priority

Reinaldo Iturriza is a Venezuelan intellectual and writer who served as Minister of Communes (2013-14) and Culture (2014-16). He currently heads the Socialist Democracy Studies Center (CEDES) in Caracas. In this interview with Diario Red, Iturriza offers his views on the present Venezuelan context, the US’ January 3 invasion and subsequent impositions, the phenomenon of political disaffiliation and the importance of organizing a counter-offensive.

Although US aggression against Venezuela has been going on for decades, what happened on January 3, 2026, was an unprecedented and, to some extent, disconcerting event. This is because of the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, but also because it wasn’t a coup d’État, at least not according to the White House’s usual playbook, which involves a change in the government’s political alignment. What is your analysis of what happened that day?

What happened that day was an invasion, in every sense of the word. A flagrant and criminal violation of our sovereignty, preceded by constant threats and provocations, as well as the murder of dozens of fishermen in the Caribbean Sea – to which must be added the hundred Venezuelan military personnel and Cuban internationalists responsible for the president’s security who fell in combat during those early morning hours.

Regarding the shift in the government’s political alignment, the first thing this outcome reveals, in my view, is that it is absolutely false that the US aggression was motivated by anything even remotely related to its concern for democracy, just as the siege immediately preceding it had nothing to do with the Venezuelan government’s alleged ties to drug trafficking.

It is clear that the US government acted out of an interest in regaining control of our strategic resources, starting with our oil. Additionally, while weighing options and considering possible scenarios, the US concluded that the least traumatic way to achieve that objective was to leave the government structure virtually unchanged.

How did we reach this critical juncture?

Only someone completely unversed in politics would dare to claim that we should thank the United States for taking the first decisive steps to free us from a “tyranny” that had been in power for 25 years and that, otherwise, might have persisted indefinitely.

I mention this because Venezuelan society is not exactly known for its apolitical nature. What I’m getting at is that this is a narrative that is not only self-serving but also very dangerous, seeking to defend the indefensible. It is a version of events that is stumbling its way forward and aspires to become common sense. That is why it is essential to block its path once and for all.

And this requires emphasizing that throughout the first decade of this century, and even during the first half of the past decade, Venezuela was characterized as a high-intensity democracy, with very notable advances in all aspects of the material and spiritual lives of the popular majorities. What needs to be understood is what has happened here over the last 10 years.

When did the turning point occur? What circumstances led to the erosion of our high-intensity democracy? 

It seems to me that Antonio Gramsci provides invaluable analytical insights to begin understanding this historical development. What we witnessed and endured was nothing other than what the Italian intellectual calls the “reciprocal destruction” of the forces in conflict, with the consequent deterioration of democratic life and the progressive weakening of the political class and its respective social bases of support.

It is in this context that the intervention of the “foreign guard” took place on January 3, to continue using Gramscian terminology. A “foreign guard” that, incidentally, played a leading role in the conflict, decisively supporting one of the forces [the Venezuelan opposition] and doing everything possible to undermine the foundations of the national economy.

As the weeks went by, it became clear that the government of Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has largely accepted the conditions imposed by the United States. Is this a “betrayal,” or is it a tactical retreat aimed at sustaining the Bolivarian Process in the long term?

Speaking in terms of betrayal or loyalty to the cause contributes little or nothing to understanding the situation. Opinions one way or the other are part of what Gramsci himself described as “petty political criticism.” Nor, it must be said, does the abuse of historical analogies aid in this regard.

I clearly recall that regarding the government’s rapprochement with certain factions of the bourgeoisie throughout 2016, and later in connection with the implementation of the orthodox monetarist program in 2018 – aimed primarily at controlling hyperinflation, which meant, among other things, reducing public spending to unprecedented levels and freezing wages – some comrades asked me in good faith whether this was something akin to Lenin’s New Economic Policy or whether, on the contrary, we were witnessing the abandonment of the strategic programmatic banners of the Bolivarian Revolution.

