force

US Air Force footage showed the rescue of 11 people after a private plane from the Bahamas crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off Florida. Survivors were found in a life raft as a storm approached and were airlifted to hospital.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Four Memphis residents are suing U.S. and Tennessee officials, saying they have been harassed, arrested and physically mistreated for engaging in First Amendment protected activities by observing and recording law enforcement agents in their city.

A lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court targets the Memphis Safe Task Force, comprising agents from 13 federal agencies that President Trump ordered to the city to fight crime alongside Tennessee State Troopers and the Tennessee National Guard.

Since late September, hundreds of federal, state and local law enforcement personnel tied to the task force have made traffic stops, served warrants and searched for fugitives in the majority Black city of about 610,000 people. The lawsuit says the task force has conducted over 120,000 traffic stops.

“In the professed name of crime control, Task Force agents have stopped, menaced, and arrested Memphians engaging in routine, day-to-day activities,” the lawsuit states. “In response, Memphians encountering Task Force agents in public, including Plaintiffs, have stopped to gather information about and record Task Force activities.”

Emails from the Associated Press to the U.S. Department of Justice and a spokesperson for the task force were not returned on Wednesday morning.

Federal officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, have visited Memphis to praise the task force. Miller in October predicted the surge in law enforcement would make the city “safer than any of you could ever possibly imagine” and that “businesses and investment are going to pour in, and Memphis will be richer than ever before.”

The task force is part of a larger effort by Trump to use National Guard troops and surge federal law enforcement in cities, particularly ones controlled by Democrats. Following troop deployments in the District of Columbia and Los Angeles, he referred to Portland, Ore., as “war-ravaged” and threatened apocalyptic force in Chicago. Speaking last year to U.S. military leaders in Virginia, Trump proposed using cities as training grounds for the armed forces.

The lawsuit accuses task force agents of systematically retaliating against the four plaintiffs and other members of the public engaged in similar observations. It claims the threats and harassment are the “direct result of federal policy” that views observing federal agents performing their duties in public as a threat of harm to those agents. The lawsuit also claims that federal and state officials have failed to train their agents not to retaliate against citizens engaged in First Amendment protected activities.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare that retaliation against the plaintiffs for observing and recording law enforcement activity is unconstitutional and to prohibit the agents from further retaliation. It also targets a Tennessee law that requires observers to stand at least 25 feet away from law enforcement officers, if they are warned to do so, or face arrest. The suit asks the court to declare unconstitutional the use of the “Halo Law” against defendants who are not interfering with agents or impeding their duties.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

CHONGQING, China — Three years ago, in the idyllic town of Woodside south of San Francisco, the United States and China held their first high-level talks on the dangers posed by artificial intelligence. President Xi Jinping and his longtime foreign minister appeared serious in their conviction that a channel should be a established between Beijing and Washington — a red phone for AI in case of emergencies.

They authorized a diplomatic effort that would begin in 2024 in Switzerland, only months before the U.S. presidential election. A large U.S. delegation arrived with high hopes that were abruptly dashed, according to four sources who attended the talks. The Chinese contingent dismissed American concerns over runaway AI as academic, almost theoretical, quickly turning the conversation to export controls seen in Beijing as yet another U.S. effort to hold China back.

“They naturally view any American diplomatic initiative involving limitations or restrictions of one flavor or another on a capability as being a trap,” Jake Sullivan, U.S. national security advisor under President Biden, said in an interview.

Despite the distrust — and Democrats losing the White House to Donald Trump — an accord was struck in November of that year in Peru, where both sides agreed to keep AI out of the command and control of nuclear weapons.

“It was a breaking of the seal that we could actually do something on AI,” Sullivan said. “In the transition, I told the incoming Trump team that they should really pick up that dialogue. But the Trump administration’s view was just far more laissez-faire, and they didn’t seem particularly interested in it.”

“That’s all changed in the past few weeks,” he added.

A Trump administration once eager to gun for technological supremacy is now, for the first time, reckoning with the power AI could unleash if left unchecked.

In a surprise reversal, quiet discussions have taken place ahead of President Trump’s state visit to China this week to explore reviving talks on an emergency channel, officials told The Times, prompted by shared alarm in Beijing and Washington over the debut of Mythos, Anthropic’s powerful new model.

One senior administration official told reporters Sunday that the White House was looking to create a channel of communication for AI like others that they have “in many areas that have intense focus with the U.S. and China.”

“I think what that channel of communication looks like, its formality and what that looks like, is yet to be determined,” the official said, “but we want to take this opportunity with the leaders meeting to open up a conversation. We should establish a channel of communication on that matter.”

Mythos’ capabilities are seen across the industry and government as those of an unprecedented cyberweapon, able to infiltrate and exploit digital communication systems — including government databases, financial institutions and healthcare programs — with untold consequences.

Whether an announcement will come to fruition this week is not yet clear. Any talks between the United States and China over AI regulations — designing some kind of arms control agreement governing the use of a technology that neither side fully understands or controls — will be fraught with suspicion, misunderstandings and risk, experts say.

“Right now, there is almost no support from U.S. policymakers to engage in formal discussions on AI governance with China,” said Aalok Mehta, director of the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“The logic is that this is a winner-takes-all race,” Mehta said, “and that it’s imperative to accelerate AI progress to ensure that the United States wins that race.”

America in the lead

China would enter those discussions with a powerful argument, that U.S. leadership in AI — and the prevailing strategy of American AI companies — is propelling the world to a fraught frontier.

Every major U.S. player in the arena — OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Microsoft and Meta Platforms — is racing to be the first to build a model capable of artificial general intelligence, or AGI, a threshold without a common definition, but that most agree will require a model to perform any intellectual human task.

The prevailing theory is that the first to achieve AGI will secure a prize that multiplies itself: a self-training, recursively improving intelligence, growing exponentially and leaving all competitors in its wake.

Chinese companies, by contrast, are following a state-sanctioned strategy focused on integrating AI into siloed industries and systems, training models to improve individual tasks and accelerate growth in a more tailored approach.

“The Chinese believe there is no single race, but multiple races,” said Scott Kennedy, senior advisor on Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. “The U.S. is focused on achieving AGI, while China is focused on diffusion and applications of AI into the rest of their economy — manufacturing, humanoid robotics, all aspects of the internet of things.”

China scholars, AI industry insiders and successive administrations have questioned Beijing’s strategic thinking and forthrightness.

“It’s so baked into the community here that AGI will have this transformative potential that people can’t believe China isn’t focused on this, as well,” said Matt Sheehan, a scholar of global technology issues at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace with a focus on China. “It says it’s focused on applications, but is that a fake out for an AGI program hidden in the mountains somewhere?”

But most insiders believe that Beijing’s guidance to Chinese companies reveals its true intentions.

“They are not as AGI-pilled as the United States is, and I think that remains the case today,” Sullivan said, “so they regarded a lot of the conversation in the U.S. around extreme frontier risk — misalignment and loss of control — as a bit abstract, and not really as relevant to how they saw AI diffusing in China.”

President Biden greets Chinese President Xi Jinping in Woodside, Calif., in 2023.

(Doug Mills / Pool Photo)

Although China’s progress has exceeded U.S. expectations — especially since DeepSeek released its model over a year ago — the state has focused computer power on specific applications rather than the broad strategy needed to develop more powerful models capable of advancing toward AGI.

“It’s not just chips. It’s money,” Sheehan added. “China’s leading companies are much more financially constrained than U.S. companies. There’s concern over a bubble here, but OpenAI is valued at something near $800 billion. Leading Chinese companies that have gone public are valued at $20 billion. There’s just an orders-of-magnitude gap in available financing.”

Still, some in the U.S. government fear China won’t need comparable computing power if it simply steals the technology wholesale.

Doing so isn’t simple. But last month, in a memo, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy accused Chinese actors of “industrial-scale campaigns to distill U.S. frontier AI systems,” in effect replicating the performance of the most advanced existing models “at a fraction of the cost.” The memo did not accuse Beijing of endorsing the activity.

In the process, the memo added, carefully constructed security protocols are deliberately stripped away.

China’s negotiating advantage

Whatever its strategic calculus may be, China would enter talks with the Trump administration trailing in the race — while disagreeing on the nature of the finish line.

AGI, in theory, could reach a stage of recursive self-improvement that results in a loss of human understanding or control. But if it is only the Americans, and not the Chinese, seeking to reach that threshold, then who is responsible to stop it?

Daniel Remler, who led AI policy at the State Department during the Biden administration and took part in the Geneva talks, cast doubt on Chinese claims of disinterest in AGI and ignorance of its risks. China falling behind in the race is no strategic design, he said.

