crimes in progress, conduct searches, or carry firearms for enforcement purposes,” according to a May 21 report from the city agency. “Delays hinder timely intervention, reduce investigative effectiveness, and contribute to repeat victimization of LADWP facilities.”

Under DWP’s current “observe and report” security model, an officer who sees someone cutting a fence or stripping copper from a transformer has little authority apart from yelling a warning or making a 911 call, according to the department report.

The proposal asks for 20 to 50 sworn officers to start, hired over a five-year period, along with support staff. If approved, the force would give the agency’s officers the authority to carry a firearm, make arrests and investigate thefts. The plan was scheduled to be discussed Thursday by the City Council.

The push comes as citywide service requests for streetlight repairs have surged over the last several years.

L.A.’s historic streetlights outside the Bureau of Street Lighting near Virgil Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

The city logged 14,328 electronic streetlight service requests in 2018, according to data from the Bureau of Street Lighting. Requests have tripled since then, reaching an all-time high of 46,079 in 2024, the last full year of available data.

Mayor Karen Bass’ office said in March that copper thefts are a leading cause of streetlight outages. Repairs have been backlogged for months.

Prices for the metal are at an all-time high, driven by major supply disruptions in Indonesia and Chile, and soaring demand from artificial intelligence data centers and electric grid infrastructure. Thieves typically exchange the metal for cash at recycling centers, where it can fetch up to $5.30 per pound. The City Council last year approved a program offering up to $5,000 for information in metal and wire theft cases.

Theft losses alone exceed $1 million annually, according to DWP.

Establishing a new police force would require changing the city charter, meaning voters will have a say come the November midterm elections. Authorities will also need to obtain state legislative approval for the plan.

Officials said rolling out the police department would cost $9.7 million over three years, plus up to $6 million annually to pay for staffing. They maintain those costs are less than the $46 million combined DWP spends each year on private security contractors and unarmed staff security.

On Hill Street in downtown L.A., streetlights have been targeted by thieves and vandals.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

Any cost overflows would be paid for by DWP customers.

Timothy O’Connor, executive director for the Los Angeles Office of Public Accountability, a spending watchdog, said his office is not convinced that the agency could minimize long-term cost creep, or that the new force would offset enough costs to justify the program. The proposed force of a few dozen officers, he said, would be too small to get the job done.

“Theft losses at DWP are real and are increasing. However, eliminating these losses is not enough to offset the proposed costs,” he said. “Furthermore, DWP will be unable to fully eliminate theft given the diffuse nature of the DWP system.”

But O’Connor also said the department is faced with real security risks like those posed by drone attacks or terrorism threats, which he said “appear to justify the proposal at some level.”

In February, a man shot himself after he drove his car through the perimeter fence of a power substation while carrying explosives and several firearms. Dubbing the incident an attempted terrorist attack, officials said the episode could have caused catastrophic infrastructure damage.

David Levitus, executive director of the advocacy group LA Forward, said he was surprised to learn of the proposal so late in Los Angeles’ ongoing charter reform process, which his organization has monitored closely.

“The fact that this is being dumped in late May — what’s the rush?” Levitus said. “I think we really need to be wary of creating new police departments in general, but especially without a clear case and clear constraints and accountability mechanisms.”

If you’re heading off on a staycation or a day trip this summer, beware of hidden costs on UK toll roads

Those setting off on a staycation or enjoyable day out should bear in mind that their journey might come with some unexpected expenses. There are multiple toll roads scattered across the UK, with some potentially costing over £15 for a return journey.

Branded the UK’s priciest motorway, the M6 in the Midlands, which stretches over 230 miles, can set drivers back more than £10 for a return trip – while not a massive sum, it could quickly chip away at your lunch money or similar. The M6 Toll, the 27-mile route between Cannock and Coleshill, cost £900million to build.

Northgate Vehicle Hire, a commercial vehicle leasing specialist supporting businesses nationwide, has flagged that the M6 and other toll roads are alerting travellers to these concealed expenses.

Discussing the M6, they note that for a standard family car, a return journey runs to approximately £10.50.

Meanwhile, those behind the wheel of a heavy goods vehicle could face a bill of £20.20 for just a single journey, while a motorhome costs £19.20 one-way.

The M6 connects drivers to major tourist destinations during the summer months, including Drayton Manor Resort, and reportedly saw 45,749 vehicles per day in 2025.

Spencer Davi, Sales and Marketing Director at Northgate Vehicle Hire, offered some insight on toll roads: “Toll charges are a real consideration, especially for those making regular cross-border trips.

“What surprised us most about this research is how much variation there is across roads within the UK.”

However, while the M6 may hold the title of the most expensive motorway and toll road, experts have warned that there is another UK route that will set drivers back considerably more.

Specialists at Northgate Vehicle Hire revealed that the London Congestion Charge is in fact the UK’s most expensive crossing for cars.

Costing drivers £15.00, the crossing is a key route for anyone planning a trip to the capital this summer, with the charge applicable to drivers entering the Congestion Charge Zone between 7am – 6pm Monday to Friday, and 12pm to 6pm on Saturdays, Sundays, and bank holidays.

The UK’s most expensive toll roads for cars

1. London Congestion Charge, London – £15.00
2. M6, Midlands – £10.50
3. Durham Road User Charge Zone, Durham – £5
4. Mersey Tunnels – Queensway: Liverpool – Birkenhead and Mersey Tunnels – Kingsway: Liverpool – Wallasey – £4.60

For those considering a staycation this year, it’s well worth doing your homework on your route beforehand, as some roads can come with a surprisingly hefty price tag.

As someone who is “not the best person with bugs and stuff,” Stephanie Bernaba never imagined herself becoming an outdoorsy mom.

But the mother of three is getting more daring as gas prices and other travel costs make vacations more expensive. Bernaba, 47, has been steering her family toward local beaches, bike rides and hiking trails near their home in coastal Rhode Island instead of the faraway trips they once took.

“I’ve been trying to do more of that because one, it’s quality time. Two, it’s fresh air. And three, we’re not spending an arm and a leg,” she said.

That kind of calibration is shaping the summer travel season, which gets its traditional start in the U.S. with the long Memorial Day holiday weekend. Higher fuel prices resulting from the Iran war and other inflationary pressures are making most forms of travel costlier as people in many parts of the world form their plans.

The U.S. Travel Assn. expects annual travel spending to grow by a modest 1% this year, powered largely by domestic leisure travel despite the FIFA World Cup giving soccer fans from other countries a reason to visit the U.S. Airfares have climbed around the world along with the price of jet fuel as the war constrains global oil supplies.

Sticking closer to home may not cushion the sticker shock. The nonprofit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimated Americans would collectively spend an extra $3.5 billion on gasoline over the holiday weekend. The average price for a gallon of regular gas in the U.S. was $4.56 on Thursday compared to $3.18 a year ago, according to the motor club AAA.

Other travel expenses have gone up too. The latest consumer price index showed airfares were 20.7% higher in April from a year earlier, the cost of intracity transit, such as buses and subways, rose 5.6%, lodging cost 4.3% more, and eating out got 3.6% pricier.

Changing travel patterns

Despite elevated prices, industry forecasts suggest Americans still want to get away, even if it means replacing long trips with long weekends, choosing destinations closer to home and finding ways to cut costs by cooking meals or using buses and trains instead of driving.

AAA predicted that 45 million U.S. residents would travel at least 50 miles from home between Thursday and Monday. The Transportation Security Administration said it expects to screen 18.3 million passengers from Thursday to next Wednesday.

Many households are planning summer vacations but making tradeoffs such as shorter trips or cheaper lodging, according to Bank of America analysts. Mastercard said in a recent report that consumers appeared increasingly focused on value and were adjusting their destinations and timing instead of not going away at all.

