deployment

Washington, DC – A year after United States President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Washington, DC, opinions are mixed among residents, politicians and experts about the mission’s success.

Thousands of troops were deployed to DC in August 2025 as part of Trump’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force after he declared a crime emergency in the city.

The arrival of the soldiers triggered immediate opposition from many DC residents, with protests throughout the year. The advocacy group Free DC organised 11 days of demonstrations culminating in a protest outside the White House on Tuesday against what the group calls a “hostile military occupation”.

“I think Trump should go ahead and let them go home,” Ybonne Coles, a 60-year-old restaurant worker who was born and raised in the capital, said on a hot August day in Farragut Square as several soldiers patrolled nearby.

“They ain’t doing nothing but walking,” said Coles. “That money could go towards organisations to help people that really need help.”

The deployment has also faced resistance from legal officials, who have questioned its constitutionality.

On September 4, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued the Trump administration over the deployment, which the lawsuit claimed was an illegal use of military force for law enforcement purposes in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

US District Judge Jia Cobb ruled to end the deployment on November 20, but a federal appeals court later granted the administration’s request for a stay on the order as litigation continues.

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, whose administration Trump blamed for what he described as soaring crime rates, similarly criticised the legality of the deployment.

“We use the Guard to respond to emergencies. We use the Guard for large-scale events. We do not use the Guard to police our local laws,” Bowser said at a DC conference in October.

As the deployment approached its one-year mark, federal officials announced a “summer surge” of National Guard troops in advance of the 250th anniversary celebrations in the capital, requesting an additional 1,500 troops.

‘Peaceful and tranquil’

Not everyone opposes the National Guard’s presence.

Aaron Taslitz, a 30-year-old teacher who also works as a bike courier in DC, said that, though he would prefer that military resources be used on something more urgent than roaming the streets of the capital, he does feel safer with them around.

“For the most part, they’ve kept things peaceful and tranquil here,” he said, as he took a break from his morning bike ride in Dupont Circle.

Trump has often railed against DC, calling it “one of the most unsafe cities anywhere in the world” and claiming that since the Guard was brought in, crime has dropped by 88 percent.

However, the precise impact of the National Guard’s presence on crime in Washington, DC, remains unclear.

A report from the Niskanen Center in May found that the deployment has had no significant impact on violent crime, which has been in consistent decline in the district over the past few years.

Although the report found notable reductions in property crimes, it showed a limited impact of the troop presence on “opportunistic” crimes.

“They’re not trained police officers,” explained Richard Hahn, a co-author of the report. “The best thing a National Guard member can be, in terms of a crime deterrent, is a sentinel.”

Troop patrol zones have also concentrated in “high-traffic” areas, including tourist hubs like the National Mall and Union Station.

“Violent crime really concentrates in specific places in DC,” said Hahn. “And those are places where, by and large, the Guard was not deployed.”

Currently, 4,636 soldiers are deployed to the DC mission, including nearly 700 from the DC National Guard and thousands from various other state guards, according to a Joint Task Force-DC spokesperson. The largest out-of-state contributors are Georgia, South Carolina and Mississippi.

Despite the high number of troops, local news stations in DC have reported a notable absence of troops east of the Anacostia River, where several neighbourhoods post some of the highest violent crime rates in the city.

Commanding General Leland D Blanchard II indicated in a news conference on August 3 that patrol zones would shift in the coming weeks, but declined to provide further details.

‘Unnecessary’ use of force

A Senate investigation and report, authored by Senators Gary Peters and Andy Kim in February, also expressed concerns that the deployment risked harming local trust in law enforcement, politicising the armed forces and reducing troop preparedness.

The report further identified a threat to civilian privacy posed by the Guard’s software tools, including social media monitoring systems Meltwater and Cision, and the Palantir Technologies platform Maven Smart System.

The National Guard has also faced multiple lawsuits since the deployment began last August.

On July 29, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a claim on behalf of retired US Army captain Anna King after members of the Idaho National Guard violently detained her in May for allegedly assaulting an officer two days earlier.

King has denied the allegation and instead believes she was detained for her vocal criticism of the Guard’s presence in the city.

“What you see here is an aggressive use of force that was totally unnecessary and totally disproportionate,” said Michael Perloff, a lawyer representing King, “and this illustrates the broader concerns with the reliance on the National Guard to patrol this district.”

While no official cost has been reported for the first year of the operation, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security reported an annual estimate of $602m.

In July, the Pentagon announced plans to keep the Guard in DC through the end of Trump’s term. According to an estimate obtained by Senator Elizabeth Warren, the deployment will cost an additional $1.4bn from October 2026 to January 2029.

The figure comes on top of an already steep deployment cost so far.

One service member from the Indiana National Guard, who was deployed for a few months as part of the DC mission in November and asked not to be named, expressed mixed feelings about his time patrolling the streets of DC.

“My time there was to help the citizens of DC,” said the soldier, adding that he took pride in providing this service.

“It didn’t matter who they were, what they were doing – I was just there to help in any way that I could,” he said. “I’ve seen people impacted by us in a positive light.”

At other times, though, he said he had his doubts about the mission, noting especially low morale in his unit while they were away from their families during the holiday season.

“There were days when I was like, ‘What are we doing here? We’re not really doing anything.’”