“Chinese technologists are close observers of the U.S. AI ecosystem, and sometimes they say what they think,” Remler said. “Many were impressed by the [Mythos] model to the point of despair. Leaders in China’s top AI labs have been vocal in recent months, even before Mythos, about how compute-constrained they are at the frontier. Some have said they may never catch their American competitors.”

Talks at this point in the race could follow a familiar pattern in the recent history of U.S.-China diplomacy, in which Beijing claims it is behind the United States in development, ultimately securing a handicap and greater concessions at the negotiating table.

In other competitive domains — such as with China’s entry into the World Trade Organization and in cybersecurity negotiations between Beijing and the Obama administration — agreements were ultimately reached that Washington believes in hindsight disadvantaged American companies.

The Trump administration, Remler added, “needs to approach AI diplomacy with China with clear-eyed expectations anchored to our own national interests.”

Silicon Valley itself is divided over regulating AI. Anthropic, which was founded on concerns that other AI companies were failing to take safety and alignment concerns seriously, raised alarms over Mythos, its own model, to the Trump administration, a moment that has prompted reflection at the White House on the best path forward.

Spooked after meeting with leaders from America’s top banks over their vulnerabilities, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent internally advised U.S. government reviews of future model releases — a practice already underway in China, where the training parameters for models, known as “weights,” have been publicly released.

Even the suggestion of government oversight sparked backlash from Silicon Valley. Last week, the White House sent out a memo to reassure industry allies that submitting new models for federal review would be strictly voluntary.

If talks ultimately resume between Washington and Beijing on AI, experts believe the negotiations would be far more complex than those that resulted in arms control agreements governing nuclear weapons in the Cold War.

The superpowers would not only be discussing threats of instability to the global financial system, but also fears of proliferation — advanced AI tools getting into the hands of bad actors interested in using bio- or cyberweapons that could target both countries.

And they ultimately would have to decide whether to discuss regulating the integration of AI into the Chinese and U.S. militaries, an almost unfathomable goal between the world’s biggest adversaries, where trust is lowest and verification would be hardest.

Those in the industry who most fear what artificial superintelligence could bring have told the Trump administration that talks with China are an existential necessity.

Dario Amodei, the chief executive and co-founder of Anthropic, speaks at an event in New York in 2025.

(Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)

But even within Anthropic, which has championed diplomacy, there are concerns that Beijing could exploit its current disadvantage to entangle American industry at the cusp of its crowning achievement.

Rather than pushing for a single sweeping agreement, industry insiders are advising the administration to pursue targeted deals with Beijing to mitigate specific risks, like the pact on nuclear command and control, two industry sources said.

In private, both Xi and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi seemed to understand that the gravity of the emerging technology before them required some form of cooperation, Sullivan said.

“At a conceptual level, I believe they had a conviction on that and authorized it,” Sullivan said, “but I believe their level of urgency was considerably lower than ours, and saw this as a longer-term process that would play out over time.”

“Their level of urgency and their stake in it has gone up,” he added.

WASHINGTON — Before being deployed to Los Angeles during anti-ICE protests last summer, U.S. Marines were given 12 rules for engaging with protesters, and Rule 1 was clear: Force “of any kind” was allowed only as a last resort.

If force were used, the rule stated, it “should be the minimum necessary to accomplish the mission.”

That detail is among 178 pages of federal documents released by the Marine Corps to the nonprofit watchdog group American Oversight through the Freedom of Information Act and shared exclusively with The Times.

The documents paint a thorough picture of how Marines prepared to deploy in Southern California, where they stood alongside National Guard members and agents with the Department of Homeland Security.

The documents also illuminate a glaring contrast between the training of Marines and that of immigration agents, who have been accused repeatedly of using unnecessary force against peaceful protesters, bystanders and immigrants during enforcement operations.

“Ironically, I would’ve felt much safer with Marine engagement than with DHS because of the depth of training,” said Ryan Schwank, a former instructor for Immigration and Customs Enforcement recruits at the ICE Academy within the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia.

Schwank is a whistleblower who resigned in February after revealing that the Trump administration had slashed immigration officer training. After reviewing the documents obtained by American Oversight, he said the training given to Marines on crowd control was “significantly more in-depth and longer than training given to an ICE officer, even under the best of circumstances.”

An ICE agent walks through tear gas that was fired to push protesters back during a raid on Atlantic Boulevard in the city of Bell on June 20, 2025.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to questions and instead pointed to a February news release that said training has not been cut back and that new hires receive additional training after leaving the academy.

“ICE law enforcement officers are trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary to resolve dangerous situations to prioritize the safety of the public and our officers,” said Lauren Bis, a department spokesperson. “Officers are highly trained in de-escalation tactics and regularly receive ongoing use of force training.”

Schwank noted that the Marines and ICE officers came to Southern California with different objectives: As protectors of people and property, the Marines had a more limited, reactive mission, while ICE officers were charged with making arrests, a confrontational role.

“We’re giving [ICE officers] less training on it and fewer refreshers than the Marines are getting and yet we’re putting them in a situation where they’re taking the more confrontational actions to where they’re more likely to have to make split-second decisions,” Schwank said.

For most of history, he added, ICE agents detained people who were already in the custody of another law enforcement agency. He said ICE was never meant to act as riot police.

“The real fundamental problem isn’t ICE agents using force,” Schwank said. “It’s ICE agents using force in an environment they are not trained for.”

The training of Marines, and the lead-up to their deployment, is outlined in the documents reviewed by The Times.

On June 6, a commanding general emailed other generals to say that “national-level leadership” had directed Marines to assume an “alert posture” and be ready to support the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and ICE officers who were already responding to civil unrest in downtown Los Angeles.

The Marines would safeguard federal facilities and thus “protect lives and property through the restoration of civil order,” the email said.

The Trump administration directed 4,200 California National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to Southern California starting June 7.

Marines push back anti-ICE protesters in front of the Federal Building during a “No Kings Day” in downtown Los Angeles last June.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

First, though, they needed to be trained.

The five-day course reviewed use-of-force policies, less-lethal weapons and handling of civil disturbances.

Overall, the 12 rules emphasized safety, urging Marines to be reasonable, to de-escalate tensions and to avoid confrontations with individuals who posed no threat.

Marines could use non-deadly force, if necessary, to control a situation or protect themselves or other federal personnel, and deadly force “only when all lesser means have failed.”

“Exercise due regard for the safety of innocent bystanders when using any type of force,” the rules state.

Schwank said there is no equivalent to the Marines course at Homeland Security. When he left the academy in February, he said, “there was no crowd control training, period.”

Crowd control was briefly added to the curriculum in 2021 for experienced law enforcement officers, he said, but it was later removed. ICE recruits may also have gotten lessons on crowd control after leaving the academy and joining their respective field offices, he said.

When Schwank left the agency, a six-hour class called “Public Order Public Safety” was in development for the 2026 curriculum, according to documents he provided to Congress. Homeland Security did not respond when asked if the class had started.

“I wouldn’t assume that any of the ICE officers on scene in L.A. had received any sort of actual crowd control class,” Schwank said. “They might have gotten a one-to-two-hour PowerPoint slideshow, but that would’ve been it.”

Marine Col. Beth R. Smith confirmed that the entire 2nd Battalion 7th Marines received academic and practical training before deploying to Los Angeles.

Managing civil disturbances has been an issue for Homeland Security since at least 2021, according to an audit conducted by the agency’s internal watchdog review of a 2020 deployment to Portland, Ore.

That year, President Trump mobilized federal power against the protests that spilled into Portland streets after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. Trump sent 755 Homeland Security agents to defend federal property in what would come to be seen as a dry run for much larger operations of his second term.

A protester damages a Waymo vehicle at Los Angeles Street and Arcadia Street in L.A. on June 8, 2025.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Nested on rooftops, agents launched chemical weapons against protesters. Ground forces fired less-lethal rounds at point-blank range and forced participants into unmarked vans without explanation.

The audit by the Homeland Security inspector general found that only seven of 63 officers reviewed had received any level of riot and crowd control training. Some officers told investigators that they needed additional training, and many “questioned their involvement in the operation” due to the lack of preparation.

”Without the necessary policies, training, and equipment, DHS will continue to face challenges securing Federal facilities during periods of civil disturbance that could result in injury, death, and liability,” the audit concluded.

As of spring 2025, Homeland Security records show, the department had not corrected the training failures flagged in the audit years earlier.

Schwank agreed that the concerns raised in the inspector general’s report were never addressed.