I would almost invariably tell them that what was needed was an analysis of the balance of power and that, regardless of how one chose to characterize it, the indisputable fact is that a recomposition of the ruling bloc was taking place: the working class, slowly but surely, ceased to be the backbone of that power bloc, as it undoubtedly had been throughout the Hugo Chávez era and even during Maduro’s early years.

Since January 3, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk has been invoked to try to explain the reasons behind the rapprochement with the US government, much in the same way that anything was previously justified by invoking Stalin’s defeat of fascism because we were facing the far right.

It is paradoxical that over the past 10 years we were able to find ourselves in the situation of the Soviet Union in March 1921, then in May 1945, and finally in March 1918, yet today, following one tactical retreat after another, the Bolivarian Process is hardly in a better position to face the future.

In retrospect, the facts seem to point to a structural retreat or, more precisely, a full-fledged strategic retreat.

A few days after January 3, you wrote an article in which you noted that the public reaction following the kidnapping [of Maduro and Flores] was one of “silence.” At that initial moment, there were no celebrations by the opposition, nor were there pro-government demonstrations; instead, a mood of “mourning for the humiliated nation” prevailed. And you made a very interesting point by arguing that “far from signifying consent with what had happened,” it was a manifestation of dissent that could find no “means of expression.” This is striking given the narrative of polarization that has surrounded Venezuela for years, which seems to encompass the entire society, dividing it between Chavistas and anti-Chavistas. Is there a vacuum of political representation?

Indeed, quite contrary to the prevailing narratives, Venezuelan society over the last 10 years has become increasingly depolarized, or perhaps we should work with the hypothesis that polarization has taken on new contours: the majority of the population versus its political class.

On several occasions, I have argued that during this period, no political phenomenon has been more significant and with more far-reaching implications than political disaffiliation. And this is by no means a recent “discovery”; I first raised this point in December 2015, in the context of the opposition’s parliamentary election victory.

When we analyzed the situation in depth, it became clear that the defeat of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) stemmed from the fact that, in Chavismo’s electoral strongholds, there had been a protest vote against the government.

It is no small matter that, despite the historical and contextual differences, that 2015 defeat, as was the case on January 3, was not celebrated by the people. That protest vote reflected a demand for correction.

In the eyes of a very significant portion of the social base supporting the Bolivarian Revolution, that correction did not occur. Quite the contrary: it was precisely from that point on that this process of recomposition of the power bloc I have already referred to began or intensified.

Why do you think this political disaffiliation occurred?

I am working on the hypothesis that the massive disaffiliation from Chavismo – understood here as a political identity – is directly proportional to the gradual distancing of the official political class from its working-class origins. In other words, to the extent that political identity ceased to embody the interests of the popular majorities, they ceased to feel represented by that political identity.

What occurred was what René Zavaleta Mercado termed a political and ideological hollowing out of the popular classes. This hollowing out, incidentally, should not be confused with depoliticization. The concept refers rather to the fact that the main guiding ideas that organize and give meaning to the way we conceive of the political are no longer associated with a specific identity.

This is particularly evident among younger people: my generation (and even more so the generations that preceded us) often laments the depoliticization of youth. And yes, there is depoliticization. But it is not uncommon to strike up a conversation with a young person from the working class in their twenties and realize that several of the key ideas that historically defined Chavismo are still there, yet those ideas have no political expression today.

In any case, I must emphasize that this phenomenon is far from being exclusively limited to young people. In reality, it describes the situation of the vast majority of Venezuelan society. A majority that does not condone something like a foreign invasion, but that cannot find ways to express its deep discontent with the state of affairs.

In your role as Minister of Communes between 2013 and 2014, but also as an activist and intellectual, you have been involved in the process of organizing and building the communes. This is a novel form of popular organization proposed by the Bolivarian Revolution and particularly by Hugo Chávez. For those unfamiliar with the topic, what are the communes? What is their objective?