Anduril’s YFQ-44 Fury Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) caught the attention of aircraft trackers yesterday evening when it appeared to leave its developmental home at the Southern California Logistics Airport in Victorville and flew alongside its Learjet chase aircraft west. The pilotless ‘fighter’ would end up recovering at America’s central hub for uncrewed aircraft operations, Creech Air Force Base in southern Nevada, home of the MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-170 Sentinel. It is the first time that we know of that Fury has been hosted at Creech. TWZ has now found out what Fury will be doing there and what it will soon be joined by.

The USAF’s CCA program is really picking up steam, with both of the Increment One down-select aircraft – Anduril’s YFQ-44 Fury and General Atomics’ YFQ-42 Dark Merlin – having been chosen for production. Now, the next step in their ongoing development is imminent. Both types will be hosted by Creech for an exercise that will test the CCAs’ ability to operate from austere locales with minimal logistical footprint, and often on the move from location to location, under the USAF’s Agile Combat Employment (ACE) combat doctrine. This operational concept was baked into the CCA requirements from the get-go, which you can read all about here.

A USAF spokesperson responded to our inquiry about Fury’s arrival at Creech with the following statement:

“From July 20-24, 2026, the Air Force Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) Experimental Operations Unit (EOU) is conducting an Agile Combat Employment (ACE) exercise at Creech AFB, Nevada. Military operators are leading end-to-end ground and flight operations for both the YFQ-42 and YFQ-44 to build tactical concepts, test lean sustainment, and refine Air Force-led human-machine teaming alongside observers from the Royal Netherlands Air Force.“

“CCA testing is taking place at a combination of government-owned and contractor-owned facilities. Testing is occurring at sites that allow us to evaluate CCA performance in realistic operational scenarios. Further details are protected for operational security.“

The CCA EOU was stood up exactly for these kinds of trials. The unit is working to blaze a path for the service to operationalize its CCA ambitions, and its personnel certainly have their work cut out for them. Some of the biggest concerns surrounding the CCA concept have more to do with logistics, maintenance, integration with the manned fighter force, and above all else, building trust, than with how they will shoot down other aircraft. This exercise is clearly aimed at reducing risks in these areas and adding clarity to what pages will be needed in the USAF’s future CCA playbook.

The timing is especially relevant, too. The EOU just got done with testing the same ACE concepts in the Pacific with Boeing’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat CCA as part of Exercise Valiant Shield. This should provide a good baseline to compare with the capabilities of the YFQ-44 and YFQ-42.

A similar exercise happened at Edwards Air Force Base in California in April of this year, but, at the time, just the YFQ-44 Fury could attend. The Dark Merlin had an accident and was in a stand-down period while the cause was understood and resolved. Dark Merlin has been back in the air for some time now, and the USAF placed a huge vote of confidence in both designs with their decision to move them into production.

It’s also worth noting that the Fury that flew to Creech AFB, serial number 25-1003, was the same one that recently made history as the first American CCA to fire an air-to-air missile.

New test footage: first missile shot from YFQ-44A.

YFQ-44A executed an end-to-end, beyond-line-of-sight strike against a simulated target.

The test, executed out of @EdwardsAFB, represents an important step in turning CCA into an operational capability. pic.twitter.com/70cRIs6uXJ

— Anduril Industries (@anduriltech) July 15, 2026

There is a remarkably large amount of pressure on the CCA program, overall. Much is being bet on this technology as a way to help provide the USAF’s aging force with a tactical edge and to furnish the combat mass needed to confront a near-peer opponent on their own turf – China. And this adversary is moving ahead with its own loyal wingman efforts at what appears to be a rapid pace.

Regardless, there is still much to learn about actually employing CCAs in a true end-to-end combat context, and this appears to be what this latest exercise at America’s premier drone base is all about.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

Ten U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors arrived at RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom Friday morning local time from Ovda Air Base in Israel. As we previously reported, the jets, from the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, had been deployed to Ovda since late February to take part in attacks on Iran. The move, one of another retrograde movements of U.S. airpower in the past few weeks, comes as tensions have spiked in the Middle East.

The movement is the latest in a number of similar operations. On July 1, U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bombers departed from Fairford, where they were forward deployed for Epic Fury, for instance. Other tactical jets have also returned home, with some being replaced and others not. RAF Fairford acts as a major hub for transatlantic U.S. military aircraft movements.

Local spotters say the jets arrived at Fairford in three waves. An aviation photographer who uses the @Saint1Mil handle on X was kind enough to share three photos with us, including the main image above.

Online open-source flight trackers followed the flight of these jets and their aerial refueling tanker support.

During Epic Fury, “Raptors executed precision missions against Iranian air defenses, nuclear-related infrastructure and command nodes linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC),” U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) noted in its Citadel publication.

“On March 1, F-22s opened the campaign by suppressing S-300 and Bavar-373 batteries, clearing corridors for follow-on coalition strike aircraft entering defended airspace,” the command added.

Between March 1 and 9, “the stealth fighters flew more than 200 combat sorties while remaining undetected by Iranian radar networks throughout the operation,” CENTCOM explained. “F-22 Raptor used its low-observable design and advanced sensors to penetrate defended airspace and deliver precision weapons against strategic Iranian regime facilities during the campaign.”

The targets included “infrastructure connected to the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and Natanz Nuclear Facility,” CENTCOM noted. “Raptors employed GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs and GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions internally, preserving stealth while striking multiple hardened targets with precision guidance.”

The aircraft “also coordinated with B-2 Spirit bombers and EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets in layered strike packages designed to overwhelm Iran’s integrated air defenses,” according to CENTCOM. “The regime’s forces launched dozens of surface-to-air missiles during the nine-day campaign, U.S. officials said none were successfully tracked or locked onto the stealth fighters.”