“Generally, it’s certainly more of a demand reshuffling than a demand softening,” David Tinsley, a senior economist at Bank of America Institute, said.

For the Bernaba family, that has meant trading a big vacation for a shorter trip nearby this summer. Their scaled-back itinerary still is pricey: more than $400 for a ferry to Martha’s Vineyard for their car and passengers, and about $800 a night for each of the two hotel rooms the family of five needs.

Another family that had planned to join them backed out after seeing the price tag.

“The pinch is being felt all the way around,” Bernaba said.

Analysts have increasingly described travel spending as “K-shaped,” with higher-income households continuing to spend while lower-income families pull back or opt out entirely. Bank of America said lower-income households were significantly more likely to report having no summer travel plans this year.

Travelers are confronting other stressors besides cost.

Airlines around the world have canceled flights and trimmed routes to save on fuel and operating costs, leaving passengers with fewer options. Recent U.S. government shutdowns — which caused major flight disruptions and long security lines — are likely still fresh in travelers’ minds. The conflict in the Middle East and broader geopolitical tensions add another layer of concern, especially for those considering trips abroad.

The various factors impacting travel right now have made planning trips more mentally taxing and may be pushing people toward simpler and more accessible vacations that feel easier to manage, said Marta Soligo, a tourism sociologist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

“The keyword here is unpredictability,” Soligo said. “Tourists don’t like unpredictability.”

Quality over quantity

Jim Wang, a personal finance blogger who lives in Maryland with his wife and four children, said his family’s original plan to travel to Spain to see a full solar eclipse in August began to unravel once they looked at the logistics.

Beyond thousands of dollars in airfare, the trip would have required multiple connecting flights, plus a car rental to reach northern Spain, where the path of totality is expected to pass.

“It’s like, ‘Oh, I don’t know if I want to see the eclipse that much,’” Wang said.

Instead, Wang’s family plans to head this summer to the Lake Tahoe area straddling California and Nevada, where they can stay at a relative’s cabin for free, hike and enjoy a slower pace with limited cellphone service. His wife’s parents and sister expect to join them.

“We’re still going to travel. It’ll just be different,” Wang said. “The vacations are no longer as grand for the adults. But for our kids, it’s still exciting.”

Nancy McGehee, a Virginia Tech hospitality professor who studies consumer behavior, said travelers are increasingly focusing more on the “why than the where” when it comes to vacations.

“What we’re seeing is people are saying, ‘All right, we can’t do that big splashy trip we wanted to do, but what else can we do?’” McGehee said. “It’s more quality over quantity that we’re seeing people go for.”

Back in Rhode Island, Bernaba has accepted that travel may look different for her family for a while.

“I think that’s probably why my mind has gone to doing more nature-y things,” she said. “Let’s learn how to use the earth to enjoy ourselves because that’s not going to cost as much money.”

Yamat writes for the Associated Press.

California and a coalition of other Democratic-led states are suing the Trump administration over new limits on federal borrowing by aspiring nurses, physician’s assistants, therapists, social workers, mental health practitioners and other healthcare workers, arguing the changes will further reduce a struggling but vital workforce.

“This case is about protecting access to education, protecting our healthcare workforce, and protecting patients who rely on these providers every single day,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said during a virtual news conference Tuesday. “The Trump administration is going out of its way to make it harder and more expensive for students to pursue the advanced degrees necessary to serve their communities and pursue meaningful careers that allow them to support themselves and their families.”

Bonta said the new limits on loans sought by nursing and other healthcare students — which the U.S. Department of Education initiated in response to Republicans passing broader student loan caps as part of last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — was an illegal overreach by the agency that was “deeply shortsighted” and went beyond the scope of the legislation.

“Congress can act,” he said. “But what the Department of Education can’t do is — contrary to law and in an arbitrary and capricious way and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act — redefine what a professional student is.”

In response to the litigation, Trump administration officials defended the new rules, saying they will help student borrowers in the long run by driving down schooling costs at universities nationwide and preventing them from taking on too much debt.

“After decades of unchecked student loan borrowing that gave schools no reason to control costs, these commonsense loan caps — created by Congress — are already incentivizing colleges and universities to lower tuition,” Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a statement to The Times.

Kent said Bonta and his fellow Democratic litigants “are more concerned about institutions’ bottom-line [than] American students and families’ ability to access affordable postsecondary education.” As one example of institutions responding to loan caps by lowering costs, Kent pointed to UC Irvine reducing the costs of its master’s in business programs by up to 38% to keep them below a federal loan cap for such programs.

The One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by Congress in July 2025, placed new limits on student loans, which could previously be sought for the full cost of such degrees. Starting this July, applicants categorized as “graduate students” will be capped at borrowing $20,500 per year and $100,000 in total, while applicants categorized as “professional students” will be allowed to borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 in total.

On May 1, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new rule defining the “professional student” category as including those pursuing degrees to become doctors, pharmacists, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, various medical specialists, pastors and other religious academics, and excluding those pursuing nursing and other advanced healthcare degrees.

In announcing the change, Kent said it would “simplify our complex student loan repayment system and better align higher education with workforce needs,” “drive a sea change in higher education by holding universities accountable for outcomes and putting significant downward pressure on the cost of tuition,” and “benefit borrowers who will no longer be pushed into insurmountable debt to finance degrees that do not pay off.”

Others fiercely disagreed, including healthcare industry leaders who also had objected to the rule change during a public comment period. Some said the changes would simply increase student reliance on less favorable, private-sector loans.

The American Assn. of Colleges of Nursing, in a statement, said it and its members were “angered by the Department of Education’s failure to support the nursing profession as the demand for patient care services rises.”

Nearly 150 members of Congress — including more than a dozen Republicans — wrote a letter the day after the rule was promulgated expressing “disappointment” over the exclusion of post-baccalaureate nursing degrees.

“At a time when our nation is facing a health care shortage, especially in primary care, now is not the time to cut off the student pipeline to these programs,” the lawmakers argued.

Rachel Zaentz, a spokesperson for the University of California, which is not party to the lawsuit but operates a vast network of public health programs, said in a statement Tuesday that UC “strongly opposed” the administration’s new caps on federal loans for nurses and other health professionals, which she said “will be felt most strongly by lower-income graduate students.”

“UC will continue to do all we can to ensure that cost is not a barrier for anyone who wants to pursue higher education, and we will continue to advocate with our federal partners for the programs and policies that make this possible,” Zaentz said.

Bonta rejected the administration’s argument that the new caps would help students pursuing a dream of a medical career avoid taking on too much debt — calling it “tone deaf.” He said those students are already “struggling with all costs right now” thanks to the Trump administration’s tariffs, war in Iran and lax approach to regulating monopolies and other big business.

He also rejected the idea that the new loan caps would force institutions to reduce costs for students, calling that “wishful thinking.”

The lawsuit is the 68th filed by Bonta’s office against the second Trump administration. Joining Bonta in the lawsuit — which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Maryland — were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

It could cost nearly $1.2 trillion to develop, field, and operate a new missile defense shield like the one the Trump administration proposes to establish under its Golden Dome initiative, according to a new estimate. Deploying and sustaining a constellation of 7,800 space-based anti-missile interceptors accounts for more than 60 percent of that projected price tag. This puts a particular spotlight on the potential costs of what is arguably viewed as the most critical and controversial aspect of the Golden Dome plan. At the same time, even with this grand investment, the ability of the space-based interceptor layer would only be able to engage 10 targets simultaneously, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

CBO released a detailed cost estimate of what it described as a notional “National Missile Defense System” yesterday. CBO’s $1.191 trillion figure covers various expenses over a 20-year timeframe. This is more than double the projected price tag that CBO had put forward last year. President Trump first announced plans for a new national missile defense architecture in January 2025. The initiative was originally dubbed Iron Dome before being renamed Golden Dome.