The communes, and before them the communal councils, can be understood as the political formula devised by the Bolivarian leadership, and in particular by Hugo Chávez, to organize fundamentally that segment of the working class that came to constitute the backbone of the movement: the subproletariat, understood as the working poor whose labor does not guarantee them sufficient means to ensure their reproduction as a labor force.

Elsewhere I have elaborated in greater detail on what I am now only touching upon very briefly: the subproletariat was the driving force behind the popular uprising of February 27, 1989, [known as the Caracazo]. During the 1990s, under neoliberalism, the subproletariat came to represent the largest segment of the Venezuelan working class.

Excluded from the market, politics, and citizenship, it became politicized under Chávez’s leadership. It did everything possible to bring him to power. It defended democracy when it was threatened by the elites and led the massive street demonstrations that succeeded in reversing the 2002 coup d’état. Months later, it was on the front lines of resistance against the strike-sabotage of the oil industry and the corporate lockout: the Bolivarian Revolution would not be defeated by hunger and unemployment.

In a country on the brink of economic ruin [in 2002-03], we witnessed the recovery of the oil industry and experienced the effects of the first attempts at the democratic redistribution of oil rents – an experience that was entirely foreign to the more recent subproletariat.

Citizenship and the market were no longer off-limits: they gained gradual access to healthcare, education, and food. Their neighborhoods began to appear on official maps. Millions were able to obtain an identity card for the first time. They achieved their most resounding political victory in the 2004 referendum, which decided whether Chávez would remain in power.

In 2005, the Bolivarian leadership faced the challenge of how to organize a sub-proletariat that, by definition, is not in the factory, that due to its political culture distrusts the more traditional forms of political representation, and that also demonstrates a strong inclination toward political experimentation.

The answer, broadly speaking, was that it was necessary to promote the creation of popular self-government in the territories; this self-government had to, among other things, identify the productive potential of those territories and organize itself to develop that potential.

It was in this context that the first community councils were established. Later, in 2008, in areas where the self-governance initiatives were deemed to have the greatest political potential, efforts were intensified with the pilot launch of the first communes.

The communes were conceived as spaces with relative autonomy. This means that they were not to be subordinate to any formal power, nor were they to function as small, self-sufficient communities – like tiny islands in the sea of capitalism.

In Chávez’s words, they were to be capable of organizing themselves in a networked manner, “like a gigantic spiderweb covering the territory of the future, but in no case outside the strategic horizon of the Bolivarian Revolution.” In this sense, they represented a kind of popular vanguard in the process of implementing the program of transformation in the territory.

What is the current state of communal organization in Venezuela compared to previous years? How has the process been affected in recent years?

That’s a good question, especially since it has become customary in recent years to point to the existence of the communes as a kind of political – and even ethical – bulwark that could eventually serve as a counterweight to more authoritarian or conservative tendencies within Chavismo.

As a sort of consolation: we admit that things aren’t going very well, to say the least, and it’s equally true that the outlook isn’t encouraging at all, but at least the communes exist.

However, we must emphasize a few points I’ve already mentioned: the last 10 years have been a time of recomposition of the ruling bloc, of massive political disaffiliation, and of an economic policy that does not prioritize the interests of the working class. These are times of managing the status quo, which means that the scope for political experimentation has been reduced to historic lows.

To this, of course, we must add that after January 3, it is the US government that ultimately administers and decides how our revenues are spent. In other words, the problem is no longer even the scope of action of the communes, but rather the scope of the republic’s sovereignty.

This issue of the communes’ relative autonomy presents itself to us today in a radically different context: it remains to be seen whether, beyond the ability to manage very limited resources for the implementation of very limited local projects, communal leadership has the will and capacity to reaffirm its autonomy – no longer in the face of state or party institutions, but primarily in the face of a “foreign guard” that seeks to decide the nation’s fate.

Regarding the latter point you mentioned, Donald Trump’s offensive against Latin America, within a global context of military escalation and the rise of the far right, presents a very complex scenario for leftist governments, movements, and organizations. Added to the aggression against Venezuela is the intensification of the blockade against Cuba and the pressure on progressive governments in the region. How do you see the future of Chavismo and the Bolivarian Revolution in this context?