The Raptors’ arrival at Fairford from Ovda this morning came as the U.S. and Iran ramped up attacks on each other this week. Iran also struck targets in Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan during a flare-up sparked by the IRGC’s attacks on three tanker ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

As we previously noted, this latest round of fighting was touched off Tuesday when Iran attacked three ships in the Strait of Hormuz. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump and Iranian officials declared that the shaky ceasefire agreed to on April 8 was over. 

.@POTUS on the status of the ceasefire with Iran: “To me, I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them anymore. They’re scum… They’re led by sick people… I’ll speak to our negotiators. They want to negotiate—they’re good people… but they have to come back to me. As far… pic.twitter.com/6eYfwMxSdn

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 8, 2026

By Friday evening local time, there were no new reports of attacks while there are indications of a push to rekindle peace negotiations.

CNN on Friday reported that “Qatari negotiators — in coordination with the U.S. — have traveled to Iran to meet officials there. An American official earlier said the U.S. was deliberately striking and then pausing to avoid escalation and let diplomacy work out.”

🇺🇸🇮🇷🇶🇦Qatari negotiators have travelled to Iran, in coordination with the US, to meet with Iranian officials in an effort to de-escalate the situation and create the conditions for negotiations to resume, according to a diplomat with knowledge of the visit
🇺🇸🇮🇷🇶🇦The diplomat said… https://t.co/w8pTAW5hHf

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) July 10, 2026

That’s a scenario one former CENTCOM commander laid out for us earlier this week.

“I think the immediate way forward will be controlled escalation focused on a military campaign to degrade the regime’s ability to disrupt activities in the Gulf,” Joseph Votel, who led the command from March 2016 to March 2019, told us on Tuesday, when the flare-up first erupted.  

As we have frequently noted, the two sides signed a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on June 17. The MoU provided a 60-day extension of the ceasefire to iron out an agreement to end fighting throughout the region, including Lebanon, prevent Iran from seeking nuclear weapons, end U.S. sanctions and resume the flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz among other points.

Control over the Strait has proven to be the biggest flashpoint, as evidenced by the aforementioned flare-up of fighting.

You can see video of some of the attacks by CENTCOM below.

🚨 CENTCOM RELEASES THE HIGHLIGHT REEL
U.S. Central Command says American forces completed another round of strikes against Iran on July 8, hitting approximately 90 Iranian military targets along the coastline.
Targets included air defense systems, coastal surveillance assets,… pic.twitter.com/y2HiEMNWdy

— Mossad Commentary (@MOSSADil) July 9, 2026

It is not completely clear if the Raptors that are now heading back to Langley will be replaced. We reached out to Air Combat Command and the 1st Fighter Wing for details.

As we have frequently reported, given that the U.S. began building up forces in the region in January, many of the ships, aircraft and troops will have to ‘retrograde’ out of the CENTCOM area of responsibility in the coming weeks and months. We’ve already seen aircraft like the B-52s we mentioned earlier in this story, A-10 Thunderbolt II close attack jets, F-15Es and other assets return from the region. Some have been replaced and some have not. As a result, the future of the American footprint there remains a question mark despite the resurgence in hostilities. 

Given the ebb and flow of fighting, it is hard to predict the future of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran and whether it will lead to lasting peace.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has asked us to continue ‘talks,’” Trump claimed Friday morning on Truth Social. “We have agreed to do so, but the United States has stated to them, in no uncertain terms, that the Cease Fire is OVER!”

Should Trump opt to resume major combat operations, reconstituting a large force once it has been even partially drawn down would take time. It would also add extreme stress on a force structure that has seen constant deployment surges over the last year. At the same time, there is immense global pressure to not restart the all-out fighting as markets are struggling to recover from the massive spike in oil prices. Back home, Trump’s party already faces the midterm elections with low voter support for the war and an increasingly shaky economy.

Regardless, a deadline is fast approaching to get a deal done with little incentive for Iran to give up what the U.S. wants beyond threats of more bombardment.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bombers departed from RAF Fairford in the U.K. today, marking the end of a deployment to support the war against Iran. The flights come as the U.S. and Iran are still working toward a peace deal amid a shaky ceasefire occasionally marred by flare-ups of tit-for-tat attacks. However, there has been no mass bombardment of Iran since the April 8 ceasefire.

The departure was captured in video and still images by local aviation photographers, two of whom shared their work with us. Andy Riddle told us that six B-52s left RAF Fairford today in two waves of three. The first left at 10:15 a.m. local time and the second at about 2:20 p.m., noted Riddle, whose work can be found on his @Andyyyyrrrr X account.

B-52s land in the UK for Iran Ops

As we noted at the time, at least three of the bombers arrived at Fairford on March 8. It’s unclear when the others arrived. Both U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) declined comment.

In our previous reporting, we pointed out that during their time at Fairford, the B-52s operated at a high tempo, striking targets inside Iran. All told, the U.S. claims it struck 13,000 targets, though there is no way for us to know how many involved B-52s from Fairford.

You can see one of those jets leaded with stealthy JASSM cruise missiles in a photo shared with us by another local aviation photographer, who uses the @Saint1Mil X account.

Meanwhile, a dozen B-1 Lancer bombers remain at the base, according to @Saint1Mil.

Since the military won’t comment, we can’t say for sure why the BUFFs left Fairford, but the move comes after both the U.S. and Iran promised to hold off on further tit-for-tat strikes after the latest round that threatened the fragile ceasefire.