“The analysis is based on the objectives laid out in the President’s executive order titled ‘The Iron Dome for America.’ The Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) implementation of that order – an initiative now called the Golden Dome for America (GDA) – is in the early stages,” CBO’s latest estimate explains up front. “Although documents from DoD’s budget request for the 2027 fiscal year provide five-year projections of funding plans for GDA, details about what and how many systems will be deployed – the ‘objective architecture’ – have not been released, making it impossible to estimate the long-term cost of the GDA system being contemplated by DoD. In the absence of specific plans for GDA’s objective architecture, CBO has estimated the cost of a notional NMD architecture based on the defensive systems and capabilities that are called for in the executive order.”

“DoD’s stated cost appears to cover a shorter time frame than CBO’s analysis and may reflect a different scope of activities and budget categories. Even so, that stated cost is far lower than CBO’s estimate for a notional NMD architecture consistent with the ‘Iron Dome” executive order,” CBO’s assessment adds. “That difference suggests either that GDA’s objective architecture is more limited than CBO’s notional NMD system or that DoD expects significant funding from other accounts to contribute to GDA (or both). For example, procurement of interceptors might be funded directly through the services’ missile procurement accounts instead of the GDA fund.”

For its part, the Trump administration has most recently pegged the price tag for Golden Dome’s “objective architecture” at approximately $185 billion. Last year, President Trump himself had put forward a $175 billion figure, which he said would include systems to be fielded “in less than three years.” TWZ has noted on several occasions now that the administration’s estimates may just cover a portion of the planned Golden Dome architecture, which could easily cost hundreds of billions in total to field and operate.

CBO’s analysis is broken into six main elements – the space-based interceptor constellation, upper wide-area surface sites, lower wide-area surface sites, regional sectors, self-defense for four existing surface sites, and a space satellite constellation for tracking targets – as well as a collection of miscellaneous ancillary costs. The surface site and regional sector categories primarily consist of costs associated with expanding on existing land and sea-based anti-missile interceptor and sensor capabilities, such as Aegis Ashore, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, and the Next Generation Interceptor (NGI).

An all-new constellation of 7,800 space-based interceptors is, by far, the largest single component of CBO’s projection. This capability is estimated to cost $723 billion to acquire, and then another $1 billion annually to operate and maintain ($20 billion over 20 years), for a total of $743 billion. This is 60 percent of the total estimated $1.191 trillion price tag, and 70 percent of the projected acquisition costs.

CBO provides a detailed breakdown of how it arrived at these figures.

“The average cost per SBI [space-based interceptor] satellite would be $22 million. That average is for the initial 7,800 SBIs as well as the nearly 1,600 SBIs that would be needed each year thereafter because of the satellites’ short five-year service life. The need to periodically replace SBIs means that the acquisition costs would be spread over the life of the system,” according to the cost assessment. “The total is based on a cost of $500 per kilogram to launch the SBIs into orbit. Although that launch cost is lower than typical launch costs today, it is thought to be achievable using the new generation of heavy-lift rockets, such as the Space-X [sic] Starship, that are being developed. Even lower launch costs may be realized in the future, but that could have only a limited effect on total costs for the SBI layer because, even at $500 per kilogram, launch costs account for less than 5 percent of the total.”

“Both the very large number of SBIs needed to engage just 10 targets simultaneously and the SBIs’ short service life are the result of how the satellites move in orbit. To be close enough to reach their targets within the three to five minutes available in the boost phase, SBIs must be in LEO at altitudes of roughly 300 to 500 kilometers,” it continues. “However, the characteristics of satellite motion in LEO affect the size of constellations meant to provide continuous coverage over specific locations on Earth. (For boost-phase SBIs, “coverage” is relative to an ICBM’s [intercontinental ballistic missile] launch location, not the location of the ICBM’s target.)”

“Satellites in LEO cannot be fixed over specific points on Earth; they orbit in a band centered on the equator and bounded equally north and south by their orbital inclination (usually measured in degrees of latitude). Therefore, constellations of many SBIs are needed to ensure that a sufficient number (20, for example, if two shots are needed against 10 ICBMs) are always close enough to potential launch locations to reach targets during the boost phase,” the assessment adds. “The total number of satellites in a constellation depends mainly on the speed of the interceptors, how quickly they can be launched, the number of simultaneous targets the system needs to handle, and the latitudes to be covered.”

“Because atmospheric drag at the altitudes at which SBIs would orbit causes their orbits to decay over time, each satellite would need to be replaced roughly every 5 years. (By contrast, the service life of surface-based interceptors can be 20 years or more, and surface-based interceptors can be maintained and upgraded during that time.),” CBO also says. “For CBO’s notional constellation, roughly 30,000 satellites would be needed to keep 7,800 in orbit for 20 years.”

All this being said, CBO’s notional space-based interceptor architecture is still predicated only on defeating a relatively limited strike (a single wave of 10 ICBMs) from “a regional adversary,” a term typically used to describe countries like North Korea and Iran. The Trump administration has indicated in the past that Golden Dome is intended to defend against a much broader array of threats, including from peer adversaries like Russia and China.

Furthermore, CBO points out that its cost estimate does not include additional space-based interceptors designed to engage missiles during the mid-course portion of their flight, which are also being explored now as part of the Golden Dome plan.

“Although the notional NMD system analyzed by CBO would be far more capable than defenses the United States fields today, it would not be an impenetrable shield or be able to fully counter a large attack of the sort that Russia or China might be able to launch,” the latest cost estimate also stresses. “As a result, the strategic consequences of deploying an NMD system with the capacity considered here are unclear because they hinge on an adversary’s perception of the defense’s capability and how that adversary chose [sic] to respond.”

“Such a deployment could prompt regional adversaries to increase their inventories of long-range missiles (nuclear or conventional) or to pursue more effective countermeasures to improve their chances of penetrating the NMD system,” the assessment notes. “Peer or near-peer adversaries could overwhelm CBO’s notional NMD system with salvoes of many missiles in a large-scale attack with their current nuclear forces, although they still might choose to increase their arsenals of long-range missiles (both nuclear and conventional) to ensure they maintain that capability.”

With this in mind, “DoD could opt to build a national missile defense system that was smaller or larger than (or altogether different from) CBO’s notional system. A larger system designed to handle a full-scale Russian ICBM attack, for example, could include more space-based interceptors or more NGIs at the three upper wide-area surface layer sites,” it also cautions. “It could also include more interceptors at lower levels. A smaller system, by contrast, might be able to engage fewer missiles or protect fewer areas. The total number of regional sectors in CBO’s notional system is based on providing some terminal coverage to the entire country as suggested by the language in the ‘Iron Dome’ executive order.”

As mentioned, putting interceptors in space has been one of, if not the highest profile aspect of the stated Iron Dome/Golden Dome plan from the very start. Space-based weapons were also a central element of the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which was directly referenced in the original executive order outlining the new missile defense initiative. Infamously dubbed “Star Wars” by its critics, SDI never came close to achieving its ambitious goals. Its planned anti-missile capabilities in orbit were especially hampered by technical challenges and high costs.

The U.S. Space Force is already leading a new SBI program, with a stated goal of demonstrating a relevant capability integrated into the larger Golden Dome architecture by 2028. Space Force has already awarded deals with a combined value of $3.2 billion to 12 companies for SBI-related work. Several firms, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Anduril, have already announced work on prototype interceptor designs.

