moves

Feb. 19 (UPI) — More than 550 commercial driver’s license schools were cited for safety violations, including employing unqualified teachers, using improper vehicles, failing to properly test students, among other violations, according to the Trump administration, which said the “sham” institutions received notice they would be removed from the federal government’s National Training Provider Registry.

The Department of Transportation said Wednesday that more than 300 investigators conducted 1,426 on-site inspections of driver training schools across the country in a five-day sting operation. The Commercial Vehicle Training Association said the inspections took place during the week of Dec. 8.

The DOT said more than 550 schools were found in violation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s safety standards. Of those, 109 training providers agreed to voluntarily remove themselves from the registry, while an additional 97 schools remain under investigation.

“For too long, the trucking industry has operated like the Wild, Wild, West, where anything goes and nobody asks any questions. The buck stops with me,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement.

“American families should have confidence that our school bus and truck drivers are following every letter of the law and that starts with receiving proper training before getting behind the wheel.”

The department said some of the schools lacked qualified instructors, used fake addresses or failed to properly train drivers in the transportation of hazardous materials. One school provided training for school bus drivers, the department said.

Following the inspections, CVTA, the largest association of commercial truck driver training programs, said in a statement that it welcomed the initiative, saying it strengthened “the integrity of commercial driver education and reaffirmed the critical role high-quality training plays in protecting the motoring public.”

General Atomics’ air-launched LongShort drone has made new progress toward its first flight with the completion of various tests on the ground, including a demonstration of its weapons release capabilities. LongShot, now also designated the X-68A, is set to be carried aloft first by an F-15 fighter. The goal of the program has been to explore how an uncrewed aircraft capable of firing air-to-air missiles could extend the reach and reduce the vulnerability of the launch platform, among other benefits.

The U.S. military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) released new details about the LongShot program, which it is leading, today. A “multitude of U.S. government stakeholders” have also been involved, including elements of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Army, and NASA, according to DARPA.

General Atomics, as well as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, received initial contracts to work on competing concepts for the drone in 2020. DARPA chose General Atomics’ design for continued development in 2023. The original hope had been that the uncewed aircraft would make its maiden flight before the end of that year. The current goal is to begin flight testing before the end of the year.

“DARPA’s LongShot with General Atomics Aeronautical Systems has successfully completed a series of technical milestones, moving its air-launched uninhabited vehicle – recently designated the X-68A – closer to flight testing,” according to DARPA’s release. “Recent achievements, including full-scale wind tunnel tests and successful trials of the vehicle’s parachute recovery and weapons-release systems, demonstrate significant progress in developing this next-generation capability.”

Previously released renderings of LongShot have depicted it as capable of releasing at least one AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) from an internal bay running along the bottom of the fuselage.

The overall LongShot design that has been shown to date is akin to that of a cruise missile, with an elongated fuselage and a chined nose. It has reverse-swept main wings toward the rear of the fuselage and small canards at the front, both of which pop out into their deployed positions after launch. It also has an inverted V-shaped twin-tail configuration and a vertical strake that sticks up just slightly from behind the top-mounted dorsal engine air intake.

The official entry for the X-68A in the U.S. Mission-Design-Series (MDS) designation system says that the drone is powered by a single Williams WJ38-15 turbojet, according to the Designation-Systems.net website. The use of the WJ38-15 may point to a high subsonic top speed for LongShot. This engine is also used on the German-Swedish Taurus KEPD 350 air-launched cruise missile, a 3,000-pound-class design with a stated maximum speed of Mach 0.95.

It is also worth noting that LongShot’s parachute recovery is intended, at least at present, for use in testing and training, rather than any actual combat employment of the drone.

“LongShot is intended for conflict. In combat scenarios, recovery isn’t really practical, and the price point doesn’t make it necessary,” C. Mark Brinkley, a General Atomics spokesperson, told TWZ last year. “However, for test and training, it is recoverable, and we have options for that.”

As mentioned, the first live test launch of a LongShot drone is set to be from an F-15 fighter, an aircraft type particularly well known for its ability to carry outsized payloads. F-15 variants have already been used in the United States, as well as in Japan, as aerial launch platforms for jet-powered drones. For years now, TWZ has been highlighting the particular potential of the Air Force’s new F-15EX Eagle II to carry oversized payloads and act as airborne drone controllers.