The flights also took place on a day when the U.S. and Iran concluded a round of indirect talks. However, there were no signs that the parties made headway toward a lasting peace. Instead, they focused “on issues that they had supposedly resolved two weeks ago,” Reuters reported.

“Sources said negotiators for the two countries spent two days in Doha discussing maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and financial incentives for Iran, two pillars of the initial agreement ​they signed in June, rather than more difficult topics that framework was supposed to tee up.”

The most difficult of these are the future of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its stockpile of enriched uranium.

Despite the ongoing talks, President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to resume bombing Iran. He also has “weighed a return to all-out war with Iran, holding multiple conversations in recent days with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine on more strikes, but has decided to stick with diplomatic talks for now,” The Wall Street Journal reported, citing U.S. officials familiar with the discussion.

The departure of the B-52s won’t preclude Trump from ordering a new round of strategic aviation attacks. Aside from the remaining B-1s, the Air Force can launch B-52s, as well as B-2 and B-1 bombers from the U.S. to strike Iran as it did during Epic Fury. However, having the B-52s stationed at a base like Fairford much closer to the action helps to cut down on flight times, wear and tear on the aircraft and crews, and increases the generation of sorties.

As we have frequently reported, given that the U.S. began building up forces in the region in January, many of the ships, aircraft and troops will have to ‘retrograde’ out of the CENTCOM area of responsibility in the coming weeks and months. We’ve already seen aircraft like A-10 Thunderbolt II close attack jets, F-22s, F-15Es and other assets return from the region. As a result, the future of the American footprint there remains a question mark even as negotiations continue. Reinstating a large force once it has been even partially drawn down, assuming there is the will to do so, would take time and would put extreme stress on a force structure that has seen constant surges of deployments over the last year.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

June 18 (Asia Today) — Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has left open the possibility of deploying the Self-Defense Forces to the Strait of Hormuz following an agreement between the United States and Iran to end hostilities.

“Nothing has been decided at this point,” Takaichi said Wednesday when asked about a possible deployment during a news conference marking the end of the Group of Seven summit near Évian-les-Bains, France, Japanese media reported Thursday.

Takaichi said Japan must closely examine the U.S.-Iran agreement and conditions in the region before making a decision.

The Strait of Hormuz is a critical shipping route for crude oil from the Middle East. Instability in the waterway could directly affect shipping, energy prices and Japanese industry because the country relies heavily on imported energy.

The U.S.-Iran agreement has shifted Japan’s immediate focus from preventing further fighting to securing freedom of navigation and considering its role in post-conflict efforts.

Even after fighting ends, naval mines and other threats to commercial vessels could remain. Japan would then have to determine whether its involvement should be limited to diplomatic support or include operations by the Maritime Self-Defense Force.

Security in the Strait of Hormuz and other major shipping routes was among the issues discussed at the G7 summit.

Japan faces the challenge of coordinating with its allies and partners while keeping any military involvement within the limits imposed by its pacifist Constitution.

“We will continue every possible diplomatic effort, including those related to reconstruction,” Takaichi said of the situation in the Middle East.

She said Japan would consider necessary measures to secure freedom of navigation through the strait and “steadily carry out what we are capable of doing,” including diplomatic efforts.

Britain, France and other countries have called for the unconditional reopening of the waterway and indicated that mine-clearing operations could be required. Japan has signaled its willingness to participate in a related joint statement.

Takaichi said Japan’s participation in such a statement would remain within constitutional limits.

The central issue is how extensively the Self-Defense Forces could participate.

Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution prohibits the use of force except in circumstances involving the country’s right to self-defense. Mine-clearing operations conducted while fighting continues could therefore be viewed as the use of force against the country that placed the mines.

Clearing mines left behind after a cease-fire, however, may be permitted under Japan’s Self-Defense Forces Act.

Japan deployed Maritime Self-Defense Force minesweepers to the Persian Gulf after the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. The mission marked the Self-Defense Forces’ first operational deployment overseas and became a turning point in Japan’s debate over its international security role.

Takaichi’s remarks did not amount to an immediate deployment decision. They indicated, however, that Japan could consider participating in maritime security operations depending on implementation of the U.S.-Iran agreement and conditions in the Strait of Hormuz.

Japan’s possible role in the post-conflict Middle East – whether limited to diplomatic and reconstruction support or expanded to include Maritime Self-Defense Force operations – is expected to remain a major foreign and security policy issue.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260618010006401

Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring America’s flattop fleet, including deployed Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG), using publicly available open-source information. Check out last week’s report here.

Amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima returned to Naval Station Norfolk on Saturday, wrapping a nearly 10-month deployment to the U.S. Southern Command-4th Fleet area of responsibility (AOR). During the 296-day deployment, the Iwo Jima ARG launched over 6,000 sorties, flew 1,850 flight hours, and transited more than 130,000 combined nautical miles. The ARG was the first group of expeditionary naval assets deployed to support Operation Southern Spear, which involved enhanced counter narcotics operations, and played a key role in Operation Absolute Resolve to exfiltrate ex-President Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela.

Here’s TWZ’s weekly carrier tracker monitoring America’s flattop fleet, including Carrier Strike Groups (CSG) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG), using publicly available open-source information. Given the carrier picture is largely unchanged compared to last week, this week’s tracker highlights the big-deck amphibious fleet.