The Northrop Grumman video below includes a computer-generated clip depicting a space-based interceptor engaging a target outside the Earth’s atmosphere, starting at 0:13 in the runtime.

Northrop Grumman Third Quarter 2025 Highlights

Over the past year and a half or so, U.S. military officials have voiced particular support for the space-based component of Golden Dome, saying that advances in relevant technologies in the decades since SDI make it a more viable concept today. They have also downplayed the costs, as well as the geopolitical ramifications of further weaponizing space, as necessary to defend Americans against growing missile threats.

“I think there’s a lot of technical challenges,” Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman said during a live interview as part of Defense One‘s State of Defense 2025: Air Force and Space Force virtual conference last year. “I am so impressed by the innovative spirit of the American space industry. I’m pretty convinced that we will be able to technically solve those challenges.”

“Depends on where you sit, right, you know? But to say that it’s the responsibility for the U.S. government to protect its citizens from emerging threats makes perfect sense to me,” he added at that time when asked about the potentially destabilizing impacts of Golden Dome. “And we clearly see a country like the PRC [People’s Republic of China] investing heavily in these kinds of threats, whether it’s hypersonic [weapons], whether it’s threats from space. And so now it’s time for the U.S. government to step up to the responsibilities to protect American citizens from those threats.”

“We’re basically responding to a warfighting domain where our adversaries have already put interceptors in space, and we want to make sure that we rebalance that in terms of deterrence,” Saltzman said more recently in response to a question from our Howard Altman at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February.

“Interceptors by definition refer to a handful of well-acknowledged capabilities that other countries have, like ground and air-launched anti-satellite missiles or capabilities like the SJ-21, which has a grappling arm,” a Space Force spokesperson later clarified to TWZ when asked for further details about the “interceptors in space” Saltzman had mentioned.

This all highlights the very real prospect of actual fighting in space during future conflicts, something the U.S. military is increasingly preparing for, as you can read about more here. What would be necessary to protect 7,800 anti-missile interceptors in orbit, as well as critical associated space-based sensors and communications constellations, could easily add to Golden Dome’s total cost.

As CBO makes clear in its latest assessment, much is still unknown publicly about the actual scale and scope of Golden Dome, and what it might therefore cost in the end. At the same time, space-based interceptors are a very real part of the planned architecture, with work underway now to develop those capabilities.

The concept that CBO has outlined already involves an extreme expenditure of money and resources, all for a capability it still assesses to be useful only against relatively limited barrages from rogue states. Those are threats that could well be addressed using far less expensive surface-based systems, though not ones that can intercept targets in their boost phase.

As underscored now by CBO’s latest cost projection, a relevant constellation of interceptors in space remains likely to be the most costly and complex aspect of Golden Dome, if it comes to fruition at all.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Picking the wildest fantasy promoted by President Trump as a basis for public policy is increasingly challenging — is it his yarn about schoolchildren being secretly abducted from their classrooms and given sex-changing operations? The notion that the vaccines given to children are like “a vat, like a big glass, of stuff pumped into their bodies?”

Here’s one that has disrupted the economics of renewable energy generation and will cost Americans billions of dollars: It’s Trump’s “completely weird war on wind power in the United States,” based on a sheaf of “fact-free arguments.”

That judgment comes from Steven Cohen, a climate policy expert at Columbia University, who points out that wind already accounts for 10.5% of U.S. energy generation, that it’s destined to continue growing — and that most of it is generated today in red states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa and Kansas.

There is no question that Trump’s weird war against wind is full blown. On the day of his second inauguration, he issued an executive order shutting down all new permits for offshore wind farms and ordered the Interior Department to review existing permits.

A federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the executive order in December, and his orders suspending work on existing offshore wind projects have been halted by other federal judges. The Trump administration has blocked or delayed as many as 165 wind projects on private land, citing “national security” concerns, according to the American Clean Power Assn.

Most recently, Trump has reached agreements with offshore wind firms in which the government will pay them a combined $2 billion to abandon their U.S. projects.

At some level, this crusade resembles Trump’s misguided effort to revive the American coal industry, which is on the glide path to inevitable extinction. In that case, Trump is waging an explicitly partisan and ideological battle. “We’re ending Joe Biden’s war on beautiful, clean coal,” he declared last April.

Trump’s anti-wind program is part of his campaign to dismantle U.S. renewables policy because of its roots in the Biden administration.

Additionally, multiple commentators conjecture that his hostility to wind originated in 2011, when he groused that an offshore wind farm would be visible from one of his golf courses in Scotland. He sued to thwart the “ugly” project, and lost.

But Trump has mustered other arguments against wind, on- and offshore, none of which holds water.

During a cabinet meeting in July 2025, he called wind “a very expensive form of energy.” In fact, on average it’s cheaper than natural gas, coal and nuclear generation. Perhaps more important, the cost has been coming down sharply as technology improves and the sector reaches critical mass: falling to eight cents from 21 cents per kilowatt-hour from 2010 to 2024 for offshore projects, and to 3.4 cents from 11.3 cents for land-based wind farms over the same period.

Trump blamed wind turbines for mass killing whales and birds. Neither assertion is correct.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency, says “there are no known links between large whale deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities.”

The Audubon Society reported in January that although wind turbines can present hazards to birds, “developers can effectively manage these risks without significantly increasing project costs.” The biggest risks to birds come from the climate: “Two-thirds of North American birds are at increasing risk of extinction from global temperature rise,” the society reported — a threat that wind power can ameliorate.

Trump spokeswoman Taylor Rogers didn’t respond to my questions about the derivation of his anti-wind stance, but told me by email only that “President Trump has been clear: hard-earned taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be wasted on unreliable and costly wind farms that pose serious threats to our national security. Instead, we should be strengthening and expanding our infrastructure that produces reliable, affordable, and secure energy like natural gas plants.”

That brings us to the recent deals with offshore wind developers. The largest single deal, signed in March, was with the French firm TotalEnergies, which is to receive approximately $1 billion from the federal government to abandon all of its U.S. offshore wind projects and invest instead in oil and gas projects, including a liquefied natural gas export facility in Texas.

In his March 23 announcement of the deal, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum called offshore wind “one of the most expensive, unreliable, environmentally disruptive, and subsidy-dependent schemes ever forced on American ratepayers and taxpayers.”

This is what Huck Finn would call a “stretcher,” given the decades of subsidies spooned out to the oil and gas industry, reaching more than $30 billion a year in federal and state tax credits, indulgent regulation of pollution and low-cost access to federal lands. Indeed, the investment firm Lazard recently reported that renewables, including wind, are a cost-competitive form of generation even without subsidies. (Lazard’s calculation is of the “levelized cost of energy,” meaning the average cost over a generating plant’s lifetime.)

TotalEnergies fell into lockstep with the Interior Department in its own announcement, explaining its willingness to renounce U.S. offshore wind power because “offshore wind developments in the United States, unlike those in Europe, are costly,” echoing the agency’s position that “the development of offshore wind projects is not in the country’s interest.” Never mind that one factor that makes U.S. offshore wind development costly compared with Europe is the Trump administration’s opposition.

The government subsequently reached an agreement to pay the French company Ocean Winds $885 million to walk away from two offshore wind projects, including one in the waters off California. Ocean Winds described the deal as one driven chiefly by economics, but hinted at pressure from the White House.

“We welcome the opportunity to engage constructively with the administration on this agreement and acknowledge the clarity they have provided with this decision and deal,” Michael Brown, the chief executive of Ocean Winds North America, said when the deal was announced last month. “Our priority remains disciplined capital allocation and delivering reliable energy solutions that create long-term value for ratepayers, partners, and shareholders.”

The TotalEnergies deal, which the government has described as a “refund” of money the firm paid for its offshore leades, raised the hackles of congressional Democrats, who assert that it violates the law and constitution in multiple ways.