Liz Hempowicz, deputy executive director of American Oversight, said the Marine Corps’ emphasis on de-escalation and on using force only as a last resort stands in stark contrast to what happened on the ground in Los Angeles with immigration agents.

The practices outlined in the documents “differ from positions taken by senior DHS leadership, whose separate internal communications revealed a mindset that appeared far more encouraging of violence,” she said.

Internal Homeland Security emails also obtained by American Oversight revealed that the agency’s lead attorney said federal agents in Los Angeles should have “just started hitting the rioters and arresting everyone that couldn’t get away.”

“These records underscore that the difference between disciplined restraint and unnecessary harm can come down to the tone set at the top — and when that tone shifts toward hostility, the human cost can be devastating,” Hempowicz said.

Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a military research group, said that for Homeland Security, the issue is partly a training deficiency and partly a cultural shift against agent accountability.

“Trump talks about ‘the enemy within’ — this is what he’s talking about,” she said. “To some at DHS, the enemy within is all immigrants, it’s cartels — it’s also groups that are protesting the government.”

Conversely, the Marines’ documents emphasized personal liability and responsibility. For example, one page said that “if you either use more force than is necessary, or respond with DEADLY-force to a NON-deadly threat — You will likely lose your right to self-defense, and you will be viewed, under the law, as the ‘Aggressor.’”

Marines were told to immediately report anyone violating the 12 rules of engagement.

The high level of training for Marines shows that command considered the optics of military personnel harming or even killing civilians, Kavanagh said. But just because the deployment worked out last year doesn’t make it a good idea in the long run, she said.

Kavanagh, alongside Gov. Gavin Newsom, Mayor Karen Bass, and LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, opposed the military deployments to Los Angeles last year, maintaining that Marines are trained for foreign combat, not domestic crowd control.

“I see these deployments as a recipe for disaster,” she said.

Schwank said ICE’s training touches on personal liability but not in as much depth. Last fall, Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, said ICE officers “have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties, and anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony.”

On the ground in Los Angeles, ICE agents and other local law enforcement fired a range of less-lethal weapons at protesters, such as pepper balls, hard foam rounds or canisters delivering flash-bang grenades and tear gas.

At a June 12 protest, a federal agent shoved freelance journalist Anna Sophia Moltke to the ground, causing sprains on her left arm and leg and deep scrapes to her hip and knee that have since scarred. She was carrying a camera, she said, and wore clear press credentials and a helmet that said “PRESS.”

“I remember distinctly there being no violence at all until police and ICE showed up,” she said. “We saw them firing rubber bullets into the crowd. People started running away. I was halfway turned around when they started rushing the crowd, and a tall, 6-foot-4 masked man used both hands to push me onto the concrete.”

Moltke said she recalled a large group of protesters gathered near the Marines stationed at the northern end of the detention center, just before police and ICE swept through and forced her to the ground. To her knowledge, she said the Marines remained at their post and didn’t participate in street skirmishes.

The U.S. Air Force said its new interim Air Force One jet, dubbed the VC-25B Bridge aircraft, has officially completed modifications and flight testing and is being painted in the red, white and blue livery sought by President Donald Trump. The extremely lavish 747-8i Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) – donated by Qatar to the U.S. last year for use by Trump – is set to serve in the Air Force One role while the White House awaits the delayed delivery from Boeing of two fully-outfitted VC-25B Air Force One aircraft. There are no plans to retire the VC-25As that currently serve as Air Force One until both full-up VC-25Bs are operational.

The Air Force said the VC-25B Bridge aircraft is on schedule to roll out in its new paint scheme and be delivered to the Presidential Airlift Group this summer. It is not clear when it will start flying Trump. The White House referred us to the Air Force for additional information.

The jet recently underwent flight testing in Texas, which you can see in the following photos that aviation photographer TT-33 operator was kind enough to share with us at the time.

The USAF now says that with the Boeing VC-25B deliveries delayed far past its initial 2024 target and VC-25A heavy maintenance cycles being extended, an interim capability became “an absolute imperative.” How accurate this claim actually is isn’t clear. Trump has been talking about an interim Air Force One aircraft for some time since deliveries of the new VC-25Bs were pushed back beyond his second term. We heard of no actual requirements originating for this capability from within the USAF prior to the new administration or far in advance of Trump’s deal with the Qataris to source the jet. Very early in the new administration, Elon Musk was even working to find out how to get Trump a new Air Force One as fast as possible, for instance.

The Air Force claimed that in February 2025, a dedicated task force launched a “full-court press” on the VC-25B Bridge program while simultaneously working to accelerate Boeing’s long-term VC-25B production.

Though questions were swirling about the legality and ethics of receiving the gifted plane, the Pentagon last May took delivery of the aircraft and said it would rapidly undertake the required modifications.

It’s one thing to have a donated ultra-luxury jet, but turning it into one safe and connected enough to carry a president is another story.

As TWZ has previously noted, converting any aircraft into one that is secure enough to transport the president is a complex undertaking. The aircraft needs to provide constant, secure communications, including what is needed to order a nuclear strike under extreme conditions. Historically, it also needs to be physically hardened both inside and out to withstand myriad threats, from the electromagnetic pulse of a nuclear weapon going off to incoming surface-to-air missiles to enemy intelligence-gathering efforts. To do this requires significant modifications right down to the aircraft’s outer structure. It is very unlikely, if not impossible, that this aircraft was hardened against EMPs in the timeframe required for fielding it.

The VC-25As are speckled with missile approach warning sensors and many laser countermeasures turrets (DIRCM). They also include the legacy Matador infrared countermeasure system above their jet engines and APU. This is in addition to other defensive features which are less visible and remain closely guarded secrets.

Common Infrared Countermeasures (CIRCM)

In previous coverage, we noted that at the very least, “this aircraft will have to feature some kind of DIRCM setup to repel shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles, and modular units are available that can be attached in a canoe to the bottom of the aircraft. These systems, such as Elbit’s C-MUSIC or Northrop Grumman’s Guardian, are in service with foreign VVIP 747s, as well as commercial aircraft, including those flying for Israeli airline El Al. You can read all about these systems here. Still, while they offer far less defensive capacity compared to what is seen under the belly of a VC-25A, they would offer a significant layer of protection.” We still don’t see any evidence of the aircraft being modified with defensive countermeasures.

L3Harris, known for its communications systems and aircraft alterations, was selected to undertake the “complex modification of the bridge aircraft,” the Air Force explained. The company already delivers “secure, reliable and resilient communications” for VC-25A and the executive airlift fleet “but has extensive experience with self-protection and customization of VIP aircraft,” the Air Force added. “The accelerated timeline was further made possible by a mission-focused partnership with Boeing, who provided the necessary engineering data to support the required structural modifications.”

In addition, “elite specialists from multiple government agencies developed advanced protocols to detect and – if necessary – neutralize potential technical hazards on previously owned aircraft,” according to the Air Force. “Their rigorous approach on the Bridge aircraft has literally ‘written the book’ and set the benchmark for integrating used airframes into the secure military inventory.”

In response to our question about what modifications the jet received, the Air Force told us the following:

“Safety and security were at the forefront of this program. We deliberately minimized interior aesthetic modifications to focus on modifications for safety, security and mission execution. We assessed which requirements were necessary for an interim capability. We had greater flexibility in developing our mission requirements.

After safety and security, we focused on the mission communications systems.

We have made deliberate decisions such as the reduction of the number of airstairs, less chiller space, and exclusion of the Golden Eagle mission [to fly the remains of former presidents] to minimize structural modifications, while prioritizing modifications focused on safety, security and secure communications.”

We also asked whether this jet will be able to fly overseas and into higher-risk areas, but have not gotten a response. At this point, based on the limited info we have at this time, that seems unlikely. But if this is the case, the question then can be raised why the USAF is spending billions on two full-up Air Force One aircraft if standards have been so relaxed that this simpler aircraft can do all their missions? We will update this story with any pertinent details the USAF provides.

To help speed up the delivery process of this interim Air Force One jet, the Air Force said it “constructed an at-scale mockup of the interior, complete with virtual reality views, to enable early commissioning activities for White House staff.”

“Our commitment to providing the president with a secure, resilient and reliable airborne command post is unwavering,” said Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Ken Wilsbach. “The VC-25B Bridge program is a testament to the Air Force’s ability to innovate and rapidly evolve to ensure the continuity of our government under any conditions.”

The Air Force said the estimated delivery of Boeing’s VC-25Bs is now expected in 2028. If that holds up, then this ‘bridge’ aircraft will have served at most around two years until the first full-up VC-25B is delivered.