Let me refer once again to Gramsci: the analysis I have attempted here is not an end in itself. Its purpose is not to demonstrate clarity, eloquence, or anything of the sort. Such an analysis only makes sense if it aims to create the conditions for “optimism of the will.” 

The global onslaught of the far right cannot be met with voluntarism or naive pragmatism. There is no more effective incentive than developing the capacity to conduct analyses of the balance of power that are as rigorous and unflinching as possible. In times of retreat, the priority must be on organizing the counteroffensive. And such a thing is impossible based on complacent analyses or those aimed at reaffirming our status as victims.

In the battle of ideas, it is imperative to construct an effective narrative regarding the Bolivarian Revolution. One that does not shy away from pointing out our mistakes or limitations, but at the same time – and drawing on abundant historical evidence – properly highlights our numerous successes, starting with the fact that we managed to outline a programmatic vision that the popular majority embraced, feeling for the first time in a long while that they were masters of their own destiny.

The current state of affairs is not the inevitable consequence of an anachronistic program –one alien to our ideas and customs –that carried within it the seeds of authoritarianism from the very beginning. On the contrary, our program was well-suited to its time, consistent with our political culture, and realized itself as a high-intensity democracy. We must account for the multiple causes of various kinds that led to the interruption of the process of implementing that program.

This must take place within the context of a profound crisis of political representation, so we will most likely have to be prepared to witness – and even foster – the emergence of a new political identity that does not renounce its national, popular, and anti-capitalist character.

In the short term, what is essential is the convergence of all forces of different stripes that oppose the imposition of conditions of tutelage on our nation. We are on the threshold of new battles to recover our full sovereignty. This is only just beginning.

Source: Diario Red

The Angels celebrated their 2026 home opener on Friday, and the fans booed the ceremonial first pitch.

Magic Johnson, the Dodgers’ co-owner and the foremost winner in Los Angeles sports history, threw out the ceremonial first pitch before the Dodgers’ opener. Jeff Kent, just elected to the Hall of Fame, did the honors for the San Francisco Giants.

In Anaheim, John Carpino tossed the first pitch, even with popular alumni such as Torii Hunter and Tim Salmon in the house. Carpino is the Angels’ president, retiring Monday after 16 years in that role and 23 years in all as a loyal executive under Angels owner Arte Moreno.

Moreno thought it would be lovely for Carpino to throw out the first pitch and, under different circumstances, it would have been.

The fans can deal with the aging stadium, the recent lack of marquee signings and the longest playoff drought in the major leagues, but not with Moreno’s spring comment to the Orange County Register that surveys show affordability is the fans’ top priority and “believe it or not, winning is not in their top five.”

So Carpino, as a proxy for Moreno, was booed loudly. Then a few modest choruses of “sell the team” broke out.

Behind the Angels’ dugout, Dave and Chris Bloye of Upland wore red T-shirts. His shirt listed five priorities, in order: Affordability, good experience, safety, peanuts, fan surveys. Her shirt listed five priorities too, starting with “sell the team.” The Bloyes said they have had season tickets for more than 20 years.

“We’ve never had a survey,” Chris Bloye said.

Moreno is competitive, a hardcore fan who regularly attends even spring training games. Perhaps he did not mean his words to come out the way they did.

Moreno declined an interview request from The Times at the owners’ meetings in February. A team spokesman said last week that Moreno would pass on an opportunity to clarify his remarks about fan priorities.

But, if those were indeed the priorities, they would have been reflected by the fans that showed up more than six hours before game time for the free fan festival the Angels throw before the home opener every year.

Surely, the man in the jersey that read “FAN SINCE 81” and the Angels tattoo on his left leg would be here win or lose.

Angels fans stand in front of the stadium before the team’s home opener against the Seattle Mariners on Friday night.