“We will hold you accountable for this billion-dollar ripoff,” Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, warned TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné in an April 29 letter.

Among other infirmities Raskin and Huffman alleged, the government’s national security rationale for canceling offshore wind leases looks “fabricated”; the payout violates the statutory formula for compensation for canceled leases; the money is to come from a fund designed only to pay court-ordered judgments and settlements of lawsuits, which don’t exist in this case; and includes a provision preventing the deal from being reviewed by a court.

The last of those provisions would have to be authorized by Congress, the letter states, asking for documents and a response from the company by Wednesday. Committee spokespersons weren’t available to say whether they received a response from TotalEnergies, and the company didn’t respond to my request for comment. I received no response from the Department of the Interior.

The California Energy Commission has opened an investigation into the Ocean Winds deal.

“The Trump Administration is recklessly spending billions of taxpayer dollars on backroom deals that would turn back the clock on innovation” CEC Chair David Hochschild said. “Taxpayer dollars should be used to build a sustainable energy future, not to pay to make projects disappear.”

What’s especially wasteful about Trump’s crusade against wind power is that it’s almost certain to be time-limited.

It’s hardly debatable that renewables such as solar and wind will be our principal sources of energy in the future; holding back the clock achieves nothing but injecting uncertainty into investment decisions that need to be made now, at a time when the price of oil is on the upswing thanks to Trump’s Iran adventure and Europe and China are racing to transition away from fossil fuels, while the U.S. remains becalmed by ideology.

“In the long run, fossil fuels will be used for petrochemicals and not for burning,” Cohen told me. “Fifty years from now, people are going to be amazed that we burned these rare, useful hydrocarbons for fuel, when the sun was just sitting up there providing an essentially infinite source of energy.”

The holidaymaker revealed how he enjoyed a week-long holiday at a budget price

A social media user has wowed travel fans after sharing how much he spent on a week’s holiday in Mexico. The holidaymaker explained his bargain travel hack in a TikTok post shared under the username @Byseyi.

In the viral video, Byseyi revealed he spent £360 per person on a last-minute holiday to Mexico. He said: “So this is one travel tip that I don’t really hear that many people talk about. And this is actually how me and my wife travelled to Mexico for a week for around £360 per person, and that’s flights and accommodation.”

The TikTok creator claims: “So if you’re able to travel last-minute, go and look at TUI’s last-minute flight deals on the flight section of their website. Because what happens is they’re trying to get rid of some of these last-minute flights and not have empty seats going. So we ended up booking a flight for two people to go to Cancun, Mexico, for £538 for both of us.

“Managed to find some good accommodation in Tulum that was cheap for £185. And even right now, if you go on the website, you’ll see a flight to the Dominican Republic for £384 if you’re able to travel in the month of May.

“So it’s really just for those people, maybe you had a holiday that got cancelled and you’re trying to plan a new thing, or you have the flexibility to just travel last minute. So it doesn’t apply to everyone, but for those that it can work for, you can get something good for cheap.”

The video gained over 115k views and 14k likes on TikTok. Replying to the video, a viewer said: “Thanks for reminding me being fully remote is a win.” A second comment read: “A digital nomads dream lol …let me go check out TUI.” A third social media user wrote: “Yep! TUI got me to Aruba for £196 return, directttt! best!”

Someone else shared: “I always like these deals but they don’t work for people who like to explore more than one city in a country. But I think it’s great when you are simply looking for anywhere to go to.”

Another response said: “How close to the departure date did you book?” The travel lover replied: “Booked on the 23rd of Feb, flew out 3rd of March.”

Passengers looking for last-minute flights can browse deals on TUI’s website, where there’s a section dedicated to cheap flights. Customers can filter their search by departure date, with options ranging from within seven days to three months. Alternatively, customers planning further ahead can refine their search by month.

Chris Logan, Commercial Director at TUI UK and Ireland, said: “If you’ve got a bit of flexibility, our last-minute flight deals can be a brilliant way to grab a great-value getaway. Flying from over 20 airports across the UK, making it easy to pick a date, pack a bag and set off from a nearby airport. There’s a great choice of destinations on offer too – from European favourites like Spain and Greece, to long-haul escapes across the Caribbean, including Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Jamaica, as well as Florida.

“These direct flights include 10kg of hand luggage as standard, with the option to add more, upgrade for extra space or enjoy a more premium travel experience. It’s always worth checking back – you might find something that gets you away sooner than you think.”

May 12 (UPI) — A nonpartisan office said Tuesday that President Donald Trump‘s proposed Golden Dome missile defense system could cost $1.2 trillion over two decades – far more than the $175 billion he said it would cost last year.

The Congressional Budget Office said in a report that this analysis isn’t based on final blueprints, as full details of the system’s architecture haven’t been announced, Time reported. It said this estimate shows the price of “one illustrative approach rather than an estimate of a full Administration proposal.”

The CBO said that acquisition costs for the system would alone cost more than $1 trillion, and of that, about 70 percent of the cost would be for the interceptor layer, orbital weapons meant to destroy missiles after they’re launched, The Hill reported. This would include about 7,800 satellites.

Gen. Mike Guetlein, the Pentagon official in charge of the project, said in March that it would cost about $185 billion. The CBO report said that this difference in estimated price may mean that the “objective architecture is more limited” for the project than the system accounted for by the CBO, The Hill reported.

Congressional Republicans have earmarked $25 billion for the project in the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The Pentagon has asked for $17 billion more in a reconciliation bill this year.

The Trump administration’s fiscal 2027 budget request, which includes $750 billion earmarked for the Golden Dome system, says the system “keeps Americans safe, while using innovative program management and acquisition approaches to prudently employ taxpayer dollars,” The Hill reported. Trump has said he wants the system operational by the end of his term.

The CBO said the system it used in its estimate could counter a limited attack but would be overwhelmed by a large-scale one, Time reported. Israel’s similar air-defense system, often called the Iron Dome, has intercepted missiles from Iran and other localized groups but is meant for a smaller area and shorter-range threats, as opposed to the United States’ need to defend a much larger area from long-range attacks, it said.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., requested the CBO report. He said Tuesday that the report shows the Golden Dome project “is nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans” that will “do little to advance American national security.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s plan to put weapons in space — pitched as a “Golden Dome for America” missile defense program — is estimated to cost $1.2 trillion over a 20 year period, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, a far heftier sum than the initial $175 billion price tag he gave last year.

The nonpartisan CBO report, published Tuesday, is described as an analysis that reflects “one illustrative approach rather than an estimate of a specific Administration proposal.”

The futuristic system was ordered by Trump in an executive order during his first week in office. He said then that he expected the system to be “fully operational before the end of my term,” which wraps up in January 2029.

“Over the past 40 years, rather than lessening, the threat from next-generation strategic weapons has become more intense and complex with the development by peer and near-peer adversaries of next-generation delivery systems,” Trump said in his executive order, justifying the need for the missile defense system.

The CBO’s estimates are in part based on a lack of details from the Defense Department about what and how many systems will be deployed, “making it impossible to estimate the long term cost” of the Golden Dome system, the report says.

The concept for the missile system is at least partly inspired by Israel’s multitiered defenses, often collectively referred to as the “Iron Dome,” which played a key role in defending it from rocket and missile fire from Iran and allied militant groups as it prosecutes the war on Iran alongside the U.S.

The U.S. Golden Dome is envisioned to include ground and space-based capabilities able to detect, intercept and stop missiles at all major stages of a potential attack.

Congress has already approved roughly $24 billion for the missile defense initiative through Republicans’ massive tax and spending measure signed into law last summer.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-OR, who requested the estimate from the CBO, said in response to the report that the missile defense project is “nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans.”

