future

Photograph by unknown author. “Trabajadores petroleros,” Fernando Irazábal Collection. Compiled by Archivo Fotografía Urbana.

On January 29, Venezuela experienced a legislative tectonic shift regarding the future of its hydrocarbon sector. The National Assembly approved a new petroleum law that effectively breaks with the post-1976 tradition of rigid state control, opening participation across the full value chain to private oil companies. 

This is not the first experiment with private participation since nationalization, but it is the clearest attempt since the 1990s Apertura to normalize it as the governing framework of the sector. The legislation, approved with striking speed and opacity, has elicited mixed reactions, ranging from denunciations of lost sovereignty and surrender to foreign interests to support for a first step that still requires major fixes. Despite these divergences, one thing is clear: the return of private companies to Venezuela’s oil sector inevitably revives parallels with the concessionary system under which the industry was born and flourished between 1914 and 1976, a mirror of what Venezuela’s energy sector could become in the twenty-first century.

The 1943 and 2026 hydrocarbons laws

The iconic 1943 bill enacted by President Isaías Medina Angarita (1941–1945) regulated Venezuela’s privately run oil industry until the 1976 nationalization. It became the institutional template of the concessionary era: a rules-and-taxes state overseeing a privately operated industry. Together with related legislation, it established the famous 50/50 profit-sharing arrangement with the state, later tightened by reforms. Yet within the 1943 framework, the rentier state largely confined itself to setting the rules and collecting taxes and rents, while private companies assumed the capital risks. There was no government monopoly over day-to-day operations.

In spirit, the 2026 law reintroduces comparable conditions for private capital. Petroleum companies can now either hold operational control in joint ventures with the state or carry out activities independently through government contracts. The 1943 and 2026 frameworks also embrace flexible royalty schemes that prioritize business viability over rigid tax burdens. Differences, of course, abound. To mention a few, the 2026 version concentrates discretionary power in the executive branch regarding royalties, opens the possibility of international arbitration outside the country, simplifies the tax burden into a 15% integrated hydrocarbons tax, and diminishes the National Assembly’s authority over oil business.

The Venezolanization pioneered by firms like the Creole Petroleum Corporation, Royal Dutch Shell, Mene Grande Oil Company, and many others also became an exercise in social integration.

Divergences aside, both pieces of legislation share the same underlying imperative: attracting capital and technology. The 1976 and 2001 hydrocarbons laws, by contrast, were designed precisely to limit private initiative. But investment alone will not do all the work. Human capital is also desperately needed to lead a reborn hydrocarbon sector, and here the concessions model offers valuable lessons.

The Venezolanization of the industry

An underappreciated dimension of that era was human capital development. Over decades, foreign firms trained Venezuelans across the corporate hierarchy—in technical, managerial, and executive roles—so that by the mid-1970s expatriates were a small fraction of the workforce and Venezuelans increasingly ran the day-to-day business. This created a pipeline of local talent able to inherit operational responsibility and manage the 1976 transition to state control with unusual continuity.

This history is not nostalgia for a bygone era, but a lesson worth highlighting. Venezuela’s oil collapse in this century is inseparable from the degradation of corporate culture and human capital, deepened by the politicization of the industry. It triggered a professional brain drain and the hollowing out of operational efficiency. Multinationals like Chevron, and others that may follow, should explicitly lean on a “Venezolanization 2.0” that engages local talent still in the country and encourages the return of a diaspora of Venezuelan managers and engineers now abroad. Insulating the sector from partisan hiring and purging is essential if these cadres are to operate with full competence.

The Venezolanization pioneered by firms like the Creole Petroleum Corporation, Royal Dutch Shell, Mene Grande Oil Company, and many others also became an exercise in social integration. Many American expatriates, like Creole’s CEO Arthur T. Proudfit, embraced the social milieu of the country that welcomed them, often learning the language and speaking it fluently; his daughter even married a local businessman. In exchange, Venezuelans trained abroad and working for these firms absorbed US professional values and traditions. This cultural exchange helped forge durable bonds between both countries and contributed to the successful presence of foreign capital in Venezuela. And these corporations did not stop at their payrolls. They understood that long-term success in the hydrocarbon sector extended beyond employees to the surrounding communities of the oil fields, and beyond.

Social license

Creole, Shell, and Mene Grande undertook significant investments in the country. In the oilfields, they negotiated lucrative labor contracts with unions. They also financed hospitals, university campuses, and other infrastructure projects. These firms even joined the state in ventures like the Venezuelan Basic Economy Corporation to fund agro-industrial projects aimed at diversifying the economy, while supporting rural communities through initiatives such as the American International Association. They left an indelible imprint on everyday life, from how Venezuelans shopped through market chains like CADA, to culture through documentaries, corporate magazines, and even TV news programs like Observador Creole.