We will continue to follow developments in this program and provide updates when warranted.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The U.S. Air Force plans to fully retire its fleet of E-11A Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) aircraft in Fiscal Year 2028. The BACN jets provide highly specialized communications capabilities that allow for the rapid transfer of data between various aerial platforms, as well as forces on land and at sea, which you can read more about here. The Air Force more than doubled its fleet size in recent years, but now wants the mission to be taken over by space-based systems.

In their Posture Statement for Fiscal Year 2027, the Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach, and Space Force Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman state that the E-11A “will be fully divested” in FY2028.

In our previous coverage of the E-11A, we described the basic capabilities of the platform as follows:

The BACN payload is an extremely robust communications gateway that can rapidly send and receive data transmitted through various waveforms to and from a wide array of aerial platforms, as well as forces on the ground. In addition to being able to “translate” between various communications and data sharing systems, these aircraft have been vital communications relay nodes in Afghanistan, where the country’s mountainous terrain limits the reach of line-of-sight links.

In the short term, the capabilities provided by BACN will be bridged by the Hybrid SATCOM Terminal program. In a 2024 demonstration by Northrop Grumman, this type of satellite communications solution made use of commercial space Internet providers to establish a resilient multi-orbit, multi-constellation network.

The Posture Statement further adds that the Air Force is “executing a deliberate and balanced strategy for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), Battle Management Command and Control (BMC2), and Airborne Moving Target Indicator (AMTI) capabilities to meet the intent of the National Defense Strategy.”

This strategy includes “a generational shift away from legacy systems” like the E-11A and “towards next-generation capabilities in both air and space.” This also calls for continued investment in the DAF Battle Network, which is described as “a key capability to fuse sensor data and remain resilient against all adversaries.”

The Air Force has previously described the DAF Battle Network as an “integrated system-of-systems connecting sensor, effector, and logistics systems enabling better situational awareness, faster operational decisions, and decisive direction to the force.”

Another option could be BACN-like solutions provided in podded form to various aircraft. Examples of these include the Smart Node Pod from Northrop Grumman, which is already in production.

Until recently, the Air Force seemed very much committed to its BACN fleet.

Back in 2021, the service confirmed it planned to acquire six more E-11As over the next five years; this would provide a total of nine BACN jets. This reflected the high demand for the fleet, which meant all of the existing operational examples had historically been forward deployed in Afghanistan, where one of them crashed after suffering an engine failure in 2020.

The BACN fleet has also conducted extensive operations in the Persian Gulf region, Central and South America, and elsewhere.

The E-11A has remained active in combat operations up to this day, including being deployed in support of Operation Epic Fury against Iran. It was also involved in the operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, an effort known as Absolute Resolve.

Another driver behind the force expansion was the Air Force’s retirement of four EQ-4B Global Hawk drones that were also equipped with the BACN communications package. These were later converted into the RangeHawk configuration to support hypersonic testing.

In 2022, the Air Force confirmed that the first of the additional six E-11As was now operating in the Middle East, having formally joined the 430th Expeditionary Electronic Combat Squadron at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia.

It’s worth noting that the Air Force’s three oldest E-11As are based on older Bombardier BD-700 and Global 6000 business jets, while the newer airframes are based on the Global 6500 bizjet.

The aircraft has also taken on additional functions, such as in 2021, when at least one E-11A was involved in a combined U.S.-UAE exercise focused on employing “multiple platforms… together to execute and refine tactics, techniques and procedures to counter Unmanned Aerial System threats,” according to the Air Force.

In the past, we’ve also noted how the value of the BACN platform extends beyond Afghanistan and the Middle East.

Its capabilities would be equally useful for supporting operations over the vast expanses of the Pacific, where the U.S. military is increasingly focused on preparing for a potential future high-end conflict with China. It would also be suited to working on NATO’s eastern flank, where U.S. allies have been expanding their force posture in recent years to help deter Russian aggression.

More generally, as a fixed-wing bizjet platform, the E-11A lacks the low-observability characteristics to survive in highly contested airspace, so it would need to operate from considerable standoff distances when confronted by the kinds of peer- and near-peer adversaries that they are intended to help defeat. This is undoubtedly part of the reason for the Air Force deciding to discard the BACN fleet. In the same way, it also gave up its E-8C Joint STARS without any direct replacement, driven by the concern that platforms of this kind will simply be too vulnerable in the future.

After all, both China and Russia are developing very long-range anti-air missiles expected to be optimized for high-value targets such as BACN. In addition, airborne ISR platforms will increasingly face sophisticated anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) networks before they even get to their operating areas. 

Furthermore, pushing the E-11A further away from the warfighter is a fundamental problem for its mission, especially when it comes to connecting to forces on the ground. BACN works as a bridge between forces using disparate radios and even the same radios, and is particularly valuable since units on the ground that are trying to communicate with other units or aircraft can be blocked by line of sight, especially in terrain. Regardless, the farther the E-11A flies away from its target area, the less it is capable of providing meaningful connectivity to the forces operating there, just due to the horizon.

Ultimately, the E-11A’s high-demand, low-density status may also have counted against it. Even after the Air Force decided to increase the fleet numbers, it remains a highly niche capability and one that comes at a lot of cost, with an extensive training, maintenance, and logistics burden needed to support it.

The Air Force’s ambition to migrate the BACN’s capabilities to space-based assets parallels, to some degree, its aim for its future airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) architecture. However, the service does at least still see a need for traditional crewed AEW&C aircraft, too. Partly this is due to the fact that the Air Force does not expect new space-based capabilities to be operational before, at best, the early 2030s. The service is seeing a similar shift with its ground moving-target indicator (GMTI) capabilities, which are being transferred from the now-retired E-8C JSTARS to a distributed network of space-based sensors to keep tabs on targets on land and at sea.

At this stage, it’s far from clear whether the terminals required for BACN’s successor have already been installed on aircraft, ships, and issued to ground units, and whether the system will be able to translate Link 16 and other waveforms.

Time will tell if space-based assets can take over the BACN’s role in what is a notably abbreviated timeframe.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

EDMONTON, Canada — Leon Draisaitl scored a pair of goals and Evan Bouchard chipped in with three assists as the Edmonton Oilers staved off elimination by beating the Ducks 4-1 on Tuesday night.

The Oilers now trail the best-of-seven Western Conference playoff series 3-2 with Game 6 on Thursday night at Honda Center.

Vasily Podkolzin and Zach Hyman also scored for the Oilers who had previously yielded six separate leads to slip away in the first four games of the series.

Connor McDavid and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins each had a pair of assists. Edmonton is now 18-3 when scoring first in a game when facing elimination.

Alex Killorn scored for the Ducks.

Connor Ingram made 29 stops for Edmonton, while Ville Husso recorded 10 saves for the Ducks after coming in to relieve Lukas Dostal, who gave up three goals on nine shots.

For the fifth straight game the Oilers struck first, scoring on the game’s first shot just 2:22 into the contest as Podkolzin beat Dostal high for his second of the postseason.

Edmonton took a 2-0 lead 8:33 into the opening period as a point shot was deflected twice, the second time through Dostal’s legs by Hyman.

The Oilers took a 3-0 lead just 1:14 later as Draisaitl tipped Bouchard’s point shot in for his second of the playoffs. That spelled an early end of the night for Dostal.

The Ducks got on the board on the power play 8:26 into the second period as Mason McTavish dropped it back to Killorn, who extended his points streak to four games with his third goal of the playoffs.

Edmonton responded with a power-play goal a couple of minutes later on a one-timer by Draisaitl, who tied Wayne Gretzky for the most postseason power-play goals in franchise history at 23.

Edmonton has played the most playoff games of any NHL team since 2022 with 80, two more than the Florida Panthers, who beat the Oilers in the last two Stanley Cup Finals before failing to qualify this season.

Playing in his 80th playoff game, Bouchard collected his 88th point, moving into a tie for third place for players through 80 games with Brian Leetch, behind only Bobby Orr (92) and Paul Coffey (92).

McDavid (63 points) passed Adam Oates for the second-most points in NHL history when trailing in a playoff series. Only Gretzky (80) has more.

Despite on-again, off-again negotiations, the United States has no other option but to pursue a diplomatic solution with Iran, argues Vali Nasr, professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University.

Nasr tells host Steve Clemons that the US-Israel war on Iran has shown the limits of military force.

“You don’t go to the table to demand surrender. The other side is not going to surrender because they haven’t lost. So you have to cut a deal,” Nasr said, adding that Iran’s objective is to make sure the US and Israel understand that “war with Iran isn’t easy”.