(Ronald Martinez / Getty Images)

Yes, Jose Bocanegra of Chino said, he would be. But for Moreno to say winning was not a top fan priority?

“That’s crazy,” Bocanegra said. “If you’re not in it to win it, then what are we doing?”

How about the fan in the Nolan Ryan jersey? He held his 7-year-old daughter atop his shoulders. She wore a Mike Trout jersey, smiled broadly, and clutched a cup of ice cream.

His name was Nate Ryan, from Hemet. He and his daughter attend Dodgers and Angels games, but they particularly like visits to Angel Stadium. His daughter loves the rally monkey and the free games in the Pac-Man arcade, and he appreciates Moreno’s focus on affordability.

“The Angels are more economical,” Ryan said. “We have a good time.”

At Angel Stadium, $44 gets you four tickets, four hot dogs, and four drinks. At Dodger Stadium, $45 gets you a parking space.

Ryan had one more thing to say.

“I’d like to see a new owner,” Ryan said.

Jarod Venegas of Corona dressed in a white wrap, wearing a red cap topped by a gold halo. He was about to spend nine innings as — you guessed it — an angel in the outfield.

“I believe we have a team that can be the best,” he said.

What exactly do you mean by best?

“I mean World Series champions,” he said.

Venegas had something to say about fan priorities.

“Winning is our No. 2 priority,” he said. “No. 1 is getting a new owner.”

Johnny Estrada of Corona wore a T-shirt with eight lines on the back. All eight lines read the same: “Sell the team.”

He said he loves the team, supports the players, and does not believe Moreno chose his words poorly.

“I don’t necessarily feel it came out wrong,” Estrada said. “I feel he hasn’t cared for a while.”

Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken, who remains irked by Moreno branding the team with a Los Angeles name, has been a season-ticket holder far longer than she has been mayor. She’ll give Moreno a pass on his comments.

“I think it was a misstep,” Aitken said. “I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He knows that winning, for a true fan, is one of the most important things. Winning is a priority for our players. Winning is a priority to the loyal fan base.”

Even more so, perhaps, to the casual fans, the ones that determine whether the Angels sell three million tickets in any given year.

The Angels sold 2.6 million tickets last year, a testament to the strength of the market amid a second consecutive last-place finish.

The “Big A” sign outside Angel Stadium on Friday during the team’s home opener.

(Ronald Martinez / Getty Images)

However, attendance has fallen 20% over the past 20 years, a span that includes one postseason series victory and the current streaks of 10 seasons with losing records and 11 seasons without a playoff appearance.

Friday’s home opener was sold out. However, as of Friday afternoon, resale markets listed tickets for as little as $7 for Saturday’s game and $4 for Sunday’s game.

This is a great fan base, to me much more frustrated than angry, waiting to erupt in joy. The fan festival was dominated by fans wearing “sell” jerseys but a variety of Trout jerseys — home white, road gray, alternate red, City Connect, All-Star, World Baseball Classic, even one from the Salt Lake Bees.

Trout’s loyalty has been reciprocated by the fans. Moreno could feel that love too, with a renewed commitment to the excellence the Angels he displayed in his first decade as owner.

In 2002, the year before Moreno bought the team, the stadium was rocking with thunder sticks as the Angels won the World Series. Thunder sticks are so loud that they were banned at the World Baseball Classic finals, even as drums, trumpets and cowbells were permitted.

In Anaheim, the thunder sticks were glorious. Moreno does not want to sell at the moment, so best to demonstrate a dedication to returning October to the Angels’ schedule, lest their fans take home their giveaway calendars from the home opener and start the countdown to “wait ‘til next year.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump has proposed boosting defense spending to $1.5 trillion in his 2027 budget released Friday, the largest such request in decades, reflecting his emphasis on U.S. military investments over domestic programs.

The sizable increase for the Pentagon had been telegraphed by the Republican president even before the the U.S.-led war against Iran. The president’s plan would also reduce spending on non-defense programs by 10% by shifting some responsibilities to state and local governments.