More importantly, they built alliances with domestic capitalists like Eugenio Mendoza to address social problems. Creole and Venezuelan business leaders, for instance, institutionalized private-sector social action through organizations like the Dividendo Voluntario para la Comunidad (DVC), founded in 1964 to mobilize corporate contributions toward community projects. This nonprofit continues to exist today, fulfilling the original goal of social action bequeathed by American and Venezuelan businessmen more than sixty years ago. Creole also created the Creole Development Corporation, a financial arm designed to provide seed capital for local entrepreneurial activity. This was hardly a frictionless era, but it shows how legitimacy was treated as a condition of stability.

Contributions to health, schools, and infrastructure would also ease the state’s burden and allow it to focus on critical nation-building emergencies.

This largesse reached widely, but it was not mere corporate charity. To avoid jeopardizing their operations and invite nationalist backlash, companies engaged with surrounding communities and invested in their future. That is a lesson new capital arriving in Venezuela should pursue. There is even generational memory favorable to the presence of these firms in oil communities. 

Leveraging that legacy could open renewed opportunities for local professional growth while strengthening bonds between communities and multinationals. Contributions to health, schools, and infrastructure would also ease the state’s burden and allow it to focus on critical nation-building emergencies: democratizing institutions, reconstructing the economy, and addressing the public services and humanitarian needs the population faces.

A spiritual return to the concessions system?

The new hydrocarbons law pushes Venezuela’s oil industry in a new direction, and it functions as a first step in the right path. However, there is room for significant improvement. 

Moreover, key questions remain unanswered. For instance, what will be the fate of PDVSA? Any plan that fails to address the resurrection of its operational capabilities undermines the development of an efficient sector. Only the re-democratization of the country can properly confront the deeper failings reflected in the current legislation. Many industry experts have already proposed an alternative framework that would solve several of the bill’s core problems by establishing clear rules, transparency mechanisms, and a dedicated government agency entrusted with regulating the hydrocarbon sector.

The spirit of the concessionary model walks once more around Venezuela’s refineries, port terminals, and petroleum wells. It is too soon to tell whether foreign capital will return with the same excitement it brought more than a century ago, or whether the scale of investments and engagement with surrounding communities will match that of its predecessors. The sector can either become a platform for institutional rebuilding and professionalization, or another discretionary channel for rents and corruption. 

Democracy, check and balances, and clear rules can turn the 2026 hydrocarbons law (and its potential future modifications) into enduring principles for the remainder of the century. If so, the oil industry might unlock a new period of prosperity. Much remains to be done to materialize that future, but what is undeniable is that a new era begins.

DENVER — Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection in 2020. But for more than five years, he’s been trying to convince Americans the opposite is true by falsely saying the election was marred by widespread fraud.

Now that he’s president again, Trump is pushing the federal government to back up those bogus claims.

On Wednesday, the FBI served a search warrant at the election headquarters of Fulton County, Georgia, which includes most of Atlanta, seeking ballots from the 2020 election. That follows Trump’s comments earlier this month when he suggested during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that charges related to the election were imminent.

“The man has obsessions, as do a fair number of people, but he’s the only one who has the full power of the United States behind him,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor.

Hasen and many others noted that Trump’s use of the FBI to pursue his obsession with the 2020 election is part of a pattern of the president transforming the federal government into his personal tool of vengeance.

Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Georgia Democrat, compared the search to the Minnesota immigration crackdown that has killed two U.S. citizen protesters, launched by Trump as his latest blow against the state’s governor, who ran against him as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate in 2024.

“From Minnesota to Georgia, on display to the whole world, is a President spiraling out of control, wielding federal law enforcement as an unaccountable instrument of personal power and revenge,” Ossoff said in a statement.

It also comes as election officials across the country are starting to rev up for the 2026 midterms, where Trump is struggling to help his party maintain its control of Congress. Noting that, in 2020, Trump contemplated using the military to seize voting machines after his loss, some worry he’s laying the groundwork for a similar maneuver in the fall.

“Georgia’s a blueprint,” said Kristin Nabers of the left-leaning group All Voting Is Local. “If they can get away with taking election materials here, what’s to stop them from taking election materials or machines from some other state after they lose?”

Georgia has been at the heart of Trump’s 2020 obsession. He infamously called Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021, asking that Raffensperger “find” 11,780 more votes for Trump so he could be declared the winner of the state. Raffensperger refused, noting that repeated reviews confirmed Democrat Joe Biden had narrowly won Georgia.

Those were part of a series of reviews in battleground states, often led by Republicans, that affirmed Biden’s win, including in Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada. Trump also lost dozens of court cases challenging the election results and his own attorney general at the time said there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

His allies who repeated his lies have been successfully sued for defamation. That includes former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who settled with two Georgia election workers after a court ruled he owed them $148 million for defaming them after the 2020 election.