An example of the U.K. Royal Air Force’s most iconic fighter, the Spitfire, flew in a series of air-to-air formations around the United Kingdom over the last two weeks, part of the 90th anniversary celebrations for the aircraft, which became legendary on account of its service in World War II. The nine-leg flight around the United Kingdom was completed Friday.

The Spitfire in question, a two-seater, was painted blue to represent the first prototype, K5054. The original K5054 first flew on March 5, 1936, and was piloted by Capt. Joseph “Mutt” Summers. It took off from Eastleigh Aerodrome, now Southampton Airport.

Popular history records that Summers uttered the words “I don’t want anything touched” when he climbed down from the cockpit. If he did say those words, it was almost certainly an instruction to the ground crew to leave the plane as it was before he took it up for his next test sortie. But the legend stuck.

Regardless, so promising was the new fighter that the Air Ministry placed a production order less than three months later, with trials still incomplete.

Eventually, more than 20,000 production examples would be built, and the Spitfire would be considered among the best all-round fighters of World War II, in which it played a key role from start to finish. The Royal Air Force didn’t fly its last operational Spitfire sortie until 1954, in Malaya.

The blue Spitfire seen in the accompanying images is actually a Mk IX, BS410, which crashed in May 1943, was recovered and rebuilt in the 2000s, and was converted into a two-seater, allowing for a passenger. It is currently privately owned.

Starting on April 7, the K5054-lookalike Spitfire joined up in the air with a host of modern types.

For the first flight, the Royal Air Force’s most advanced fighter, the F-35B Lightning, flew in formation with the Spitfire. This came just a matter of weeks after British F-35Bs shot down their first enemy aircraft — hostile drones over Jordan, during the conflict in the Middle East.

The formation flight involved two frontline F-35Bs from RAF Marham and two preserved Spitfires.

The other Spitfire, a Mk Vb, AB910, also saw combat in World War II, including covering the D-Day landings in Normandy. It is now part of the storied Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (BBMF).

For the first leg of its flight, the K5054-lookalike Spitfire flew from its birthplace of Southampton Airport to RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, still a major fighter hub.

While the Spitfire and F-35 could hardly be more different in terms of performance and technologies, both have served the Royal Air Force as its premier frontline fighter. Like its forebear, the F-35B is also now proven in aerial combat, albeit against drones.

On March 6 this year, the Royal Air Force announced that an F-35B pilot had carried out the aircraft’s first combat shootdown in British hands, intercepting and destroying two hostile drones during an operation over Jordan the same week.

“The pilot, flying alongside two Typhoons from RAF Akrotiri, detected the drones on radar and engaged them with two ASRAAM missiles,” the Royal Air Force said in its statement. The pilot, although assigned to No. 617 Squadron of the Royal Air Force, was serving with the Royal Navy, reflecting the joint nature of the U.K. F-35B force.

The incident followed a separate attack in which a small, low‑speed drone struck RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus after evading base defenses, which were subsequently much enhanced.

Flight two, out of RAF Coningsby, on April 8, saw the Spitfire fly alongside Royal Air Force Red Arrows Hawks and a Phenom T1 trainer.

The Red Arrows flying alongside the Spitfire on Day 2 of the commemorative tour of GB. Two Hawks accompanied her for part of the flight from RAF Coningsby to Leuchars Station. (Photo: Darren Harbar) #Spitfire90 pic.twitter.com/Y4ioabXnoI

— Jane (@JaneFranklin99) April 8, 2026

The third flight, out of RAF Leuchars, on April 9, involved a Royal Air Force P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.

Flight four, on April 10, brought the Spitfire to Scotland, where it flew out of RAF Lossiemouth with a pair of Royal Air Force Typhoon fighters.

Remaining in Scotland, the fifth flight, on April 13, out of Prestwick Airport, teamed the Spitfire with a Royal Air Force Hawk T2 trainer.

Flight six, on April 14, out of RAF Valley, Wales, involved the Spitfire and two current Royal Air Force training types: a Texan T1 turboprop and a Jupiter HT1 helicopter.

Flight seven, on April 15, out of MOD St Athan, provided a formation with two QinetiQ Pilatus PC-21 trainers.

Flight eight, on April 16, out of MOD St Mawgan, involved a Royal Air Force A400M transport.

For the ninth and final flight, on April 17, the Spitfire departed Exeter Airport and met up alongside the BBMF’s Dakota as it flew back to Southampton Airport.

While not unique, the Royal Air Force doesn’t regularly pair current and historic fighters for displays in the way the U.S. Air Force does with its Heritage Flight. This puts together formations of modern jets flying with fighters from the World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War eras, such as the P-51 Mustang and F-86 Sabre.

This makes the series of Spitfire flights all the more special. On each of these flights, one lucky (and deep-pocketed) passenger was in the backseat of the Spitfire, having bid for the chance to do so. The money earned will go to support service-related charities.

For the rest of us, we can enjoy some of the spectacular imagery captured as this special Spitfire completed its countrywide odyssey.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The U.S. Air Force has begun test flights on an extremely lavish 747-8i Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) that Qatar donated to the U.S. last year for use by President Donald Trump. The jet, now dubbed VC-25B Bridge Aircraft, is set to serve in the Air Force One role while the White House awaits the extremely delayed delivery from Boeing of two fully-outfitted VC-25B Air Force One aircraft 

“I can confirm that the VC-25B Bridge Aircraft has begun flight test,” an Air Force spokesperson told The War Zone Friday afternoon. “We expect the aircraft will be delivered to the Presidential Airlift Group no later than summer 2026.”

Aviation Week was the first to report the news of the test flight.

The Air Force declined to provide additional information about the testing program, including when it began or how many flights have taken place. It also remains unclear when the 747-8i will conduct real VIP missions or if it will receive a new official designation. With questions swirling about the legality and ethics of a president receiving a gift plane, the Pentagon last May took delivery of the aircraft and said it would rapidly undertake the required modifications.

The jet, using the call sign VADER01, was spotted by flight trackers over Texas yesterday. It took off from Majors Field in Greenville, Texas, flew over Tulsa, Oklahoma, Amarillo and Abilene, Texas, before landing back at Majors Field. The airport is home to L3 Technologies, which is modifying the jet. The facility at Greenville is a hub for this exact kind of modification work on the Pentagon’s larger aircraft.

Video and photos taken by aviation photographers show that the aircraft was in a white base livery, though it will reportedly get Trump’s red, dark blue and white paint scheme. The aircraft was delivered from Qatar in its maroon, white and gray striped scheme originally.

Aviation photographer TT-33 operator was kind enough to share some images with us. The photos were captured as the aircraft was landing at Majors Field yesterday. You can see more of his work here.

The photos show remarkably few modifications to the VC-25B Bridge Aircraft’s communications system, which already had an extensive broadband satellite communications suite when Qatar handed it over. These additions include a handfuls of new aerials and what appear to be two UHF satcom ‘platter’ antennas.

As TWZ has previously noted, converting any aircraft into one that is secure and safe enough to transport the president is a complex undertaking. The aircraft needs to provide constant, secure communications, including what is needed to order a nuclear strike. Historically, it also needs to be physically hardened both inside and out to withstand myriad threats, from the electromagnetic pulse of a nuclear weapon going off to incoming surface-to-air missiles to enemy intelligence-gathering efforts. To do this requires significant modifications right down to the aircraft’s outer structure.

In this case, it is likely impossible for the jet to receive EMP hardening and, at least based on the limited photos available, we cannot find any clear additions that would indicate the installation of an integrated self defense suite of any kind. The VC-25As are speckled with missile approach warning sensors and many laser countermeasures turrets (DIRCM). They also include the legacy Matador infrared countermeasure system above their jet engines and APU. This is in addition to other defensive features which are less visible and remain closely guarded secrets.

Common Infrared Countermeasures (CIRCM)

At the very least, this aircraft will have to feature some kind of DIRCM setup to repel shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles, and modular units are available that can be attached in a canoe to the bottom of the aircraft. These systems, such as Elbit’s C-MUSIC or Northrop Grumman’s Guardian, are in service with foreign VVIP 747s, as well as commercial aircraft, including those flying for Israeli airline El Al. You can read all about these systems here. Still, while they offer far less defensive capacity compared to what is seen under the belly of a VC-25A, they would offer a significant layer of protection.

It’s also possible a more elaborate and fully integrated defensive system could be installed in the coming weeks, but it’s hard to imagine this would allow the jet to enter service this summer.