Last May, the president said the Golden Dome would cost $175 billion. The CBO last year estimated that just the space-based components of the Golden Dome could cost as much as $542 billion over the next 20 years.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced tough questions Tuesday from Republican and Democratic lawmakers about the Trump administration’s end game for the Iran war, the cost of the conflict and its impact on diminishing U.S. weapons stockpiles.

For his part, the Pentagon chief softened his tone from hearings before Congress nearly two weeks ago, notably avoiding the same pointed criticism of lawmakers in his opening remarks as he outlined the Trump administration’s efforts to ramp up production of weapons and other military capabilities.

Even so, Hegseth insisted that the military has plenty of missile defense systems and other munitions for the Iran war or future conflicts as both Republicans and Democrats hammered him with those concerns.

“I take issue with the characterization that munitions are depleted in a public forum,” Hegseth said. “That’s not true.”

The cost of the Iran war has risen to about $29 billion, the vast bulk of which — $24 billion — is related to replacing and repairing munitions but also includes operational costs to keep forces deployed, Pentagon comptroller Jay Hurst said. That’s up from $25 billion that he told lawmakers nearly two weeks ago.

The powerful House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees that oversee defense spending are holding back-to-back hearings to review the Trump administration’s 2027 military budget proposal, which calls for a historic allocation of $1.5 trillion. The discussions in the House quickly veered into the handling of a war that appears locked in a stalemate as higher fuel prices pose political problems for Republicans in the midterm congressional elections.

Hegseth and Caine face bipartisan pushback on munitions stockpiles

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told Hegseth that the “question must be answered at the end of this crisis: What have we accomplished and at what cost?”

“This administration has not presented Congress with any kind of clear or coherent strategy week to week, day to day, hour to hour,” DeLauro said. “The rationale shifts, the objectives change. The end game is ill-defined when it is defined at all.”

California Republican Rep. Ken Calvert, the House subcommittee’s chair, also asked about the impact of the Iran war on military funding as well as the U.S. military’s weapons stockpiles.

“Questions persist about whether we are building the depth and reliance required for a high-end conflict,” Calvert said.

Minnesota Rep. Betty McCollum, the defense subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, pressed Hegseth on whether the military has a plan to draw down troops in the Middle East if Congress passes so-far-unsuccessful efforts to end the Iran war.

“We have a plan to escalate if necessary,” Hegseth said. “We have a plan to retrograde if necessary. We have a plan to shift assets.”

He said he would not reveal any next steps publicly. Noting repeated questions from lawmakers over the military’s weapons stockpiles, drawn down from the Iran war, Hegseth said the concerns have been “unhelpfully overstated” and that “we have plenty of what we need.”

He said the defense industry has been told to “build more and build faster,” blaming the military industrial base’s inadequate capacity on previous administrations and U.S. aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia.

Trump administration faces pressure from impact of the Iran war

President Trump is facing increasing pressure from the economic shocks of Iran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping corridor where 20% of the world’s oil normally flows. The U.S. military in turn has blockaded Iranian ports and the two sides have traded fire, with American forces thwarting attacks on their warships and disabling Tehran-linked oil tankers.

Trump said Monday that the ceasefire is on “massive life support” and criticized Iran for its latest proposal, pointing to his demands that Iran significantly limit its nuclear program.

“I would call it the weakest right now after reading that piece of garbage they sent us,” Trump said.

The Republican president also said he wanted to suspend the federal gas tax to help Americans shoulder surging fuel prices. He has previously said higher costs are worth it to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Tuesday’s hearings are giving a mostly new group of lawmakers the chance to grill or applaud Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the planning and execution of the war.

The Senate hearing later Tuesday will include Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican whose reelection this year is far from guaranteed. She voted with Democrats on an effort to halt the conflict late last month, saying she wants to see a defined strategy for bringing the war to a close.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, another Republican on the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, has voted against the string of unsuccessful war powers resolutions but spoken of the need for congressional authorization so Americans will know the war’s limits and objectives.

He also will face plenty of friendly Republicans, including the Senate subcommittee’s chair, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and perhaps the Iran war’s biggest booster in Congress, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Finley, Toropin and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

SACRAMENTO — Newborns won’t be leaving the hospital empty-handed in California.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on Friday that the state is partnering with Baby2Baby to provide 400 free diapers to every newborn. Baby2Baby is a national nonprofit based in California that provides clothing and other basic necessities to children.

The governor said it would help families with the rising cost of living.

“Since the pandemic, we have seen the cost of diapers go up by 45%,” said Newsom, speaking at a press conference in San Francisco. “One out of four families skip meals to pay for diapers.”

The new program, dubbed the Golden State Start, will launch this summer. Participating hospitals will distribute the diapers to families at the time of discharge. Forty million diapers will be distributed during the program’s first year, with a goal of later expanding the program to provide 160 million.

Newsom said the state will prioritize hospitals that serve large numbers of parents enrolled in Medi-Cal, California’s version of the federal Medicaid program providing healthcare coverage to low-income Americans. The state plans to later expand to additional hospitals and birthing centers.

The governor described the program as the first of its kind in the nation.

“We are not imitating; we are a model to others,” he said.

Kim Johnson, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, said the initiative would help families enjoy their first few weeks at home with a new baby.

“The first days at home with a newborn should be focused on the love, connection, and joy of an expanded family, not stress about affording diapers,” Johnson said in a statement. “This program helps ensure families can begin that journey with greater stability and peace of mind.”

The National Diaper Bank Network, a national nonprofit that tracks diaper insecurity, found about 60% of low-income families nationwide struggle with the cost of diapers and rely on less-frequent changes to get by. The organization said dirty diapers leave babies at risk of developing rashes or urinary tract infections.

When Gavin Newsom ran for California governor in 2018, his support for a state-run single-payer healthcare system was considered a risky move and earned him hefty labor endorsements.

Today, leading Democrats in the wide-open race to succeed Newsom have embraced single-payer healthcare as a political necessity, an answer to voters fed up with rising premiums and other spiraling healthcare costs.

But with no clear front-runner, they are sparring among themselves in debates and political ads over who is most committed to a government-run model. No candidate has outlined how California would fund comprehensive health coverage for its 40 million residents, leaving voters unable to discern which candidate has a concrete plan for the nation’s most populous state.

Healthcare and political experts said the concept of single-payer has shifted from progressive pipe dream a decade ago to today’s mainstream talking points in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1. Democrats have pledged the model as the best way to lower costs in an attempt to woo voters worried about affordability as ballots arrive for the June 2 primary. The top two Republicans, meanwhile, have dismissed government-run healthcare as a “disaster” and “socialism.”

“In many ways, single-payer healthcare has become a progressive litmus test,” said Larry Levitt, a former White House policy advisor and a healthcare expert at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Few voters fully understand the term single-payer, let alone expect the next governor to achieve it, Levitt said. Rather, he added, the term has become more of a signal to voters about a candidate’s approach to healthcare reform.

Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, who for decades backed single-payer healthcare in Congress, has come under criticism from opponents for a nuanced but clear shift away from single-payer. It came after Becerra secured an endorsement from the California Medical Assn., a powerful group representing doctors and a longtime opponent of single-payer healthcare bills in California.

At a May 5 debate put on by CNN, Becerra declared his support for “Medicare for All,” a proposal for a federally run system that’s been stalled for years, but he declined to say whether he’d pursue a California-led effort. He said his immediate focus would be on mitigating the drastic federal cuts expected to hit low-income and disabled enrollees in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, which covers more than a third of residents.