Voting machine companies also have brought defamation cases against some conservative-leaning news sites that aired unsubstantiated claims about their equipment being linked to fraud in 2020. Fox News settled one such case by agreeing to pay $787 million after the judge ruled it was “CRYSTAL clear” that none of the allegations were true.

Trump’s campaign to move Georgia into his column also sparked an ill-fated attempt to prosecute him and some of his allies by Fulton County District Atty. Fani Willis, a Democrat. The case collapsed after Willis was removed over conflict-of-interest concerns, and Trump has since sought damages from the office.

On his first day in office, Trump rewarded some of those who helped him try to overturn the 2020 election results by pardoning, commuting or vowing to dismiss the cases of about 1,500 people charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. He later signed an executive order trying to set new rules for state election systems and voting procedures, although that has been repeatedly blocked by judges who have ruled that the Constitution gives states, and in some instances Congress, control of elections rather than the president.

As part of his campaign of retribution, Trump also has spoken about wanting to criminally charge lawmakers who sat on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, suggesting protective pardons of them from Biden are legally invalid. He’s targeted a former cybersecurity appointee who assured the public in 2020 that the election was secure.

During a year of presidential duties, from dealing with wars in Gaza and Ukraine to shepherding sweeping tax and spending legislation through Congress, Trump has reliably found time to turn the subject to 2020. He has falsely called the election rigged, said Democrats cheated and even installed a White House plaque claiming Biden took office after “the most corrupt election ever.”

David Becker, a former Department of Justice voting rights attorney and executive director of The Center for Election Innovation & Research, said he was skeptical the FBI search in Georgia would lead to any successful prosecutions. Trump has demanded charges against several enemies such as former FBI Director James Comey and New York’s Democratic Atty. Gen., Letitia James, that have stalled in court.

“So much this administration has done is to make claims in social media rather than go to court,” Becker said. “I suspect this is more about poisoning the well for 2026.”

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

The future USS John F. Kennedy, the second Ford class aircraft carrier for the U.S. Navy, has begun its initial sea trials. The Navy is slated to take delivery of the ship in 2027 after years of delays.

Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) announced that Kennedy, also known by the hull number CVN-79, had left port in Newport News, Virginia, earlier today to start initial sea trials.

“These trials will test important ship systems and components at sea for the first time,” HII wrote in posts on social media. “This huge milestone is the result of the selfless teamwork and unwavering commitment by our incredible shipbuilders, suppliers and ship’s force crew. We wish them a safe and successful time at sea!”

The extent to which Kennedy has been fitted out is unclear, but the carrier is set to be delivered with some notable differences from the first-in-class USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). This most notably includes an AN/SPY-6(V)3 radar, also known as the fixed-face version of Raytheon’s Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR), in place of Ford‘s Dual Band Radar (DBR). The DBR has proven immensely troublesome over the years, as you can read more about here. Pictures that HII released today show a number of differences between Kennedy‘s island and the one on Ford, due at least in part to the radar change.

Ford has suffered from a laundry list of other issues over the years, and HII and the Navy have working to leverage those lessons learned in work on all of the future ships in the class.

It is worth noting here that this is not the Navy’s first USS John F. Kennedy, an honor held by a unique subvariant of the Kitty Hawk class carrier design, which served from 1968 until 2007. One of America’s last conventionally powered carriers, it was subsequently sold for scrap despite attempts to turn it into a museum ship.

The Navy ordered the new Kennedy in 2013, and it was laid down at HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding division in 2015. The ship was launched four years later, at which time the goal was for it to be delivered in 2022. The Navy had originally pursued a dual-phase delivery schedule for the carrier, in which it would arrive initially still lacking certain capabilities. A Congressional demand for the carrier to be able to support F-35C Joint Strike Fighters at the time of delivery contributed to an initial slip in that schedule to 2024. At the time of writing, Ford has yet to set sail on an operational cruise with F-35Cs aboard.

The Navy subsequently shifted the timetable for Kennedy again from 2024 to 2025, ostensibly to complete work that normally would be done during a Post Shakedown Availability (PSA) after delivery. Last year, the service revealed that it pushed the delivery schedule further to the right, to March 2027. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, separately reported that the Navy might not have the carrier in hand until July 2027.

“The CVN 79 delivery date shifted from July 2025 to March 2027 (preliminary acceptance TBD) to support completion of Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) certification and continued Advanced Weapons Elevator (AWE) work,” according to the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget request, which it began releasing in June 2025.

“Construction challenges affected CVN 79 and CVN 80 [the future USS Enterprise] delivery schedules. Continuing delays to Advanced Weapons Elevators construction put CVN 79’s July 2025 delivery at risk, according to program officials,” GAO said in its report, which came out that same month. “They said that, while this construction improved since CVN 78, they may postpone noncritical work like painting until after delivery to avoid delay.”