DARPA and General Atomics have also talked about the potential to launch X-68As from bombers’ internal bays, as well as from cargo aircraft using the Rapid Dragon palletized munitions system.

As TWZ has previously written:

“LongShot is intended to extend the range at which a launch platform can fire on targets, which, in turn, helps keep them further away from threats. The drones can fly forward into higher-risk areas before launching their own missiles. As designed, LongShots also simply expand the total area in which a launch platform, especially a tactical jet like an F-15, can engage threats.”

“LongShot drones could also leverage targeting data from sources other than their launch platforms. This would rely on, but also take immense advantage of long-range ‘kill web’ architectures in development now. As those kill webs expand in scale and scope, the likelihood of munitions engaging targets outside the range of a launch platform’s organic sensors will only grow. You can read more about these developments here.”

These capabilities could be further magnified by bomber or cargo aircraft carrying larger numbers of LongShot drones. Larger launch platforms could saturate a particular section of the battlespace with air-to-air assets quickly, enabling the rapid deployment of a temporary counter-air screen. The uncrewed aircraft could also provide more localized defense for larger and more vulnerable aircraft, and they would only have to be deployed as necessary in that role. That, in turn, would help reduce strain on escorting assets.

The LongShot program has so far been described in terms of scenarios that center more on direct control for the launch platform. However, control of the drones after launch could similarly be localized or executed across longer distances via beyond-line-of-sight datalink capability and/or signal relays. This could also allow for control to be handed off from one node to another. Higher degrees of autonomy would allow for the performance of tasks after launch with fewer direct human inputs, as well.

“We’ve got a program right now with DARPA that we’re working on. It’s called LongShot. And that effort is really, if you think about, it’s about an air-launched fighter,” Patrick “Mike” Shortsleeve, Vice President of DoD Strategic Development for General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc (GA-ASI), told TWZ‘s Jamie Hunter in an interview at the Air & Space Forces Association’s 2025 Air, Space, and Cyber Conference last September. “So, we’re talking about a smaller UAS [uncrewed aerial system], … but it also will be able to carry air-to-air missiles and be brought into the fight in mass when needed. So LongShot represents sort of another iteration of what we’re doing for disruption, to help the Air Force change or revolutionize the way air dominance is being done.”

General Atomics Update From Air, Space & Cyber 2025: CCA, LongShot, 9M Flight Hours

There are still questions about how efficient it would be in real combat to use an expendable drone like LongShot to get missiles closer to potential engagement areas, as well as offer some loitering capability. What the cost equation might be, in particular, compared to using more advanced, reusable drones and/or longer-ranged missiles, is unclear. Still, the Air Force and/or other services could see LongShot as a necessity for meeting certain operational needs that cannot be addressed by any other solution.

As we have highlighted in the past, LongShot could feed into other uncrewed aircraft efforts, especially separate, but intertwined Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) programs now being run by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Navy. In an interview with Breaking Defense last year, David Alexander, President of General Atomics’ Aeronautical Systems, Inc., division (GA-ASI), said that LongShot could be a “great fit” for Increment 2 of the Air Force’s CCA program. General Atomics and Anduril are already developing separate drone designs, designated the YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A, respectively, under Increment 1 of that program. The Marines are also now set to utilize the YFQ-42A design at least as a surrogate for a future CCA capability.

When it comes to LongShot, DARPA says that “ground and integration testing currently underway” is now steadily building up to “the safe and effective employment of the X-68A from an F-15, confirm the flight worthiness of the LongShot vehicle, and demonstrate its ability to safely eject a captive sub-munition” after years of schedule slips.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Feb. 17 (UPI) — Artificial intelligence and software analytics firm Palantir Technologies Inc. has moved its headquarters from Denver to Miami, company officials announced on Tuesday.

The announcement was made on social media and says only that Palantir has moved its headquarters to Miami without providing other information.

The tech firm has many government contracts, including with federal immigration law enforcement agencies and the military, which recently triggered protests and vandalism at Palantir’s Denver headquarters.

Palantir co-founder and Chief Executive Officer Alex Karp recently described it as a “completely anti-woke” firm that seeks employees who share its values, according to the Denver Gazette.