Becerra is counting on voters not to distinguish between the often-confused terms single-payer, Medicare for All, and universal coverage, noting during the debate that “Californians don’t care what you call it, so long as they have affordable healthcare.”

“A lot of people aren’t clear what single-payer is, and they need a metaphor to understand it,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist and one of the lead pollsters for former President Biden’s 2020 campaign.

Billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who’s touted his self-funding as a signal he can’t be bought, has emerged as the race’s most vocal advocate of single-payer after opposing it during a short-lived 2020 presidential bid. As governor, Steyer has said, he would pass legislation backed by the California Nurses Assn. that has failed to come to fruition under Newsom’s tenure. Pressed on how he would cover the estimated $731.4-billion cost, Steyer told KFF Health News that “God is going to be in the details.”

At a forum last year, former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter said she didn’t believe achieving such a system was realistic in the near term, but the Orange County Democrat later told party delegates that she would “deliver single-payer.” Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, Democrats who are trailing their competitors in the polls, don’t support single-payer. The top two vote-getters — regardless of party — advance to the November general election.

Some of the most seasoned politicians have failed to deliver single-payer. Newsom, who campaigned on the promise of being a “healthcare governor,” dialed back his ambitions upon taking office, choosing instead to pursue “universal access” to health coverage under a series of Medi-Cal expansions and efforts to contain healthcare spending.

The campaign bus for billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who has made single-payer healthcare a central pillar of his run for governor, in downtown Oakland.

(Christine Mai-Duc/KFF Health News)

Vermont, which remains the only state to pass a single-payer healthcare law, reversed course when leaders there couldn’t identify a funding source.

To enact single-payer, California would need permission from the federal government to redirect billions of dollars from Medicaid, Medicare and other funding that currently flows to the system — approval not likely to come from the Trump administration.

More than half of adults nationally say healthcare costs will have a major impact on whom they vote for in November, according an April KFF poll.

Danielle Cendejas, a Los Angeles-based Democratic consultant who works with state legislative candidates, said single-payer healthcare increasingly appears on candidate questionnaires from small-business advocates as well as hyperlocal Democratic clubs, in state legislative races and national union endorsements. What most California voters want to hear, Cendejas said, is how candidates plan to give them more immediate relief from higher premiums, expensive drug costs and long waits to access care.

The high price tag doesn’t faze Jennifer Easton, a 63-year-old Democrat from Oakland, who said other countries with similar models have proved they can lower costs. She said she supports a single-payer health system because it’s clear to her that Americans have reached the limits of working within the existing system. But she isn’t expecting any of the current candidates to succeed in implementing one, and she hasn’t decided whom to support.

“No one can in four years,” she said. Seeing a candidate enthusiastically support the concept gives her a good idea of their philosophy. “It is, if we’re lucky, a 20-year, 25-year plan.”

Rob Stutzman, a Republican political consultant who advised former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said while Americans may be supportive of single-payer in polls, focus groups suggest that approval drops quickly when voters realize it could mean losing their current doctor or insurance plan.

At the CNN debate, Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate President Trump has endorsed, said Californians would end up with subpar patient care and “taxes sky high to pay for it,” like in his native United Kingdom. Instead, Hilton suggested the state stop providing “free healthcare for illegal immigrants who shouldn’t even be in the country in the first place.”

Mai-Duc writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Within days of California’s long-anticipated single-use plastic law going into effect, environmentalists, anti-waste activists and the packaging industry reacted with anger and frustration.

Anti-plastic activists say Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration and CalRecycle inserted exemptions favoring the plastic industry into the law’s regulations that weaken it and undermine legislative intent.

“These new rules create huge loopholes for plastic packaging that violate the law,” said Avinash Kar, senior director of the toxics program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

On the other side, the packaging industry has sued over similar laws in other states. “Our members have real concerns about cost, compliance, and constitutionality,” said Matt Clarke, spokesman for the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors, which sued Oregon earlier this year over a similar waste law.

CalRecycle, the state’s waste agency, did not respond in time for publication. The final regulations putting the law into effect were released May 1 and posted for review Tuesday.

The environmental organizations say the law’s new final regulations open the door to what is known as “chemical recycling,” which produces large amounts of hazardous waste. The law also contains problematic exemptions for certain categories of plastic foodware, they say.

The language of the law forbids any kind of recycling that would produce significant amounts of hazardous waste. The new regulations allow for these recycling methods if the facilities are properly permitted.

The new regulations also exempt certain products if they are already covered by federal law. For instance, a packaging company, retailer or distributor can claim that they have such a preemption, Kar said, and CalRecycle might not immediately review that claim. “And as long as they don’t review it, they’ll get the exemption for as long as CalRecycle doesn’t review it,” creating a potential “forever loophole.”

“Californians were promised a system where producers take real responsibility for the waste they create,” said Nick Lapis, advocacy director for Californians Against Waste. “When regulations introduce broad exemptions and redefine key terms, that promise starts to erode. The details matter here, and right now they don’t line up with the intent of the law.”

Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was signed by Newsom in 2022. It was considered landmark legislation because it addressed the scourge of single-use plastics, requiring plastic and packaging companies to use less of them and ensuring that by 2032, all food packaging is either recyclable or compostable.

Accumulating plastic waste is overwhelming waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.

The law’s intent was not only to reduce it, but also to put the onus and cost of dealing with it on packaging producers and manufacturers, not consumers and local governments. It was supposed to incentivize companies to consider the fate of their products and spur innovation in material redesign.

According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale, or distributed during 2023 in California.

Similar laws have been passed in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington. Oregon’s law, however, is on hold while a lawsuit by the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors works its way through the courts.

“We see a lot of the same problems in California that we flagged in Oregon,” said Clarke, the trade group spokesman. “Given California’s scale, the cost implications are going to be even larger. Our legal counsel has noted that California’s proposed fees are already higher than what other states have put forward.”

Jan Dell of Last Beach Cleanup, an anti-plastic waste group based in Laguna Beach, doesn’t believe the law will work — irrespective of the final regulations — and said the “exorbitant” cost of its implementation will either spur producers to sue, or they’ll end up passing the higher costs onto consumers.

She referred to a report from the Circular Action Alliance, the state-sanctioned group established to represent and oversee the implementation of the law on behalf of the plastic and packaging industry. It finds the law will increase the cost of disposal between six and 14 times for common products, such as Windex bottles, made of polyethylene terephthalate.

“If the producers don’t successfully sue to stop the fees, this will certainly add to product inflation for CA consumers,” she said in an email. “Californians already have to pay exorbitantly high curbside collection fees for trash, recycling, and organics … so, starting in 2027, our groceries will cost a LOT more but we won’t see a reduction in our waste bills.”

Christopher “Smitty” Smith, a partner at law firm Saul Ewing in Los Angeles, who councils companies and interest groups on SB 54 and other Extended Producer Liability laws, said that although he could see areas of the law that “could be sharper and avoid the legal challenges … you can’t stop people from suing.” Environmentalists and anti-waste activists say they are preparing a lawsuit.

Smith said the law already has sparked changes in how companies think and respond to concerns about waste.

One of his national fast-food chain clients has realized that if its brand name is on plastic packaging, it’s that company’s responsibility, he said, so “they’ve spent the past year mapping out their franchise agreements, their supply chain agreements, their producer agreements, to figure out” what it needs to do to comply.

He said in the past, companies have paid little attention to these details and just let their franchisees figure this kind of thing out. Now, they’re spending a lot of time and money “to wrap their arms around what their supply chain looks like and like, what post consumer use of their plastic products looks like and what their regulatory obligations are.”

It’s bringing a new dialogue within companies. And that, Smith said, is what could make this law so powerful.

Times staff writer Meg Tanaka contributed to this report.