Problems with the AWEs on Ford became a particular cause celebre during President Donald Trump’s first term office, but the Navy said it had effectively mitigated those issues by 2021. The AWEs are critical to the carrier’s operation, being used to move aircraft munitions and other stores between the ship’s magazines and the flight deck.

Watch the Advanced Weapons Elevators on the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford

Ford has also faced persistent issues with its AAG, as well as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) catapults, though the Navy says it has made progress in addressing those, as well. EMALS and AAG are how Ford class carriers get planes into the air and recover them afterward.

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS)

USS Gerald R. Ford Launches and Recovery

“Program officials attributed this delay [in work on CVN 79 and CVN 80] to construction material availability and persistent shipyard workforce issues that the program is working to mitigate with revised schedules and worker incentives,” GAO’s June 2025 report also noted. “The program reported it has not assessed the carrier industrial base for potential manufacturing risks but officials said that they plan to leverage other industrial base initiatives. This includes those related to submarines and within the Navy’s new Maritime Industrial Base program office.”

It’s not immediately clear how much all of this has added to Kennedy‘s price tag. Back in 2018, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) pegged Kennedy‘s cost at around $11.3 billion. A new CRS report published in December 2025 said the ship’s estimated acquisition cost had grown to $13.196 billion, citing Navy budget documents, but it is unclear if that accounts in any way for inflation. The Navy continues to estimate that future ships in the Ford class will cost even more, with CVN-81, the future USS Doris Miller, still expected to come in at around $15 billion. The Navy expects to acquire six more Ford class carriers, two of which have already been given names, the future USS William J. Clinton (CVN-82) and USS George W. Bush (CVN-83).

Acquiring more Ford class carriers is a critical priority for the Navy, which has been looking to start retiring its aging Nimitz class carriers for years now. If the Navy decommissions the USS Nimitz this year as planned, the total size of the service’s carrier force will drop to 10 hulls until Kennedy arrives. There is a standing legal requirement for the Navy to have no less than 12 carriers in service, which is reflective of the high demand for these ships, especially in times of crisis.

The Navy has been voicing its own concerns about carrier capacity, and the readiness of the force it does have, for years now. This has only been compounded in the past two years or so by the strain from steady demand for deployments to respond to contingencies in and around the Middle East, and more recently, the Caribbean.

“I think the Ford, from its capability perspective, would be an invaluable option for any military thing the president wants to do,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle told TWZ and other outlets on the sidelines of the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) annual symposium. “But if it requires an extension, it’s going to get some pushback from the CNO. And I will see if there is something else I can do.”

“To the financial and readiness aspects, we have maintenance agreements and contracts that have been made with yards that are going to repair the ships that are in that strike group, including the carrier itself,” Caudle noted. “And so when those are tied to a specific time, the yard is expecting it to be there. All that is highly disruptive.”

Caudle was responding to a question about whether Ford could be tasked to support a new potential U.S. operation against Iran. The carrier is currently sailing in the Caribbean Sea, where it has been operating for months now. Earlier this month, it took part in the operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Since the CNO offered his comments at SNA, the Navy has sent the Nimitz class carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its strike group from the Pacific to the Middle East.

As an aside, CVN-79 is expected to be the first Ford class carrier homeported on the West Coast. Ford‘s homeport is Norfolk, Virginia, on the East Coast.

The Navy is now at least one step closer to taking delivery of the future USS John F. Kennedy.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

For months, Gregory Bovino has been the public face of President Trump’s sweeping immigration raids across U.S. cities.

When the brash Border Patrol commander charged into Los Angeles last summer with the stated mission of arresting thousands of immigrants, he was unapologetic as agents smashed car windows, concealed their identities with masks, seized brown-skinned Angelenos off the streets, and descended on MacArthur Park on horseback.

In Minneapolis, when a federal officer shot and killed U.S. citizen Renee Good on Jan. 7, Bovino’s response to Fox News’ Sean Hannity was, “Hats off to that ICE agent.”

And when a Border Patrol agent shot Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse, on Saturday, Bovino again defended the killing. Pretti, he said, looked like someone who “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

But as public outrage has swelled against the Trump administration’s aggressive tactics, Bovino’s future is in limbo. On Monday, Trump deployed border advisor Tom Homan to Minnesota, with Bovino reportedly set to depart the region.

Now, the question remains: will Bovino’s departure really change the Trump playbook?

Ariel G. Ruiz Soto — a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank — said Bovino’s exit, if true, could represent a pivotal moment in immigration enforcement in the nation’s interior.

“I think it signals that the tensions have risen so significantly that there’s beginning to be ruptures and fragments within the Trump administration to try to figure out how to do this enforcement more efficiently, but also with more accountability,” Ruiz Soto said.

Other immigration experts, however, question the significance of sidelining Bovino.

“I think it’s a grave mistake to think the change in the personnel on the ground constitutes a change in policy,” said Lucas Guttentag, a professor of law at Stanford University who specializes in immigration. “Because the policy remains the same: to terrorize immigrant communities and intimidate peaceful protesters.”