Palantir accepted a $30 million contract to create the ImmigrationOS app that enables Immigration and Customs Enforcement to support self-deportation, and the U.S. Army awarded the tech firm an up-to-$10 billion contract to provide data and software tools over the next decade.

Palantir also is among the corporate donors that contributed $300 million to build a ballroom on the site of the former East Wing of the White House.

Palantir’s co-founders established the tech firm in Palo Alto, Calif., in 2003 and in 2020 moved its headquarters to Denver.

The move to Miami follows that of many other tech firms and positions the coastal city as a rival to California’s Silicon Valley.

Florida’s tax-friendly business environment has helped the state to lure many tech billionaires from California, where lawmakers are wrangling over a proposed 5% wealth tax on residents who have a net worth of $1 billion or more.

Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel has relocated to Miami ahead of the tech firm’s headquarters move, and Karp in 2020 said the tech firm does not share the same values as many others in Silicon Valley’s tech community.

Meta Platforms Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg also is among wealthy big-tech bosses who have moved from California to Florida, and many tech firms have established hubs in Miami.

Kyiv, Ukraine – A heavy Russian Geran drone struck a fast-moving train in northern Ukraine on January 27, killing five, wounding two and starting a fire that disfigured the railway carriage.

Such an attack was impossible back in 2022, when Russia started dispatching roaring swarms of Shaheds, the Geran-2’s Iranian prototypes.

Ukrainian servicemen ridiculed them for their slow speed and low effectiveness – and shot them down with their assault rifles and machineguns.

But the Geran kamikaze drones have undergone countless modifications, becoming faster and deadlier – and some were equipped with Starlink satellite internet terminals.

The terminals made them immune to Ukrainian jamming and even allowed their Russian operators to navigate their movement in real time.

Western sanctions prohibit the import of the notebook-sized terminals operated by Elon Musk’s SpaceX company to Russia.

But Moscow has allegedly smuggled thousands of them via ex-Soviet republics and the Middle East, notably Dubai, using falsified documents and activation in nations where the use of Starlink is legal, according to Russian war correspondents and media reports.

Russian forces were able to counter the use of Starlink by Ukrainian forces as the terminals linked to SpaceX’s satellite armada orbiting the Earth allowed faster communication and data exchange, as well as greater precision.

In early February, SpaceX blocked the use of every Starlink geolocated on Ukrainian territory, including the ones used by Ukrainian forces.

Only after a verification and inclusion into “white lists” that are updated every 24 hours can they be back online.

But any terminal will be shut down if moving faster than 90km/h (56mph) to prevent drone attacks.

“Looks like the steps we took to stop the unauthorized use of Starlink by Russia have worked,” Musk wrote on X on February 1.

The step is ascribed to Ukraine’s new defence minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, a 35-year-old who had served as the minister of digital transformation. He introduced dozens of innovations that simplified bureaucracy and business, according to a four-star general.

“Fedorov managed to sort it out with Musk – somehow, because we couldn’t do it earlier,” Lieutenant General Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukrainian armed forces, told Al Jazeera.

He said the shut-off “significantly lowered” the effectiveness of Russia’s drone attacks and disrupted the communication of small groups of Russian soldiers trying to infiltrate Ukrainian positions.

The effect was so devastating that it made Russian forces “howl” with despair, said Andriy Pronin, one of the pioneers of military drone use in Ukraine.

“They’re like blind kittens now,” he told Al Jazeera.

Russian servicemen in places like the contested eastern town of Kupiansk are now “deprived of any way of getting in touch with mainland”, one of them complained on Telegram on February 4.

Other servicemen and war correspondents decried the shortsightedness of Russian generals who built communications around Starlink and did not create an alternative based on Russian technologies and devices.

However, the shutdown affected Ukrainian users of Starlink that were not supplied to the Defence Ministry but were procured by civilians and charities.

“The communications were down for two days until we figured out the white list procedure,” Kyrylo, a serviceman in the northern Kharkiv region, told Al Jazeera. He withheld his last name in accordance with the wartime protocol.

The effect, however, is short-term and is unlikely to turn the tables in the conflict that is about to enter another year.

“It’s not a panacea, it’s not like we’re winning the war,” Pronin said. “It will be hard [for Russians], but they will restore their communications.”