Adding a further layer of complexity to the procurement and fielding process of any new presidential airlift aircraft, there are tight controls around sourcing spares for aircraft with this mission, and specific rules about vetting individual parts to protect against espionage and sabotage. Clearly many practices and requirements had to be relaxed in order to rush this ‘bridge’ aircraft into service.

There are also questions about where this jet could actually fly operationally. Without a fully specialized design meeting all the requirements for the traditional Air Force One mission, it will likely be limited to domestic use or other very low threat areas. Given all that, and its reported conversion price tag approaching $400 million, there are legitimate questions about why it is needed at all.

As we noted earlier in this story, the flight test of this aircraft came as Boeing is far behind in the process of converting two other 747-8is originally built as commercial airliners into new fully customized VC-25B Air Force One aircraft. This led to the emergence of Trump’s idea of procuring an ‘interim’ Air Force One.

On Friday, the Air Force told us that it “is collaborating with Boeing to implement acceleration initiatives and expect the first delivery of the VC-25B in mid-2028.” If this is the case, then this ‘bridge’ aircraft will have served at most around two years until the first full-up VC-25B is delivered.

We have reached out to Boeing for additional details.

While it is not yet known when the ‘bridge’ VC-25B will actually transport the president, we know there is great pressure to get it doing exactly that from the White House. Judging by its configuration so far, whatever possible appears to have been done to make that happen.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Their backgrounds stand out. And not in a good way.

Two bankruptcies and six law enforcement jobs in three years. An allegation of lying in a police report to justify a felony charge against an innocent woman — an incident that led to a $75,000 settlement and criticism of his integrity. A third job candidate once failed to graduate from a police academy, then lasted only three weeks in his only job as a police officer.

Their common bond: All were hired recently by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during an unprecedented hiring spree — 12,000 new officers and special agents to double its force — after the agency received a $75-billion windfall from Congress to enact President Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

The president put a premium on swift action, and for ICE that meant rapid-fire recruitment and hiring, which in turn led to new employees with questionable qualifications. Their backgrounds and training have come under scrutiny after numerous high-profile incidents in which ICE agents used excessive force.

“If vetting is not done well and it’s done too quickly, you have higher risk of increased liability to the agency because of bad actions, abuse of power and the lack of ability to properly carry out the mission because people don’t know what they are doing,” said Claire Trickler-McNulty, who served as an ICE official during the Obama, first Trump and Biden administrations.

The agency has said the majority of new hires are police and military veterans. But evidence is mounting that applicants with questionable histories were either not fully vetted before they were brought on or were hired in spite of their past, an investigation by the Associated Press found.

ICE’s acting director, Todd Lyons, said during a congressional hearing in February that he was proud of the hiring campaign, which drew more than 220,000 applications. “This expansion of a well-trained and well-vetted workforce will help further ICE’s ability to execute the president’s and secretary’s bold agenda,” he said.

AP finds legal issues in new ICE hires’ backgrounds

Unlike many local law enforcement agencies, ICE said it shields the identity of employees to protect them from harassment, making a full accounting of the new hires impossible.

The AP focused on more than 40 officers who recently made public their new jobs as ICE officers on LinkedIn pages, using public records to check their backgrounds. All but one were male.

While most of them had conventional qualifications as former correctional officers, security guards, military veterans and police officers, it’s unclear how many should have potentially been disqualified because AP did not have access to their full personnel files. But several had histories of unpaid debts that resulted in legal action, two had filed for bankruptcy and three others had faced lawsuits that alleged misconduct in prior law enforcement jobs, the AP found.

Marshall Jones, an expert on police recruiting at the Florida Institute of Technology, said it’s hard to get a full picture of ICE’s new employee pool without more data. But he said ICE has likely hired some “less than ideal candidates” who meet minimum requirements but would be passed over in a normal hiring cycle.

“If you’re hiring hundreds or thousands of people, even with the best of background processes, there are going to be outliers,” he said. “The question is, are these normal outliers from human beings doing things, or is there a systemic challenge in properly vetting folks if there are issues?”

DHS says ‘vetting is an ongoing process’

The Department of Homeland Security, ICE’s parent agency, did not answer questions about specific hiring decisions. But it acknowledged some applicants received “tentative selection letters” and offers to begin working on a temporary status before they had been subjected to full background checks.

“ICE is committed to ensuring its law enforcement personnel are held to the highest standards and rigorously vets them throughout the hiring process,” the department said. “Vetting is an ongoing process, not a one-time occurrence.”

The process includes reviewing their criminal histories and credit scores and conducting background investigations that include interviewing prior employers and other associates, which can take weeks. But the deluge of hires has strained the agency, which promised signing bonuses of up to $50,000 and advertised that college degrees were not required.

An internal memo, first reported by Reuters in February, told ICE supervisors that if they receive “derogatory information about a newly hired employee’s conduct” they should refer the allegations to an internal affairs unit for investigation. Such information could include the employees’ termination or forced resignations, the memo said.

Two bankruptcies, six jobs before ICE hired him

Among the new hires is Carmine Gurliacci, 46, who resigned as a police officer in Richmond Hill, Ga., to join ICE in Atlanta in December, according to a resignation letter obtained by AP.

He filed for bankruptcy in 2022, saying he had no income and had been unemployed for two years after moving from New York to Georgia, court filings show. He said he was living with a friend and doing chores in exchange for housing, listing tens of thousands of dollars of unpaid loans, bills, child support and other debts. He also had filed for bankruptcy in 2013 in New York, when he listed $95,000 in liabilities, records show.

Serious financial problems are “a pretty big red flag” because they might make employees susceptible to bribes or extortion, which have been problems at ICE, Trickler-McNulty said.

After his 2022 bankruptcy petition was approved, Gurliacci rejoined the work force, hopping to six Georgia law enforcement agencies within three years, each time resigning before moving on, records obtained by AP show.

He left one campus security job in 2023, citing “unforeseen personal issues that render me unable to fulfill my duties,” a resignation letter shows. But he then began working for the Butts County Sheriff’s Office soon after.

He lasted months there before moving to the Chatham County Sheriff’s Office, where he quit after two months on the job, records show. The federal government recently obtained his Chatham County personnel file as part of a background check, two months after he started at ICE.

Reached by phone, Gurliacci told a reporter he would call back. He never did and did not respond to follow-up messages.

Critic says new ICE hire ‘abuses his power’

Another new hire is Andrew Penland, 29, who joined ICE after resigning in December as a sheriff’s deputy in Greenwood County, Kansas.

Penland had spent most of his career as a deputy in Bourbon County, Kansas, but left last year after facing a lawsuit alleging he arrested a woman on false allegations in 2022. The county’s insurer paid $75,000 to settle the case, the agreement shows.

The woman, June Bench, recounted in an interview what happened. One of her neighbors, a county official, claimed Bench had purposely made a wide turn and nearly hit him with her car.

Penland responded to the property. Body camera video shows he urged the neighbor to press charges and told the man Bench would go to jail but he would not have to testify in court because it would get resolved through a plea.

Bench denied the allegation and said it was part of a personal dispute. But Penland arrested her on a felony assault charge, took her to jail and seized her car. Penland wrote in a report that he watched surveillance video showing her neighbor jumping out of the way of her speeding car.

It took a week for Bench to get out of jail and more than a year to defeat the charge, which was dismissed for lack of evidence. When she obtained the video Penland cited as proof, it showed her car appearing to make a routine turn and no near-collision with the neighbor.

Bench said she was outraged to learn Penland had been hired by ICE.

“That’s scary to me. He abuses his power,” she said.

After being reached for comment, Penland deactivated his LinkedIn account and alerted ICE to the inquiry but did not respond to AP.

New hire struggled at police academy

A third new ICE hire, Antonio Barrett, initially failed to graduate from a Colorado law enforcement academy in 2020, one of two students who did not “complete portions of the academy” and received “an incomplete grade,” an email obtained by AP shows.

He finished the program after a community college arranged a special one-day training and test for him, and landed a job at the police department in La Junta, Colo., in July 2020. But he worked only three weeks before resigning and never worked in local policing again.

Previously, Barrett worked as a corrections officer at a Colorado prison.

He was accused in a lawsuit of excessive force for inflicting pain on a handcuffed inmate when he and another colleague forcibly removed the man from a wheelchair in 2017. But state officials argued their actions were not excessive and a court agreed, dismissing the case.

Barrett didn’t respond to a message seeking comment.

Ex-ICE instructor says training is inadequate

ICE has denied removing any training requirements, saying new recruits receive 56 days of training and 28 days of on-the-job training. The agency said that most of the new officers have already completed law enforcement academies.