Even if Bovino is ousted or given a lesser role, Guttentag said, national immigration policy is still shaped by Stephen Miller — the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor who has embraced hardline enforcement tactics.

“They’re still threatening to use military action,” Guttentag said. “They still want to keep the National Guard on call. All of those fundamental policies, as well as deporting people who had legal status, sending people to third world countries without any due process, adopting detention rules that deprive people of hearings to be eligible for release, all of that’s continuing.”

“Simply changing from Bovino to Homan,” he added, “doesn’t signal anything significant in terms of policy.”

::

So far, the Department of Homeland Security has remained publicly tight-lipped about what’s next for Bovino, and did not respond this week to inquiries from The Times.

However, the Associated Press reported Monday that Bovino and some federal agents were expected to leave Minneapolis as early as Tuesday. The Atlantic, citing DHS sources, reported that Bovino had been demoted from his role of Border Patrol commander at large and would return to his former job in El Centro, Calif.

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin disputed that Monday, saying on X that Bovino “has NOT been relieved of his duties.” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt described him as a “wonderful person” and “a great professional” who would “continue to lead Customs and Border Patrol throughout and across the country.”

There has been mounting criticism of and public protest against the administration’s activities since the launch of Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota last month. Trump said he sent Homan to Minnesota “to de-escalate a little bit.”

“Bovino is very good, but he’s a pretty out-there kind of a guy,” Trump said Tuesday during an interview on Fox News’ “The Will Cain Show.” “And in some cases that’s good. Maybe it wasn’t good here.”

::

A pugnacious 55-year-old who was born in California but raised in North Carolina, Bovino’s muscle-bound physique, green military greatcoat and gel-spiked hair seemed straight out of MAGA central casting.

Barreling into Los Angeles in June to command the Trump administration’s mass immigration raids, he seemed to relish confrontation as protests erupted and troops were deployed across the city.
“All over … the Los Angeles region, we’re going to turn and burn to that next target and the next and the next and the next, and we’re not going to stop,” Bovino told the Associated Press last summer. “We’re not going to stop until there’s not a problem here.”

When Bovino met legal setbacks, he was defiant.

In August, an appeals court upheld a temporary restraining order blocking his agents from targeting people in Southern and Central California based on race, language or vocation without reasonable suspicion they are in the U.S. illegally.

Bovino responded by posting a video on X that first showed L.A. Mayor Karen Bass telling reporters that “this experiment that was practiced on the city of Los Angeles failed” before cutting to himself grinning. As a frenetic mix of drums and bass kicked in, the video transitioned to footage of federal agents jumping out of a van to chase people down.

“When you’re faced with opposition to law and order, what do you do?” Bovino wrote. “Improvise, adapt, and overcome!”

After Bovino led agents in Los Angeles, he pivoted to Chicago to serve as the commander of Operation Midway Blitz. Then, he went to New Orleans before heading to Minnesota to lead what officials called Homeland Security’s “largest immigration operation ever.”

The fatal shootings of Good and Pretti by federal agents this month sparked outrage and protests, both in Minneapolis and around the nation.

Ruiz Soto said that the controversy over the Trump immigration policy was no longer just about immigrants.

“It’s about constitutional rights and it’s about U.S. citizens,” Ruiz Soto said. “For the broader public, it’s now much more immersive. It’s now much more in their face.”

After Border Patrol agents tackled Pretti to the ground and shot him, many Americans were outraged to hear Bovino and other senior Trump administration officials make false statements regarding the incident.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that Pretti approached federal officers on the street with a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun and “violently resisted” when officers tried to disarm him.

But according to videos taken on the scene, Pretti was holding a phone, not a handgun, when he stepped in front of a federal agent who had shoved a woman to the ground. The agent shoved and pepper-sprayed him and then multiple agents forced him to the ground. In the middle of the scrum, an agent secured a handgun. Less than a second later, the first shot was fired.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem asserted without evidence that Pretti had committed “an act of domestic terrorism,” and said her agency would lead the investigation into his killing.

Federal officials also denied Minnesota state investigators access to the shooting scene in south Minneapolis, prompting local and state officials to accuse the Homeland Security agency of mishandling evidence.

In the days since the shooting, Democrats in Congress have called for Noem to be removed from office.

“The country is disgusted by what the Department of Homeland Security has done,” Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Tuesday in a joint statement. “Kristi Noem should be fired immediately or we will commence impeachment proceedings in the House.”

When asked by reporters Tuesday whether Noem would step down, Trump said: “No.”

By sidelining Bovino, Ruiz Soto said the Trump administration appears to be sending a larger message.

“They’re going to try to restrict or home in the Border Patrol’s authority or at least the way they participate in operations and are going to now go back,” he said. “Or at least try to emulate more of the prior ICE model.”