Much of America’s fleet of nine amphibious assault ships is hard at work as the U.S. opts to replace the Iwo Jima ARG in Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) with a “sub-optimized” Littoral Combat Force (LCF). The LCF appears to be the first deployment that embodies the Navy’s new more flexible deployment strategy, which could have wider impacts across the fleet in the future. “It’s the way to have force multiplication, to punch bigger than yourself, and that’s done through tailored offsets,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said at SNA earlier this year about the new tailored deployments concept. “That whole thing builds a way to present forces to allow me to do more with less.”

The 24th MEU, operating under the designation LCF-24, deployed to SOUTHCOM and replaced the Iwo Jima ARG. “Distinct from a standard Amphibious Ready Group/MEU deployment, LCF-24 is a purpose-built MAGTF engineered for distributed operations,” SOUTHCOM explained in a statement. The Marine Air-Ground Task Force, with more than 1,300 Marines and Sailors, will operate from both shore-based nodes and aboard Fort Lauderdale, and is certified to “execute a wide array of mission essential tasks, including but not limited to Quick Reaction Force operations such as embassy reinforcement and the tactical recovery of aircraft [and] personnel, while standing ready to support disaster relief activities.”

May 26 (Asia Today) — The South Korean government said Tuesday it aims to launch its first nuclear-powered submarine by the mid-2030s and deploy the vessel to the Navy in the late 2030s.

The plan was presented during the first meeting of the Future Defense Strategy Committee in Jinhae, South Gyeongsang Province, attended by President Lee Jae-myung.

According to the government, South Korea plans to domestically develop and build the submarines to strengthen the independence and stability of its military procurement, maintenance and operational systems.

The submarines are expected to use low-enriched uranium fuel enriched below 20%, allowing for long operational cycles without frequent refueling.

Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back briefed Lee on the government’s basic plan for developing nuclear-powered submarines.

The announcement came seven months after Lee said he received support from President Donald Trump during a bilateral summit in October for South Korea’s submarine program.

“Based on the strong South Korea-U.S. alliance, the nuclear-powered submarines we will build symbolize our determination to take responsibility for peace and security on the Korean Peninsula ourselves,” Lee said.

He added that the project would also contribute significantly to strengthening South Korea’s defense industry capabilities.

Lee also emphasized the importance of regaining wartime operational control, known as OPCON, from the United States.

“The recovery of wartime operational control is a core element of self-reliant national defense,” Lee said. “It will serve as an opportunity for South Korea to more clearly establish itself as the main actor in defending the Korean Peninsula.”

He said Seoul and Washington would continue close consultations to finalize a roadmap for the transfer, including the timing of the transition.

Lee also called for integrating advanced science and technology into national defense to build what he described as a “smart military” capable of dominating future warfare.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260527010007660

May 24 (Asia Today) — South Korea is preparing to publicly unveil a development roadmap for a nuclear-powered attack submarine program after the successful Pacific deployment of the domestically built Dosan Ahn Chang-ho submarine, according to military and defense officials.

The move signals Seoul’s effort to strengthen what officials describe as the strongest conventional strategic deterrence available to a non-nuclear weapons state in response to North Korea’s advancing nuclear and missile capabilities and growing maritime competition in the region.

Senior military officials said the Ministry of National Defense and the Defense Acquisition Program Administration have completed technical reviews for a South Korean nuclear-powered submarine program and are now coordinating with related ministries, including the Foreign Ministry, on a diplomatic and regulatory strategy.

The report follows the recent Pacific deployment of the 3,000-ton Dosan Ahn Chang-ho submarine, which sailed about 14,000 kilometers, or 8,700 miles, from Jinhae through Guam and Hawaii using only domestically developed lead-acid batteries, diesel engines and an air-independent propulsion system.

South Korean officials said the deployment significantly reduced the need for snorkeling operations, in which submarines surface or raise air intake masts to recharge batteries, and demonstrated the vessel’s long-duration underwater operational capability and hull durability.

Officials also said the submarine successfully demonstrated stable operation of its submarine-launched ballistic missile vertical launch system in rough Pacific conditions. The Dosan Ahn Chang-ho class is the world’s first diesel-electric submarine class equipped with vertical launch tubes for submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

Defense experts said the mission simultaneously highlighted the operational limitations of conventional diesel submarines and the strategic advantages of nuclear propulsion.

While diesel-electric submarines must operate at relatively slow underwater speeds to maintain endurance, nuclear-powered submarines can remain submerged for much longer periods and travel underwater at speeds exceeding 40 kilometers per hour, allowing broader operational flexibility, officials said.

The foreign affairs and security publication The Diplomat reported Thursday that South Korea’s pursuit of a nuclear-powered submarine would become “a major test case of non-nuclear deterrence” for a country that does not possess nuclear weapons.

Chung Sung-chang, head of the Korea Nuclear Strategy Forum and a senior researcher at the Sejong Institute, said the submarine under discussion would be a non-nuclear attack submarine that would not carry nuclear weapons.

Chung said South Korea plans to retain the hull design and submarine-launched ballistic missile strike capability proven through the Dosan Ahn Chang-ho program while replacing the diesel propulsion system with a small nuclear reactor.

He said South Korea should first publicly present its nuclear submarine development roadmap before negotiating a bilateral nuclear submarine cooperation agreement with the United States and securing approval from the U.S. Congress.

Chung also said Seoul would need a separate agreement with Washington to secure low-enriched uranium fuel for naval reactors derived from downgraded highly enriched uranium.

Officials are reportedly studying the AUKUS security partnership among the United States, Britain and Australia, under which Australia received access to nuclear-powered submarine technology while remaining within the international nonproliferation framework.