But former ICE academy instructor Ryan Schwank testified in February that agency leaders cut training on the use of force, firearms safety and the rights of protesters. He said the new recruits include some as young as 18 who lack college degrees and whose primary language is not English.

“We’re not giving them the training to know when they’re being asked to do something that they’re not supposed to do, something illegal or wrong,” he said.

Foley writes for the Associated Press.

Thrift store millionaire Ray Ellison leaned back in his office chair and laughed.

He knows a liar when he sees one, he said. And he knows a liberal. He doesn’t like either.

“I called him a slimeball, scum-sucking liar,” said Ellison, 65, reciting a description of then-Ventura Mayor Dennis Orrock that he painted on a truck parked near a freeway in 1984.

Ellison took on the mayor’s ally the following year, dubbing Councilwoman Pati Longo “The Phony with The Toni” in full-page newspaper ads that declared her a liar, too.

In 1991, Ellison’s large ads depicted Councilman Donald Villeneuve astride a defecating bull, stating: “Screw the Marketplace.” Last fall, two councilmen and a challenger were featured as smiling fish in ads titled: “A Fish Stinks From The Head. Take A Sniff of These.”

Of the forces that have reshaped Ventura’s political landscape in recent years–pushing campaigns to increasingly personal attacks–none has been consistently harsher than Raymond W. Ellison.

Spending tens of thousands of dollars, including at least $14,000 last fall, Ellison has been described by critics as Ventura’s godfather of mudslinging.

“Based on the ads he ran, I would judge him to be venal and mean, coarse and crass,” said former Councilman Todd Collart, defeated Nov. 5 after he was caricatured as a smelly fish. “He continues to set lower and lower standards to be aimed for by others. And that works against good people seeking elective office.”

Councilman Gary Tuttle–also featured in the “fish ads”–said he considered not running for a second term last year because of Ellison.

“I knew he was going to come after me, and I had to think, ‘Do I want to put my family through this?’ ” he said. “My mom, my wife, my sisters, they got very upset. The Tuttle name has always been a positive in this community.”

Even some candidates backed by Ellison distanced themselves from his methods. Newly elected Councilwoman Rosa Lee Measures called a press conference before the election to say she was not associated with Ellison, and asked that he cancel future ads.

Councilman James Monahan, a recipient of Ellison political assistance for 16 years, said recently that he does not condone his friend’s advertisements, because they “can have a negative effect on everyone. You can turn people off.”

But to many of Ellison’s political allies and friends, the Ventura businessman is far more complicated and admirable than his crude public persona might suggest. And his opinions–though presented in a blunt style–air the frustrations of Ventura’s business community, they said.

Supporters say Ellison holds work, family and religion most dear–that he is generous in his donations to church and charity and in his employment of society’s least employable.

A high school dropout turned business whiz, Ellison says he started the nation’s first privately owned thrift store in 1948 with money he earned as a paratrooper in World War II. Now semi-retired, he claims about 1,300 employees in the 28 stores he and his two sons own or operate in seven states.

Officials at organizations for war veterans say Ellison’s thrift stores keep them in business by paying the charities millions of dollars a year for donated goods or by operating charity-owned stores at a healthy profit.

“The United States could use more Ray Ellisons,” said Jim Pechin, business manager for the Vietnam Veterans of America in Washington. “We probably wouldn’t be here today without Ray, because he developed our funding base.”

Locally, Ellison donates to charity golf tournaments and gives time and money to the First Baptist Church of Ventura. In recent days, he helped decorate the church for Christmas dinners–then washed dishes afterward.

“He’s just a very helpful, generous man,” said Nick Bailey, a church associate pastor. “He’s not afraid when he sees needs in the church community and in the ministry here to be a part of the solution.”

*

Ventura attorney William D. Fairfield, who has known Ellison for 20 years, said of his friend:

“I have tremendous respect for this man–for his integrity, for his business acumen, for him as a family man. And I think he’s done more for this community than any single individual by asking public officials to be accountable.”

Banker Bob Alviani, president-elect of the Ventura Chamber of Commerce, said the comments of Ellison–whose philosophy is pro-growth, pro-business and anti-government waste–reflect the sentiments of others.

“I don’t think Ray Ellison is alone in his feelings or alone in how he expresses his opinion,” Alviani said. “If he wants to pay the price to say what he’s saying, fine. If you take it to heart, fine. If you choose to ignore it, fine too.

“The wonderful thing about our politics in this country is that a person has a right to say whatever they want,” Alviani said.

Gruff, lean and balding, Ellison is skittish about public attention. He wants to have his say every so often in political advertisements and letters to the editor, and leave it at that.

But the nature of his business–and his family’s pioneer role in it–have prompted a series of television and newspaper reporters to knock at his door.

“I’ve had lots of stories,” Ellison said in a recent interview. “You name it–NBC, CBS, ’60 Minutes,’ ‘The Today Show.’ . . . It’s a big pain in the ass.”

The theme of those stories, including a 1987 investigation by The Times, has been that private thrift store operators such as Ellison use charities’ names to collect tax-deductible donations of clothes and household goods, then sell them for large profits, most of which go into the pockets of the operators and not the programs of charities.

*

The Times’ investigation found that private thrift store operators nationwide typically made $1.50 for each $1 the charities got. Ellison, his extended family and the Ellisons’ former employees dominate the private thrift store industry, The Times found.

But in Ray Ellison’s case, the charities generally have not complained about the revenue they receive from the stores he owns or manages for them. They say their share of profits is higher than industry standards. For instance, charity profits reach about $1.45 million a year–about two-thirds of the total profit–at five stores owned by the Disabled American Veterans organization of Colorado and operated by Ellison.

“Ray runs the Cadillac of the thrift store management,” said Fred Friedrich, president of the DAV’s Colorado thrift store committee. “The guy’s good. He’s got a lot of respect out here.”

Ellison’s Ventura-based M & M Management wrote checks totaling $7 million to veterans’ groups last year, including $4 million in profit from the 28 stores, he said. He won’t say how much his company earned, but he has prospered.

Ellison and his family valued M & M at $5 million in 1985, according to public records. His two sons, Matthew and Mark, and the husbands of his two daughters all work in the family business, Ellison said.

Ellison’s 142-acre ranch just north of Ventura is for sale for $3 million. He has a condominium in Colorado, where he spends summers and holidays. His family owns most of the 28 stores they operate. He’s a real estate developer in Texas, where he recently sold 40 acres to Wal-Mart, and in Washington state, where he’s building a 180-house subdivision and shopping center.

Ellison’s prosperity is surely greater than he could have imagined as a Depression-era son of a Salvation Army officer. As a boy, he said he struggled in school because of frequent family moves along the West Coast, and dropped out in ninth grade.

*

But he began to learn the skills that would make him rich. He remembers watching his parents directing teams of men sorting salvaged goods for the Salvation Army.

Family lore credits his mother, Stella, with coining the term “thrift shop” as the Ellisons helped the Salvation Army transform its bulk salvage operation into a retail one in the 1930s.

Eventually Ellison’s father, Orlo, and four uncles all entered the private thrift store business. But it was young Ray and one uncle who Ellison said started the first private thrift store 46 years ago in Santa Ana with $3,500.

By 1965, Ellison, who lived in Ventura briefly in 1947, had returned to the city with his wife, Sue, a Westmont College graduate, to raise his two sons and two daughters, Ellison said.

Since then, Ellison has left a legacy of hard work and hard feelings.

Even in semi-retirement, the Montana-born Ellison said it is not uncommon for him to arrive at M & M’s national accounting office on Main Street in Ventura by 4 a.m.

“Get your buns out of bed, get your work done before the traffic gets too heavy, then go home and enjoy your family,” Ellison once wrote.

In a recent written statement, Ellison described his children and their spouses, all Ventura residents, as loving and hard working. “Neither they, or my wife and I attend social functions, bridge parties, or have our names associated in any way with playing Santa Claus. Our lives focus around our families, church, friends and business,” he wrote.

Despite such tendencies, Ellison has become well known, first as the Ventura Keys homeowner who led a successful seven-year legal battle against the Ventura Port District to force dredging at the mouth of Ventura Harbor.

The 1968 case cost Ellison $50,000 in fees, but is now cited in law school textbooks as an example of a citizen forcing government to keep its word, he said. More recently, he lost two lawsuits that challenged Ventura County’s General Plan and rezoning policies because of changes he claimed lowered the value of his ranch.

“I have no use for people who lie or abuse their authority to rule over me,” he said in a written explanation of the lawsuits. “I give due respect to every type of authority until that body proves unworthy.”