Guttentag, however, said that while the public is seeing a tactical retreat on the part of the Trump administration, the problems went beyond Bovino’s leadership.

“So it’s not just the leadership, it’s the lack of training,” Guttentag said. “It’s the message that we’re getting from the very top, the statements from the vice president and others, that they have legal immunity. It’s the instructions to be as aggressive as they can be, and it’s also the lack of quality in the hiring and training process. All of that continues regardless of who the person on the ground is.”

The B-21 Raider stealth bomber is one of the Air Force’s most ambitious weapons programs, designed to carry out deep-penetrating nuclear and conventional strikes over heavily defended skies and other missions its predecessor, the B-2, was never envisioned as doing. As the head of the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), one of Gen. Stephen L. Davis’s main tasks is guiding the development of the Raider, of which 100 are currently slated for procurement and that number could grow substantially larger in the coming years.

In his first interview since taking command on Nov. 4, 2025, from Gen. Thomas Bussiere, Davis offered The War Zone exclusive insights about the B-21 and what it can bring to the table in a future high-end fight. As the leader of AFGSC, Davis also oversees B-1B Lancer, B-2A Spirit, and B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers and all U.S. Air Force intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). During his Monday morning conversation with us, Davis talked about a host of other topics beyond just the Raider, including the future of the E-4C “Doomsday Plane,” the way forward for the troubled Sentinel ICBM program, and challenges posed by China and Russia.

You can read the first part of our interview here.

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

Q: What capabilities will the B-21 have by the time it achieves initial operating capability (IOC), and what will come later?

A: Right now, I’m focused on delivering the initial capability. And unfortunately, I can’t talk too much about the capabilities of the bomber. They are significant, and they are impressive. From the command’s perspective, we’re concentrating on getting everything in place up at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota to bed down that capability. Really, it’s the acquisition community that’s still delivering that plane, and I’m certainly interested in that, but I’m probably more focused on the bed down and getting those things right.

Q: Can you provide an update on the Raider’s Initial Operating Capability (IOC)?

A: As for IOC, we are thinking of it in an OPSEC framework. We are not building prototypes, and the infrastructure to support the B-21 is on time. The program remains a benchmark of acquisition and has validated the value of the digital engineering that went into it from the beginning; I can tell you that the penetrating global strike platform we are building and will get with the Raider is amazing.

Q:  Will the B-21 still be optionally manned?

A: That’s a future capability for the aircraft. Right now, we’re planning for the manned implementation of that aircraft and getting the crews ready to be at Ellsworth when the plane arrives.

Q: What roles will the B-21 be capable of executing beyond the standard deep strike mission set of the B-2? Will they be able to defend themselves kinetically from air threats as well as ground threats?

A:  I really don’t want to talk about those specific attributes of the B-21 because some of those are classified. What I can say is that it will continue to build on the capabilities of the B-2. As you know, in the environment and the places where it might operate, those people are improving their defenses, and likewise, we have to improve the capabilities so we can deliver for the president and the nation a penetrating bomber. Clearly, with a nuclear mission, there are places that we’re going to have to go to deliver nuclear weapons, if ever called upon by the president of the United States, and that’s something that I have to provide to the Department of War and to the president.

Q: We have heard so much about the Long-Range Strike family of systems, but so far, we only know of two members of that family, the B-21 and the Long-Range Stand-Off Weapon (LRSO). What other types of systems make up this family and when will we be able to meet them in the future? 

A: Well, once again, you hit me on all the classified aspects of the program. I would say any platform operating today is in a family of systems that’s connected to other things within the Department of the Air Force, and the Department of War, and that’ll continue to be the case of the B-21. And, as a matter of fact, we’re going to extend those, and it will be more connected than the B-2 in order to do its penetrating global strike mission. I think one thing you could add to family systems is the F-47 6th-generation fighter. You know, it’s going to be paired with the F-47 under certain circumstances. So we certainly consider that new 6th-generation stealth fighter as part of the family of systems that might be employed with the B-21.

Q: Any update on that program?

A: Nothing other than I believe it still remains on track. I was recently out of St. Louis, and they got a chance to take a look at the work that they were doing out there. As you know, Air Force Gen. Dale White has just been announced as the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Critical Major Weapon Systems, leading the F-47 and the B-21 programs, so that will create some integration there as well. I know Dale. He’s a very talented acquirer, so I think that bodes well for both those programs.

Q: How will unmanned systems, specifically aerial drones, be paired with the future bomber force? What capabilities are you looking at in this regard? 

A: In terms of what we might incorporate into both the B-21 and the B-52 in future environments, we’re going to take every bit of information we get on board that aircraft to improve situational awareness. So I’m agnostic on where that comes from, whether that’s overhead capabilities, whether that’s remotely piloted capabilities, or UASs. Our plan is to integrate as much information as we can of that platform.