“President Trump is committed to rebuilding our military to secure peace through strength,” the budget said.

The president’s annual budget is considered a reflection of the administration’s values and does not carry the force of law. The massive document typically highlights an administration’s priorities, but Congress, which handles federal spending issues, is free to reject it and often does.

This year’s White House document, prepared by Budget Director Russ Vought, is intended to provide a road map from the president to Congress as lawmakers build their own budgets and annual appropriations bills to keep the government funded. Vought spoke to House GOP lawmakers on a private call Thursday.

Trump, speaking ahead of an address to the nation this week about the Iran war, signaled the military is his priority, setting up a clash ahead in Congress.

“We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of day care,” Trump said at a private White House event Wednesday.

“It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare — all these individual things,” he said. “They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal.”

Immigration enforcement, air traffic controllers and national parks

Among the budget priorities the White House called for:

-Supporting the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement and deportation operations by eliminating refugee resettlement aid programs, maintaining Immigration and Customs Enforcement funds at current year levels and drawing on last’s year’s increases for the Department of Homeland Security funds to continue opening detention facilities, including 100,000 beds for adults and 30,000 for families.

— A 13% increase in funding for the Department of Justice, which the White House said would be focused on violent criminals.

— A $10 billion fund within the National Park Service for beautification projects in Washington, D.C..

— A $481 million increase in funding to enhance aviation safety and support an air traffic controller hiring surge.

With the nation running nearly $2 trillion annual deficits and the debt swelling past $39 trillion, the federal balance sheets have long been operating in the red.

About two-thirds of the nation’s estimated $7 trillion in annual spending covers the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs, as well as Social Security income, which are essentially growing — along with an aging population — on autopilot.

The rest of the annual budget has typically been more evenly split between defense and domestic accounts, nearly $1 trillion each, which is where much of the debate in Congress takes place.

The GOP’s big tax breaks bill that Trump signed into law last year boosted his priorities beyond the budget process — with at least $150 billion for the Pentagon over the next several years, and $170 billion for Trump’s immigration and deportation operations at the Department of Homeland Security.

The administration is counting on its allies in the Republican-led Congress to again push the president’s priorities, particularly the Defense Department spending, through its own budget process, as it was able to do last year.

It suggests $1.1 trillion for defense would come through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval, while $350 billion would come through the budget reconciliation process that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes.

Congress still fighting over 2026 spending

The president’s budget arrives as the House and Senate remain tangled over current-year spending and stalemated over DHS funding, with Democrats demanding changes to Trump’s immigration enforcement regime that Republicans are unwilling to accept.

Trump announced Thursday he would sign an executive order to pay all DHS workers who have gone without paychecks during the record-long partial government shutdown that has reached 49 days. The Republican leadership in Congress reached an agreement this week on a path forward to fund the department, but lawmakers are away on spring break and have not yet voted on any new legislation.

Last year, in the president’s first budget since returning to the White House, Trump sought to fulfill his promise to vastly reduce the size and scope of the federal government, reflecting the efforts of billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

As DOGE slashed through federal offices and Vought sought to claw back funds, Congress did not always agree.

For example, Trump sought a roughly one-fifth decrease in non-defense spending for the current budget year ending Sept. 30, but Congress kept such spending relatively flat.

Some of the programs that Trump tried to eliminate entirely, such as assisting families with their energy costs, got a slight uptick in funding. Others got flat funding, such as the Community Development Block Grants that states and local communities use to fund an array of projects intended mostly to help low-income communities through new parks, sewer systems and affordable housing.

Lawmakers have also focused on ensuring the administration spends federal dollars as directed by Congress. This year’s spending bills contained what Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, described as “hundreds upon hundreds of specific funding levels and directives” that the administration is required to follow.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.

Fielding more hardened shelters to better protect U.S. forces at bases in the Middle East is now a top priority in the face of Iranian attacks, according to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. At the same time, this underscores questions about why more investments in physical hardening were not made in the region well before the current conflict. This is especially true given months of planning leading up to this and the clear threats that Iranian drones and missiles posed.