*

Ellison’s dramatic public entry into Ventura politics came in 1984, when he warned the Ventura City Council not to appoint attorney Dennis Orrock mayor, then attacked Orrock so tenaciously that the new mayor asked the council to appoint an ethics committee to investigate the charges.

On one large sign he placed near a freeway on-ramp, Ellison wrote: “For sale cheap, slightly used mayor. Outstanding qualifications. Unethical. Deceitful. Lies Frequently.”

“I still have the sign,” Ellison said with a laugh.

Ellison claimed Orrock, who years before had represented Ellison and other investors in an ill-fated business deal, knew or should have known that the deal’s promoter had failed elsewhere with similar proposals.

Orrock denied the accusation. And after hours of testimony, all carried on local cable television at Ellison’s expense, the ethics committee cleared Orrock of any wrongdoing.

“That was the first time it got nasty,” remembered John McWherter, a councilman for 18 years ending in 1991. “That was the first time that a personal vendetta had come into City Council politics.”

Orrock said he has not seen or spoken with Ellison since. And despite the “hurtful memories,” he even jokes about the experience.

“In 1984, he elevated me to one of 10 movers and shakers in the area, because I was on the front page of the newspaper for 23 days,” Orrock said. “I don’t know what motivates Mr. Ellison. The guy is kind of an enigma.”

Ellison said his motive was that Orrock was not fit to be mayor. The hearings were a whitewash, Ellison said, but that was OK because Orrock did not seek another council term.

“It was my intention that he never run again for anything,” Ellison said. “I didn’t care about the (lost investment). The money didn’t mean squat. I cared about who would represent the city.”

In 1985, Ellison took on Pati Longo. The councilwoman–whose politics were conservative and pro-business like Orrock’s and Ellison’s–had defended Orrock in his squabble with Ellison.

*

Ellison bought a series of newspaper ads attacking her as a phony who had lied to the grand jury. He cited her admissions that she had been evasive when asked if she’d discussed the closed-door proceedings with others.

“I figured the public had a right to know, because she would have been mayor,” Ellison said.

Longo, who lost her bid for reelection, said she thinks Ellison’s reason for challenging both her and Orrock, and in opposing Villeneuve in 1991 and Collart last year, was to improve Monahan’s chances of being mayor.

“Ray Ellison’s motivation was that Jim Monahan had always been his resident politician,” Longo said. So when Monahan had a chance at the mayoralty, Ellison attacked the favorite, she said.

Villeneuve said he also sees a connection between Ellison’s attacks and Monahan’s political fortunes and agenda.

“His interest in politics is in the form of personal vendetta for somebody he disagrees with in ideology or most often in a very personal sense,” Villeneuve said. “He attempts to parallel his protege, Jim Monahan. I’ve had to sit and listen to Jim Monahan extolling the virtues of Ray Ellison. It’s almost hero worship.”

Both Monahan and Ellison said they are friends who generally see eye-to-eye politically. Ellison will occasionally check with Monahan on issues, they said. Ellison said he doesn’t follow politics closely and will ask Monahan about his reelection plans and the voting records of other council members. But he said he doesn’t ask Monahan’s advice.

“I know that Jim can fill me in if I’m wrong on how somebody has voted,” Ellison said. “I don’t even take the (local) newspaper. I don’t go to council meetings any more. I haven’t for many years. I can get behind on my facts. So I call Jim, or somebody else, but normally Jim.”

Monahan said he has never recommended who Ellison should oppose or support in an election.

“Believe me, he knows how to make up his own mind,” the councilman said. “Ray’s the kind of guy who’s a loner. He does everything on his own.”

*

Monahan said Ellison has helped Ventura politics by bringing information to voters, but he said he didn’t care for the recent fish ads, and thought the Orrock hearings were an unnecessary “dog-and-pony show. That was a sad day for everybody.”

If Ellison opposed Orrock and Longo for perceived ethical shortcomings, he said he opposed Villeneuve two years ago and Collart, Tuttle and environmentalist challenger Steve Bennett this year because he did not agree with their politics.

“They’re discouraging almost carte blanche what needs to be done to rejuvenate the city. What it amounts to is no growth,” he said. “They don’t allow anything that will generate money. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on stupid studies.”

That was as detailed as Ellison got in critiques of his political opponents during two recent interviews. He had trouble remembering what he had written about them in campaign ads. At one point, he read his Villeneuve ad to refresh his memory about the councilman’s principal flaws.

“Let’s see what I had to say here,” he said. “Well, yeah, I did look up his votes. I ought to keep this crap (advertisements). . . . I don’t remember them. I just make them up and forget about them.”

In the Villeneuve ads–as with his fish ads–Ellison stated his pro-business philosophy and lashed his “liberal” opponents. He said his colorful headlines were only a way to grab voters so they will read his full message.

“You have to get people’s attention,” he said.

He does that. For example, in a Villeneuve ad segment titled “To Wee or Not to Wee,” Ellison repeated a second-hand comment Villeneuve allegedly made at a City Hall urinal during a break in a hearing about dredging the Ventura Keys.

Villeneuve and former Mayor Richard Francis, who had battled Monahan before leaving the council in 1991, said they responded with their own negative campaign this fall.

*

Some of their “Anyone but Monahan” ads were more personal and biting than Ellison’s fish ads, especially a radio spot late in the campaign.

“I knew his ads were coming,” said Francis, a Ventura attorney. “I didn’t want to start slinging mud, but if mud is going to get slung and you’re going to get dirty anyway, you may as well get into the fray.”

Monahan doesn’t accept that explanation. “Richard Francis took a personal attack on me that was far worse than Ray’s comments about these other three,” he said.

Nor does Monahan think it’s fair that Ellison is seen as “the special interest in the black hat,” while Patagonia, an environmentalist clothing company that spent about $15,000 in the last campaign, “is seen as the special interest in the white hat.”

Patagonia owner Yvon Chouinard “doesn’t give a damn about anybody else’s business but his own,” Monahan said. “Ray Ellison cares about everybody’s business, and he’s willing to stick his neck out for it.”

Patagonia spokesman Paul Tebbel said the big difference between the two is that Patagonia endorses candidates positively, while Ellison attacks them personally.

“He’s strongly within his rights to do that,” Tebbel said, “I just hate to see Ventura politics reduced to who can put out the strongest negative ad.”

Ellison did also buy some endorsement ads last fall, backing Measures, Monahan and Clark Owens.

Whether Ellison has had much impact on election results is an open question. Longo, Villeneuve and Collart, who all lost their races after Ellison’s criticisms, think he has. Tuttle, who placed only fourth last fall, does too.

Others, including McWherter and Monahan, said that Longo, Villeneuve and Collart were vulnerable anyway.

As for himself, Ellison thinks his types of ads work. “I think it’s very effective,” he said.

Ellison said he recognizes the personal pain his ads may cause. Public criticism following news stories about his thrift stores has hurt his family too, he said.

“I feel sorry about that,” he said. “They all have kids. Just like our kids went to school and had to put up with having negative things said about their dad. It’s hard on them. But they become accustomed to it over a period of time. . . . It goes with the territory.”

Yet Ellison felt compelled to write a letter of explanation to Collart shortly after the councilman lost in November.

“I imagine you consider me a callous and insensitive disgrace to society,” Ellison wrote.

He said he respected Collart and considered him truthful. “I wish you well, apologize if you took personal offense to my methods, and thank you for your service,” he wrote.

But within the same letter may be an indication of things to come during the campaign of 1995.

While praising Collart for being true to campaign promises, Ellison chastised those “who forgot . . . what they were elected to do.” He pointedly mentioned Mayor Tom Buford and former Mayor Greg Carson as examples of two who have “breached their stated positions.”

*

Carson and Buford, both originally backed by the business community, have been criticized by some businessmen for votes over the last two years. And Ellison referred to Carson in his fish ads as a weak conservative enticed by liberals with the promise of the mayor’s job.

Nursery owner Carson, who describes himself as a moderate and insists he’s broken no promises, said he first felt Ellison’s sting after council members chose him mayor two years ago.

Ellison immediately telephoned Carson to tell him he had considered him “a nice young man,” but now believed he was a jerk, Carson said. “He was upset because Jim Monahan didn’t become mayor.”

Carson said he considers Ellison’s ads detrimental to Ventura politics, and he said the specter of Ellison would not deter him in 1995.

“Somebody like Ray Ellison doesn’t scare me,” Carson said. “If anything, people like Ray Ellison would be a reason I would run.”