Q: Will B-21s be able to control collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs) or longer-range drones? What about the B-52J?

A: In terms of CCAs, I think where the Air Force is right now is that they’re building those to be incorporated into the F-47 primarily in fighter aircraft. That’s the first step. It’s certainly possible in the future that they might become part of that family of systems. When you think about long-range strike, when we’re doing [continental U.S.] CONUS-based missions, it really would limit the ability to use some of those platforms as they don’t quite have the extended flight envelopes that the B-21 and the B-52 have.

Q: And with the B-52, as far as working with CCAs, is that still to be determined?

A: I would say yes. I would think that the B-21 would be the more logical partner for that. But once again, we have to deliver that capability that the Air Force does and integrate with fighters. That’s the first step. Assuming that goes well. I think we’ll look at the next steps.

Q: What will it take to pierce China’s A2AD [anti-access/area denial] umbrella? What capabilities do you need to do the job, from a [ground moving GMTI/AMTI target indicator/air moving target indicator] space layer to drones to accompany B-21s? What is your vision?

A: We have a requirement to be able to do that day-to-day for the president. We have to be able to penetrate adversary air defenses and deliver capabilities as directed. And we’ll continue to do that, taking all the information we can get and integrating it into the B-21. Obviously, one of the great things about the B-21 is that it’s going to be much more capable. It will have more sensors. It will have more inputs to it that will make it even stronger and more capable as a penetrating bomber.

Q: What role will your bombers play in taking down the Chinese Navy?

A: That’s an operational plan. I really can’t talk much about it, other than to say that long-range strike contributes to every important mission set that we have in the Department of War. Obviously, one of the attributes of the modern force is the variety of weapons they can carry, and the number and types of targets they can attack. I think in any major confrontation that the U.S. would find itself in, you’re going to find your bomber forces are bringing those skill sets to bear.

Q: What makes the move to put a single pilot onboard the B-21, along with a weapon systems officer (WSO) instead of two pilots, possible, and why is that the right call? 

A: In terms of the crew complement for the B-21, that’s an ongoing discussion within the Department of the Air Force. No final decision has been made. Frankly, we had the same discussion on the B-2 on how it would be manned. And ultimately, they went with two pilots, in part because of the cost of the platform and the number they were producing. Actually, at the time, it was a requirement to have navigator or WSO experience to be a B-2 pilot. We went away from that over time, but that was one of the initial requirements. With B-21 pilots, it’s a different plane, as it has a number of different capabilities. So we think that the right thing to do is look carefully at that crew complement and decide how to best make that the most capable combat platform we can.

Q: Will the B-21 have creature comforts that the B-2 doesn’t have to help the crew out during long missions?

A: I think the B-21 is going to be largely like the B-2 in how it supports the crews. There’s enough room for crew members to go on rest status. There’s a place to go to the bathroom, obviously, and to prepare food. All those things will exist in the B-21.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Ranked 27th in the world, Jovic is playing her first Grand Slam as a seeded player.

Just 12 months ago, she was 191st in the rankings.

She won a first WTA Tour-level title at Guadalajara in Mexico during a breakthrough 2025 season, while she also won her first WTA 125 title at the Ilkley Open.

And she started 2026 on the front foot – reaching the semi-finals in Auckland before a run to the Hobart International final, where she lost to Italy’s Elisabetta Cocciaretto.

“She is like a shining light, she’s burst on to the scene, she’s risen up so quickly but she brings a sense of purpose every single time she hits the ball, and you just watch the intensity of the footwork and there’s purpose behind every single ball she’s hitting,” former British number one Annabel Croft told BBC Radio 5 Live.

Jovic has won 11 matches already this year – more than anyone else on the WTA Tour.

“This is such great news for women’s tennis and I’m so excited every time she steps on the court because she brings so much sunshine and so much light, a beautiful energy,” former world number five Daniela Hantuchova added.

“She is the ultimate professional, super disciplined and committed and her technique is unbelievable.”

FORGET everything you know about holiday parks – as a new age of caravans could change them entirely.

Caravan holidays have been a popular, and low cost, alternative to holidays abroad, for the last 100 years.

Yet new designs could change the design of them, with many having not changed in decades.

Welsh designer Craig Ledwards has revealed his own creations, likening to them a luxury hotel room instead.

He told local media: “Caravans haven’t changed over the past 70 years.

“They’re exactly the same style as they’ve always been – no insulation so there’s always condensation in it, smell damp, and the layout is the same.

VANTASTIC

We ditched a house for a caravan, we don’t pay rent & do 6 holidays a year

HOL YEAH

Queen of 9.50 Holidays shares her fave caravan parks, travel hacks and attractions

“But this is totally different, it’s open-plan living. It feels like you’re entering a luxury hotel room.”

Like hotels, guests can access them using key cards which are then slotted in for the electricity.