According to Romanenko, “it’ll take them several weeks to switch to older” communication devices such as radio, wi-fi, fibre optic or mobile phone internet.

France is moving closer to banning social media for users under the age of 15, citing growing concerns over young people’s mental health. The move comes as other European countries consider similar restrictions. Al Jazeera’s Aly Zein Mohamed explains.

SACRAMENTO — Amid a national uproar over the recent killing of a Minnesota man by immigration agents, the California Senate on Tuesday approved proposed legislation that would make it easier to sue law enforcement officials suspected of violating an individual’s constitutional rights.

Senate Bill 747 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) creates a pathway for residents to take legal action against federal agents for the excessive use of force, unlawful home searches, interfering with a right to protest and other violations.

The bill, which cleared a Senate committee earlier this year, passed 30-10, along Democrat and Republican party lines.

Other states, including New York and Connecticut, are weighing similar legislation following widespread anger over the actions during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns and raids.

Existing laws already allow lawsuits against state and local law enforcement officials. But it is much harder to bring claims against a federal officers. Wiener said his bill would rectify those impediments.

Several state law enforcement agencies oppose the legislation, arguing it will also be used to sue local officers.

Tuesday’s vote follows the killing of 37-year-old Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday by federal officials, who tackled him to the ground, appeared to remove his holstered handgun and then shot Pretti several times in the back. During the debate on the state Senate floor Tuesday, several Democratic lawmakers called Pretti’s death an execution or murder.

Renee Good, a 37-year old mother of three, was also shot and killed by agents earlier this month in Minnesota in what federal officials have alleged was an act of self defense when she drove her vehicle toward an officer — an assertion under dispute.

The deaths, as well as the government’s insistence that immigration agents don’t require judicial warrants to enter homes, have outraged Democrats leaders, who accuse federal officers of flouting laws as they seek to deport thousands of undocumented immigrants.

Wiener, speaking to reporters before Tuesday’s vote, said that his legislation would reform the law to ensure that federal officials are held accountable for wrongdoing.

“Under current law, if a local or state officer shoots your mom…or publicly executes an ICU nurse, you can sue,” said Wiener. “That’s longstanding civil rights law, but in the current law, it’s almost impossible to file that same lawsuit against the federal agent who does the exact same thing.”

During Tuesday’s debate on the senate floor, Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Huntington Beach) acknowledged the “chaos” in Minnesota, but criticized the bill as being about immigration politics. He urged his colleagues to focus on the state’s affordability crisis, rather than challenges to the federal government.

“We need to start focusing on California-specific issues like gas, gas prices,” said Strickland.

Strickland’s comments drew a rebuke from Sen. Susan Rubio, (D-West Covina) who said the bill wasn’t about immigration, but “about the egregious violation of people’s rights. and the murders that we are witnessing.”

“This is about equal justice under the law,” said Rubio, a one-time undocumented citizen.

Wiener’s bill now heads to the state Assembly. The senator, who is running to fill the seat by outgoing Rep. Nancy Pelosi, told reporters that he didn’t know if Gov. Gavin Newsom supports his legislation or if he would sign it into law if it passes the full Legislature.

Wiener’s proposed law was put forth after George Retes Jr, a California security guard was detained following a July raid in Camarillo. Retes, a U.S. citizen and Army veteran, said he was held for three days without the ability to make a phone call or see an attorney.

Retes has accused Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin of spreading false information about him to justify his detention. The Homeland Security department said in a statement last year that Retes impeded its operation, which he denies.

Under U.S. Code Section 1983, a person can sue state and local officials who violate their constitutional rights. A state law also allows lawsuits against state and local officials for interfering with a person’s constitutional rights by force or threat.

When it comes to filing legal action against federal officials, lawsuits can be brought through the Bivens doctrine, which refers to the 1971 Supreme Court ruling in Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Agents that established that federal officials can be sued for monetary damages for constitutional violations.

But in recent decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly restricted the ability to sue under Bivens. Some Supreme Court justices have also argued that it’s up to Congress to pass a statute that would allow federal officers to be sued when they violate the Constitution.

Those opposed to Wiener’s law include the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, which represents more than 85,000 public safety members. The group argues it would result in more lawsuits against local and state officials, essentially creating multiple paths for litigation.