IF you’re having a night out at Wetherspoons, you can expect to drop around £25 for a bottle of wine.

But skip the bottle next time and you could fly somewhere to a beautiful beach instead – sometimes with some cash to spare.

Of course, a bottle is always cheaper at a supermarket, but sometimes you just want to have a night out with your mates.

But there are lots of flights from the UK this month that are under £25 – so we’ve found 10 of the best which have a beautiful beach as well.

Faro

The Portuguese town is used as a gateway to the Algarve but it has its own amazing beaches too. Try Isla Deserta, home to just one restaurant but beautiful stretches of sand.

EasyJet has flights there for £19.99 when flying from London Southend or London Luton.

GROUNDED

Ryanair threatens to scrap all flights at another popular European airport

PLANE EXPLAIN

Jet2, Ryanair, easyJet, TUI, BA and Virgin – UK airlines on the fuel crisis

Biarritz

On the French basque coast is Biarritz, known for being both a surfing capital and a seaside resort once loved by royals – and nicknamed Paris-on-Sea.

Fly with Ryanair from Edinburgh for £19.99.

Santander

The northern part of Spain shouldn’t be overlooked, not least for its amazing ‘pitxos’ snacks – grab a bunch with some cheap wine to the
El Sardinero beaches for a relaxing afternoon.

Flights are £14.99 this month with Ryanair, and you can fly from both Birmingham and Manchester for the bargain fare.

Alghero

Did you know Italy has its own ‘Little Barcelona? Sardinia’s Alghero is just as beautiful especially with its white sand beaches.

Ryanair flights are £15.99 when flying from London Stansted.

Dubrovnik

The Croatian city of Dubrovnik has more to it than it’s Game of Thrones popularity, in the form of Banje Beach right by the Old Town.

Ryanair flights from London Stansted are £16.99.

Madeira

The Portuguese island of Madeira has some of Europes most beautiful mountains to hike, with some fantastic beaches underneath.

£16.99 flights with Ryanair take off from Manchester this month.

Fuerteventura

When it comes to Spanish islands, Fuerteventura is often overlooked in favour of its neighbours Lanzarote and Gran Canaria.

But fly there with easyJet for £19.99 from Birmingham and make the most of Sotavento Beach.

Beziers

In the south of France, Beziers has four nearby beaches to choose from – Portirangues Plage, Serignan Plage, Valras Plage and Vias Plage.

Flights from London Luton to Béziers Cap d’Agde with Ryanair start from £21.99.

Barcelona

Spain‘s second city is know for its beautiful beach, and now is a great time to go following the latest competition of the Sagrada Familia.

Fly with Ryanair from Edinburgh for 14.99. Or fly with Wizz Air from Luton for around £20.

Newquay

Don’t fancy leaving the UK? Newquay is often compared to the Med and if you don’t fancy getting the train, Ryanair has £14.99 flights from London Stansted.

City have three home games remaining – against Brentford, Palace and Aston Villa, on the final day of the season (24 May).

Their remaining away match is at in-form Bournemouth, who City play just three days after their FA Cup final.

While City are aiming for a domestic treble, Arsenal now have a realistic chance of claiming both the Premier League and Champions League trophies.

Their European semi-final against Atletico Madrid is finely poised before Tuesday’s second leg after a 1-1 draw in the Spanish capital last week.

Arsenal‘s three remaining league games are at relegation-threatened West Ham, then home to already-relegated Burnley before a final-day trip to Palace.

“I am worried for the West Ham game,” added Henry. “Like I was worried for Manchester City‘s match today.”

BBC Sport pundit and former England captain Wayne Rooney, meanwhile, has predicted on his BBC podcast Arsenal will win all of their remaining league games and lift the title.

He said: “We’ve heard a lot about Arsenal cracking under pressure, but Guehi has never been in a position where he’s challenged for the Premier League, [Antoine] Semenyo hasn’t. And I think you’ve seen tonight might be the first sign of that.

“I think it’s Arsenal‘s year. And I hope it is for Arteta’s sake. The work he’s put in over the last five years, and then against his former boss, Guardiola – if he goes and wins that title, that is huge for him.

“Arsenal are very consistent while City can be a little bit up and down. City at their best, you’re the best team in Europe.”

City, though, will be left extremely concerned by their capitulation against Everton, having gone ahead but been unable to see out the game.

January signing Guehi was culpable for the opening goal and City’s defence were sliced open time and time again – Everton should have been out of sight by the time they conceded a 97th-minute equaliser.

City fans who had left the stadium had to scramble back when Haaland scored to give their side hope, before Doku earned a point.

Guardiola looked to the positives by saying: “A really good performance. We played outstanding in the first half. Really, really good.

“In the second half, they made a step up and we maybe weren’t as aggressive and after [that] we gave away the goal.

“They came back and made it a proper English game – so, so aggressive in the duels.

“But in general, we made a really good performance.”

Two couples from opposite sides of the wealth divide swapped wedding budgets

A Rich Wedding, Poor Wedding bride couldn’t believe the “extravagant” price of her big day.

During the first episode of the new Channel 5 series, which aired on Sunday (May 3), two couples from opposite sides of the wealth divide swap budgets for their weddings.

One duo, who are used to the finer things in life, had to plan a wedding on a small budget, meanwhile the other pair had a lot of money to burn.

Taking part in the experiment was millionaire couple Col and Raz, who gave up their unlimited budget to Janet and Gary, who have spent years scraping and saving and even a modest wedding felt out of reach.

Gary and Janet, who live in Salford, have been madly in love since meeting at a health care call centre 11-years-ago. Gary popped the big question while on a romantic holiday two-years-ago.

Since then, they have been excited to walk down the aisle however the pair’s low paid jobs in customer services make it a struggle to make ends meet.

To bring in extra money Gary works as a wedding singer but even with the second job their combined disposable income is just £157 a week, so their big day dreams have been put on hold.

It was a completely different story for Essex couple Col, 37 and Raz, 34, who are used to champagne lifestyles and money is no issue to them.

The couple have only been together for two years but Col, who owns multiple businesses, revealed that it was love at first sight after meeting at an event.

Ever since Col proposed, Raz has been planning her big day and it hasn’t included cutting down on anything. The bride had dreams of an elegant princess wedding and Col wanted a big party with free flowing drinks.

The couple wanted to swap budgets because they both revealed that they hadn’t always had the finer things in life and grew up without a lot of money.

Getting stuck into their wedding planning, Col and Raz were left speechless after finding out that they had just £3,500 to cover everything, meanwhile Gary and Janet couldn’t believe their eyes after getting an unlimited budget.

At first, Col and Raz struggled to get everything they needed with their small budget especially after bride Raz went over budget with her dress. After a few bumps in the road and some help from family members they managed to pull through and overall enjoyed their special day.

Meanwhile Janet and Gary felt like they’d won the lottery and made the most of their unlimited budget. The couple splashed out on a £17,000 venue and £5,000 enchanted forest. Janet spent £3,000 on her dream wedding dress and even had a singer for their reception celebration. The couple enjoyed their lavish wedding surrounded by their friends and family.

Things took an emotional turn after both couples reunited following their wedding swap as Janet broke down in tears after finding out how much she spent on her wedding.

After opening an envelope revealing the price of the wedding, Gary gasped as he revealed: £50,118.60.” He then joked: “What was the 60p on?”

Janet was visibly moved as she said: “There are so many people in the world that have got nothing that..” The bride broke down as she admitted: “It upsets me actually, to spend that kind of money on one day. It’s extravagant, it’s too much.” Gary comforted his wife as he said: “Do you know what though, you work hard all your life and it’s nice to get something back.”

You can catch up on Rich Wedding, Poor Wedding on Channel 5