Inside are marble bathrooms and projectors in the ceiling, as well as full glass walls.

Small balconies are also part of the outdoor space, as well as a rooftop window for stargazing while inside.

He has already introduced them to north Wales last year.

He added: “It’s as far away from a static caravan as you can get – the only thing that’s the same is the size, we’ve designed it to be the same size so it can replace an old one without having to change the footprint or service connections.”

Each one, costing around £35,000 to build, is fully insulated so they can be stayed in all year round.

Not only that, but he says they have a lifespan of 50 years – much longer than standard caravans which is between 15 and 20 years.

They have been met with some skepticism, however.

Some have said that the all-glass models may not retain heat during the colder months, even if well insulated.

And a National Caravan Council spokesperson said: “New designs such as ones imported from China may appeal to a niche audience, drawn to contemporary styling and different layouts,” they said.

“But widespread appeal will depend on how well they meet the expectations of the UK holiday park market, the access to spare parts, the availability of reliable and timely after-sales service and those who are responsible for licensing their use.”

Here’s what it’s like inside the world’s most expensive caravan.

And here’s another futuristic caravan with self-driving tech.

WASHINGTON — The crisis touched off by President Trump’s demand to take ownership of Greenland appears over, at least for now. But the United States and its European allies still face a larger long-term challenge: Can their shaky marriage be saved?

At 75 years old, NATO has survived storms before, from squabbles over trade to estrangement over wars in Vietnam and Iraq. France, jealous of its independence, even pulled its armed forces out of NATO for 43 years.

But diplomats and foreign policy scholars warn that the current division in the alliance may be worse, because Trump’s threats on Greenland convinced many Europeans that the United States has become an unreliable and perhaps even dangerous ally.

The roots of the crisis lie in the president’s frequently expressed disdain for alliances in general and NATO in particular.

Long before Trump arrived in the White House, presidents from both parties complained that many NATO countries weren’t pulling their weight in military spending.

But earlier presidents still considered the alliance an essential asset to U.S. foreign policy and the cornerstone of a system that prevented war in Europe for most of a century.

Trump has never seemed to share that view. Even after he succeeded in persuading NATO members to increase their defense spending, he continued to deride most allies as freeloaders.

Until last year, he refused to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to help defend other NATO countries, the core principle of the alliance. And he reserved the right to walk away from any agreement, military or commercial, whenever it suited his purpose.

In the two-week standoff over Greenland, he threatened to seize the island from NATO member Denmark by force, an action that would have violated the NATO treaty.

When Britain, Germany and other countries sent troops to Greenland, he threatened to hit them with new tariffs, which would have violated a trade deal Trump made only last year.

Both threats touched off fury in Europe, where governments had spent most of the past year making concessions to Trump on both military spending and tariffs. When Trump backed down, the lesson some leaders drew was that pushing back worked better than playing nice.

“We do prefer respect to bullies,” French President Emmanuel Macron said.

“Being a happy vassal is one thing. Being a miserable slave is something else,” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said.

The long-term danger for the United States, scholars said, is that Europeans might choose to look elsewhere for military and economic partners.

“They just don’t trust us,” said Richard N. Haass, a former top State Department official in the George W. Bush administration.

“A post-American world is fast emerging, one brought about in large part by the United States taking the lead in dismantling the international order that this country built,” he wrote last week.

Some European leaders, including Macron, have argued that they need to disentangle from the United States, build military forces that can defend against Russia, and seek more reliable trade partners, potentially including India and China.

But decoupling from the United States would not be easy, fast or cheap. Europe and Canada still depend on the United States for many of their defense needs and as a major market for exports.

Almost all NATO countries have pledged to increase defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product, but they aren’t scheduled to reach that goal until 2035.

Meanwhile, they face the current danger of an expansionist Russia on their eastern frontier.

Not surprisingly for a group of 30 countries, Europe’s NATO members aren’t united on the question. Macron has argued for more autonomy, but others have called for caution.

“Despite all the frustration and anger of recent months, let us not be too quick to write off the transatlantic partnership,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said at Davos.

“I think we are actually in the process of creating a stronger NATO,” said Finnish President Alexander Stubb. “As long as we keep doing that, slowly and surely we’ll be just fine.”

They argue, in effect, that the best strategy is to muddle through — which is what NATO and Europe have done in most earlier crises.

The strongest argument for that course may be the uncertainty and disorder that would follow a rapid erosion — or worse, dissolution — of an alliance that has helped keep its members safe for most of a century.

The costs of that outcome, historian Robert Kagan warned recently, would be borne by Americans as well as Europeans.

If the United States continues to weaken its commitments to NATO and other alliances, he wrote in the Atlantic, “The U.S. will have no reliable friends or allies, and will have to depend entirely on its own strength to survive and prosper. This will require more military spending, not less. … If Americans thought defending the liberal world order was too expensive, wait until they start paying for what comes next.”