South Korean officials said the success of the Dosan Ahn Chang-ho deployment demonstrated that the country’s technical preparations for a future nuclear-powered submarine program had reached a mature stage, shifting the focus toward diplomatic negotiations and international coordination.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260524010006872

South Korea on Friday finalized a plan to acquire U.S. Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) shipborne missile interceptors and field them by 2034, in a bid to boost its missile defense capabilities, the state arms procurement agency said.

The Defense Project Promotion Committee, a decision-making body for arms procurement under the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), approved the 530 billion-won (US$351.5 million) project to acquire the SM-6 long-range ship-to-air missile interceptors and related equipment, the agency said.

An SM-6 interceptor is an advanced defense missile interceptor for warships that can track and destroy a wide range of incoming threats.

It has a maximum range of 460 kilometers, with an altitude of up to 36 km, and is built to directly track targets with its own radar, allowing ships to deal with multiple threats at the same time.

The military plans to equip the 8,200-ton Aegis destroyer ROKS Dasan Jeong Yakyong, which is scheduled to enter service later this year, as well as the ROKS Daeho Kim Jong Seo, another vessel of the same class, with the SM-6 interceptors.

The SM-6 interceptors will also be installed on the already-deployed ROKS Jeongjo the Great through future capability upgrades.

“The project is expected to enhance ship-to-air defense capabilities of Aegis destroyers against enemy anti-ship ballistic missiles, aircraft and cruise missiles, as well as improve their anti-ballistic missile defense,” the DAPA said.

In November 2023, the United States approved a $650 million sale of up to 38 SM-6 missiles and related equipment to South Korea through the government-to-government Foreign Military Sales program.

Friday’s announcement by DAPA suggests that the acquisition may have been scaled back from the earlier plan. The timeline for the acquisition has also been revised to 2023-34, from the original 2023-31 schedule.

“The negotiation process took time even though we have been pushing ahead with the project since 2023,” a DAPA official said. “The system will be rolled out in stages in accordance with the schedule agreed upon with the U.S. side.”

The committee also approved a research and development (R&D) plan for a new military communications satellite system to replace older satellite and ground equipment.

The plan calls for developing and acquiring a dedicated geostationary military communications satellite and related ground infrastructure through an R&D program led by the Agency for Defense Development.

The project will run from this year through 2032, with an estimated cost of about 1.27 trillion won. DAPA plans to sign a contract agreement with a prototype developer by March next year.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

United States President Donald Trump has announced plans to deploy an additional 5,000 troops to Poland.

Trump announced the surprise deployment on social media late on Thursday, citing his friendship with right-wing Polish President Karol Nawrocki.

The move came days after a planned deployment to Poland was apparently scrapped and will deepen uncertainty surrounding the Trump administration’s approach to NATO allies and its long-term commitment to maintaining a military presence in Europe. It leaves European partners increasingly unclear about which areas they should prioritise as they formulate defence strategies.

“Based on the successful Election of the now President ⁠of Poland, Karol Nawrocki, who I was proud to Endorse, and our relationship with him, I am pleased to announce that the United States will be sending an additional 5,000 Troops to Poland,” Trump wrote.

Nawrocki welcomed the announcement on social media.

“Good alliances are those based on cooperation, mutual respect, and a commitment to our shared ‌security,” he wrote on Thursday evening.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski also welcomed the news on Friday, saying it ensures that “the presence of American troops in Poland will be maintained more or less at previous levels”.

About-face

The announced deployment is a sudden about-face from US declarations of plans to reduce military support to Europe under Trump’s “America First” doctrine.

The US president has for years been lambasting European NATO partners for failing to spend enough on defence. His opprobrium has risen in recent weeks as European states have criticised the US-Israeli war on Iran and refused to join the conflict.

The Pentagon abruptly announced a week ago that it was scrapping the planned deployment of 4,000 troops to Poland.

Earlier this month, Trump announced he was withdrawing 5,000 troops from Germany following a spat with Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said Washington had been “humiliated” by Iranian negotiators.

The US president later said that he would be “cutting a lot further than 5,000”.

Polish officials have noted that Warsaw pays significant sums towards the cost of US troop deployments. The suggestion of a pullback has caused concern over security in Poland and elsewhere in Europe, as Russia’s war on neighbouring Ukraine continues, with the Trump administration largely ceasing efforts to mediate a ceasefire.

European states report that they are getting to grips with the need to replace US defence capabilities, albeit slowly. However, sources suggest that the erratic policies emerging from the White House are creating confusion over which elements should be prioritised.

“It is confusing indeed, and not always easy to navigate,” Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard told reporters ahead of hosting a meeting of NATO foreign ministers on Friday, which will be attended by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

US defence officials are also confused, according to the AP news agency.

“We just spent the better part of two weeks reacting to the first announcement. We don’t know what this means either,” said one official.

‘America First’

The US president has lashed out at fellow NATO members in recent months for failing to support the US-Israeli war on Iran, suggesting Washington could withdraw from the military alliance as a result.

State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said Rubio would discuss the need for NATO allies to increase defence spending and shoulder greater responsibility at Friday’s meeting of NATO foreign ministers.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who has worked hard in recent months to attempt to soothe the US president’s displeasure with his alliance peers, welcomed Trump’s deployment to Poland and cautioned that Europe must become less reliant on the US.

Rubio said before meeting his NATO counterparts in Sweden: “Like any alliance, it ⁠has to be good ⁠for everyone who’s involved. There has to be a clear ⁠understanding of what the expectations are.” ⁠

He also suggested, however, that the meeting is likely to prove less than comfortable.