For years now, TWZ has been highlighting how the lack of hardened infrastructure at American military facilities abroad and at home creates worrisome vulnerabilities. This is especially concerning when it comes to aircraft parked in the open, like the E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) that was destroyed in an Iranian attack last week.

Hegseth talked about U.S. defensive posture in the Middle East at a press conference today at the Pentagon. The Secretary also announced that he had made a previously undisclosed visit to the region to meet with American service members.

“I’ll say, what I witnessed, where I went, was a completely locked-in discipline of bunker use and bunker improvement. So, from the beginning, as we stated very clearly, the first thing we did was set up a defense and make sure our defensive capabilities were maxed out before any of this even started,” Hegseth said. “That included fortifications, as much as possible, but it also included dispersement [sic]. If all of our people are in one place, you can imagine why that’s a big problem.”

“Alongside that dispersement [sic] is more and more bunkers. And I can tell you, talking to base commanders, talking to our allies in Israel, talking to others, rapidly fielding that and then improving those positions is a theater priority, no doubt, as are the air defenses and the layered air defenses,” he continued. “It’s not just Patriots and THAADs [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems]. It’s fighters and defensive CAPs [combat air patrols]. It’s other kinetic defeat systems. It’s electronic warfare. So the defense of our troops and our assets is max [sic].”

“I will say, on some of those other assets you talked about, air wings, airframes, there’s some things adversaries are doing to provide info and intel that they shouldn’t. We’re aware of it, and ultimately, we move things around,” he added. “One of the biggest principles you learn in the military is to not set patterns, predictable patterns, and so we’re – commanders are working hard to adjust in real time with those systems and make sure they’re in the right places and not easily targetable.”

Hegseth was responding to a two-part question about the status of efforts to establish additional bunkers at bases in the region and what other measures were being taken to better protect high-value assets, including aircraft like the E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS). On March 27, an Iranian attack on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia succeeded in destroying one of these prized AWACS jets, as well as damaging other aircraft and injuring several American service members, as you can read more about here.

Separately, on March 23, the U.S. Space Force had put out a contracting notice to identify “potential sources” of “prefabricated, transportable, hardened shelter systems” that could be delivered to Jordan within weeks or even days of a contract award. The U.S. military has a major presence in Jordan, particularly at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, which has been a key hub in the current campaign against Iran. Muwaffaq Salti has, in turn, also come under Iranian attack, with an AN/TPY-2 missile defense radar there having been notably targeted.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also put out another contracting notice regarding planned new hardened underground facilities at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar on March 25, which TWZ was first to report. This is a longer-term project, with work not expected to start until 2028.

Though Hegseth says more bunkers for bases in the Middle East are now a priority, it remains unclear why this was not already the case years ago. There has been no shortage of examples in the region of the threats posed by Iran’s drone and missile arsenals, as well as those employed by Iranian-backed proxies. This includes numerous instances of direct and sometimes fatal attacks on U.S. forces, as well as on allies and partners. Drone threats, in general, are not new and have only continued to grow, something TWZ has been sounding the alarm on for nearly a decade now. In turn, we have also highlighted the curious lack of investment in hardened infrastructure, especially to better protect aircraft, which are especially vulnerable when parked out on open flight lines.

In recent years, U.S. military officials have often pushed back on calls for more physical hardening, having questioned the cost-effectiveness and general utility of doing so. More emphasis has generally been put on expanding active defenses, such as surface-to-air missiles, as well as employing concepts of operations centered on dispersion of forces and camouflage, concealment, and deception. In addition to talking about the importance of bunkers, Hegseth hit these same general talking points himself just this morning.

The destruction of the E-3 at Prince Sultan Air Base raises additional questions about the limits of dispersal and other operating concepts, which the U.S. Air Force has codified under the banner of Agile Combat Employment (ACE). Satellite imagery makes clear that E-3s and other aircraft have continued to be parked out in the open at well-established points on the taxiways at the base in Saudi Arabia. More broadly speaking, American forces in the region continue to operate primarily from a small number of large bases, the locations of which are well known.