“The president’s views, frankly disappointment, at some of our NATO allies and their response to our operations in the Middle East – they’re well documented – that will have to be addressed,” he insisted, before adding “that won’t be solved or addressed today”.

While Rubio meets with NATO counterparts, senior Pentagon officials will brief partners at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels about Washington’s commitment to European defence.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced it plans to reduce the number of combat brigades based in Europe from four to three.

Many of Washington’s allies in Europe remain frustrated with Trump’s handling of the war with Iran, which has damaged their economies and prompted some European leaders to question the reliability of the US.

European NATO countries also remain concerned about Trump’s threats to annex Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally.

It remains unclear whether the deployment to Poland announced on Thursday includes the same soldiers as those the Pentagon said would no longer be deployed to the Central European country, or if they will include redeployments from Germany.

Workers represented by a local union say ICE presence would create a climate of fear during the FIFA World Cup 2026.

Workers at the SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles have decided to go on strike if federal immigration enforcement agents are deployed at the venue when it hosts FIFA World Cup matches in June and July.

The UNITE HERE Local 11 – a labour union representing some 2,000 hospitality employees – on Monday demanded federal guarantees that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would not be used during the matches scheduled at the stadium.

The venue, which will be known as the Los Angeles Stadium during the tournament, will host eight World Cup games, including the opening fixture for the United States on June 12.

Workers at the world’s most expensive sports arena say the ICE presence would create a climate of fear for themselves and for fans.

“ICE should have no role in these games,” said Isaac Martinez, a stadium cook, at a protest outside the venue.

“We do not want to live in fear coming to work, or fear being detained going home.”

“If we do not reach an agreement, my colleagues and I are ready to strike,” Martinez added, speaking on behalf of a workforce composed largely of food and beverage concession staff.

ICE has led the charge in President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Human rights groups have condemned the agency for its conduct during raids in several US cities, including Los Angeles last year.

In early 2026, ICE agents fatally shot two American protesters in Minneapolis.

Workers on Monday also raised alarms over FIFA’s accreditation process, which requires employees to submit personal data before the tournament, which runs from June 11 to July 19 across the US, Canada and Mexico.

“We ask FIFA not to share our information with ICE agencies, foreign countries, or intelligence services,” worker Yolanda Fierro said.

Protesters carrying plastic balls and signs reading “Kick ICE Out of the World Cup” drew support from Tom Steyer, a Democratic candidate in California’s gubernatorial race.

ICE’s mandate is border control, the financier-turned-politician said.

“Can anyone explain what that has to do with the World Cup? Nothing,” Steyer said.

“How is it possible that this is the agency that is going to be here when we know in fact they’re an absolute threat, a lawless threat, to workers in California?”

May 15 (UPI) — Representatives of both parties in the House on Friday demanded to know why the Department of Defense stopped deployment of troops to Poland, and top Army leaders didn’t have clear answers.

House Armed Services Committee members said the halting of troop deployment with no notice was a surprise to Congress, Politico reported. They had a hearing Friday with top Army leaders who gave them few answers.

“I just want to say this is a slap in the face to Poland; it’s a slap in the face to our Baltic friends,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said. “It’s a slap to the face of this committee.”

The deployment was a long-planned rotation of 4,000 troops based in Texas, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth put a sudden stop to it.

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., on Friday questioned Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who said the rotation was canceled “just a couple days ago,” though acting Army Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve said the decision was made in the “last two weeks.”

Neither man gave an explanation for the decision.

“We don’t know what’s going on here, but I can just tell you we’re not happy with what’s being talked about, particularly since there’s been no statutory consultation with us,” committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., told Driscoll and LaNeve.

On Thursday, acting Pentagon press secretary Joel Valdez said the decision was “not an unexpected, last-minute decision.”

“I don’t see how [the Pentagon] statement can be true,” Scott said.

LaNeve confirmed that some equipment was already in Europe or en route when Hegseth canceled the deployment.

Driscoll said the Army can adjust its plans based on the preferences of regional commanders or the secretary of defense.

“This is not meant to hide the ball; this is to say this type of conversation is going on throughout the year every single year,” he said.

On April 30, President Donald Trump decided to remove 5,000 troops from Germany after German Chancellor Friederich Merz said the United States was “humiliated” by Iran.

Trump has often complained about NATO, but he has called Poland a “model ally” for its move to spend more on defense. In September, Trump said he would support Poland and stand with Warsaw “all the way” after the candidate he backed, Karol Nawrocki, won the election for president.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said Army leaders should be able to give a straight answer to Congress.

“The only answer I’ve got is, ‘Well, that’s what they told us to do.’ OK, why?” Smith asked the Army leaders. “If there’s some strategy behind it, then you guys ought to know and you ought to be able to communicate it to us.”

Bacon said that Polish officials were “blindsided” by the move, which he learned from a phone call from Poland.

“They called me yesterday, they did not know, they were blindsided,” The Hill reported Bacon told Driscoll and LaNeve. “These are some of our best allies, and they had no idea. They still don’t know what the plan is.”

Bacon said he knew the Army leaders didn’t make the decision, but he called it “reprehensible” and “an embarrassment to our country … what we just did to Poland.”

He added, “I know I may not represent 100% of people in this committee, but I think I represent the views of the vast majority. We disagree. … We’re sending a terrible message to Russia and to our allies.”

Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Wash., said, “When we take that many troops away, it says that we are not a reliable ally.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is drawing down thousands of troops in Europe by canceling deployments to Poland and Germany as opposed to yanking forces already stationed there, U.S. officials say, as President Trump has tussled with allies over the Iran war and called for changes.

Several U.S. officials confirmed that 4,000 troops from the Army’s 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division were no longer en route to Poland this week. The Trump administration had previously said it was cutting U.S. forces only in Germany, and the decision spurred questions and criticism in both Warsaw and Washington.

Two officials told the Associated Press that the deployments were canceled after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed a memo directing the Joint Chiefs of Staff to move a brigade combat team out of Europe. One of them said the choice of which unit was left to military leaders.

Besides the Army combat team based in Fort Hood, Texas, the memo also led to the cancellation of an upcoming deployment to Germany of a battalion trained in firing long-range rockets and missiles, according to the two officials, who like the others spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military operations.

Three U.S. officials said the changes were part of an effort to comply with a presidential order issued at the beginning of May to reduce the number of troops in Europe by about 5,000. The reasoning does not appear to have been well communicated because others based in Europe said they did not know if the halted deployment to Poland was part of the previously announced reduction.

Trump and the Pentagon have said in recent weeks that they were cutting at least 5,000 troops to Germany after Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the U.S. was being “humiliated” by the Iranian leadership and criticized Washington’s lack of strategy in the war.

The drawdown reflects a growing rift between the administration and traditional European allies, with the U.S. leader repeatedly criticizing fellow NATO members for a lack of support for the Iran war.

Polish officials on Friday insisted that the U.S. withdrawal was not targeted directly at Poland but was a consequence of Trump’s decision to reduce the number of troops in Germany.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said he “received assurances” that the decision was of a logistical nature and said it does not directly affect deterrence capabilities and Poland’s security.

Military officials say the decision to halt unit to Poland made recently

Joel Valdez, a Pentagon spokesman, said, “the decision to withdraw troops follows a comprehensive, multilayered process” and he argued that it was “not an unexpected, last-minute decision.”

Speaking to Congress in a hearing Friday, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and Gen. Christopher LaNeve, the Army’s chief of staff, told lawmakers that discussions around the halted deployment occurred over the last two weeks but noted the decision itself was made in the last couple days.

Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said he spoke with Polish officials on Thursday and they noted they were “blindsided.”

The move also left many U.S. military personnel in Europe in the dark about how the Trump administration was reducing forces. A U.S. official based in Europe said a meeting was called with 20 minutes’ notice on Monday to discuss the cancellation of the deployment to Poland.

At that time, troops had already been sent to Poland and some, still in the U.S., were told shortly before departure not to travel to the airport, that official said. Another official said most of the Army unit’s equipment had already made it to Europe and was sitting in ports.

Change to troop deployment to Poland draws bipartisan criticism

The reductions drew criticism from Democratic and Republican lawmakers about the move sending the wrong signal both to allies and Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose forces this week have launched one of the deadliest attacks on the Ukrainian capital in the 4-year-old war.

At the House Armed Services Committee hearing Friday, LaNeve said he worked with U.S. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, commander in Europe of both U.S. and NATO forces, after Grynkewich received the instructions for the force reduction.

“I’ve worked with him in close consultation of what that force unit would be, and it made the most sense for that brigade to not do its deployment in theater,” LaNeve said.

Bacon called the decision “reprehensible” and said it was “an embarrassment to our country what we just did to Poland.”

Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, who chairs the committee, said the military is required to consult with lawmakers and that did not happen.

“So we don’t know what’s going on here,” Rogers said. “But I can just tell you we’re not happy with what’s being talked about.”

A State Department official said Friday at a security conference in Tallinn, Estonia, that the U.S. reductions in Europe were “right there in black and white” but also noted that “the U.S. isn’t going anywhere.”

“We’ll continue to work with the Pentagon and work with our partners to make sure we get the right fit and right mix of what’s happening here on the ground,” said Thomas G. DiNanno, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

NATO says the change in Poland won’t affect defense

With the halted deployments, the U.S. military presence in Europe will now be at pre-2022 levels, before Russia commenced its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, one U.S. official said.

European countries have been bracing for a U.S. reduction since Trump returned to the White House, with the administration warning that Europe would have to look after its own security, including Ukraine’s, in the future.

A NATO official said the U.S. decision to cancel its rotational deployment to Poland would not impact NATO’s deterrence and defense plans. Canada and Germany have increased their presence on the alliance’s eastern flank, which contributes to NATO’s overall strength, the official said, insisting on anonymity in line with NATO regulations.

Ben Hodges, former commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, said the move “reinforces the perception that the United States just does things without consultation with allies,” which ultimately “damages cohesion inside the alliance.” The decision would in the long run harm the U.S. defense industry as it reduces the trust of partners, he said.

Around 10,000 U.S. troops are typically stationed in Poland, the majority of them present in the country on a rotational basis. Only about 300 troops are permanently stationed in the country, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service.

Polish officials had hoped they would be spared from any cuts as Poland spends the most in NATO on defense as a proportion of its economy — around 4.7% in 2025. Hegseth has called it a “model ally” in NATO for spending so much on defense.

When Poland’s conservative president, Karol Nawrocki, visited the White House in September, Trump said he didn’t intend to pull U.S. troops out of Poland. “We’ll put more there if they want,” Trump said at the time.

Toropin, Burrows, Finley and Ciobanu write for the Associated Press. Burrows reported from Tallinn, Estonia, and Ciobanu from Warsaw.