Visualizing ACE

Furthermore, in his remarks today, Hegseth alluded to reports that Russia and China have been helping Iran target key assets at bases in the Middle East, including through the provision of satellite imagery. In the past decade, the Chinese have dramatically expanded their space-based surveillance capabilities. The commercial satellite imagery sector in that country has also grown.

At the same time, while additional information from those sources would help refine Iranian targeting processes, it would not be necessary to launch attacks on key assets and facilities, especially larger ones, at locations like Prince Sultan or Muwaffaq Salti in Jordan. Iran has its own intelligence streams in the region that it could leverage, as well. We have seen numerous examples of very deliberate targeting on the part of Iranian forces, especially when it comes to prized air and missile defense radars and communications arrays, many of which are fixed in place, from the start of the current conflict.

And they VERY likely had recent intel from satellite imagery (China and Russia)

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) March 30, 2026

There are ways to provide targeting data beyond near real time satellite imagery. And even then, who knows how often they are moving them. It would be worth a BM and definitely worth a hopeful shot of a one-way attack drone.

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) March 29, 2026

In the past few years, there has been some signs of a tonal shift across the U.S. military when it comes to physical hardening, especially against drone attacks. Just last week, authorities at Shaw Air Force Base in California put out a contracting notice regarding plans to put up counter-drone nets around non-hardened sunshade-type shelters on the flightline, a defensive measure that other Air Force facilities have been exploring, as well. In addition to seeing more pushes for additional passive defenses at established bases, work has been touted on more rapidly deployable capabilities to support expeditionary and distributed operations.

At the same time, the U.S. military is clearly still playing catch-up in this regard. These are issues that extend well beyond the Middle East and the current conflict with Iran, too. Though Iran’s drones and missiles clearly present real dangers, the scale and scope of those attacks pale in comparison to the volume and diversity of incoming threats U.S. forces would expect to face in a large-scale conflict in the Pacific against China.

It is true that you cannot protect everything from every threat, but physical hardening can help lessen the impacts. It also limits the overall options an enemy has for attacking a particular target and imposes additional costs to achieving the desired level of destruction. Paired with other tactics, it can drastically improve the survivability of a combat air force on the ground.

Hopefully there will FINALLY be a real wake up call here on hardened infrastructure for air bases. They (DoW leadership) have and are living in a fantasy land with this. It’s maddening. It’s easier to kill your most potent combat aircraft on the ground, where they sped the vast…

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) March 29, 2026

And this is at home and overseas. You can’t protect everything, not even close, but you can protect a portion of your fleet and plan around that capacity.

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) March 29, 2026

The current conflict with Iran has clearly put new emphasis on expanding the hardened infrastructure at air bases and other facilities in the Middle East, but it remains to be seen whether this latest wakeup call will be heard more broadly.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

WASHINGTON — For several hours Friday, in the stillness before dawn, the Senate appeared to have finally figured out how to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security before it faced the longest partial shutdown in U.S. history.

Senators handed House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) their deal and headed for the airports, seemingly confident of success.

Then it collapsed. Spectacularly.

An incensed Johnson marched out of his office Friday afternoon. He angrily denounced the plan that the Senate had unanimously agreed to as a “joke.”

“I have to protect the House, and I have to protect the American people,” Johnson told reporters.

It was a dramatic denunciation of a deal that his counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), had negotiated after weeks of effort, and was the latest abrupt turn in a funding saga that has bedeviled top Republicans for much of the year.

The collapse of the deal leaves Congress, now on a two-week spring break, with no easy way out of the impasse that has put the Homeland Security Department into a shutdown since mid-February. It also has exposed a rare rupture between the two Republican leaders in Congress, testing their alliances as they labor to move another set of President Trump’s priorities into law before the November elections.

Nothing ahead is likely to be easy.

How the deal collapsed

Thune had a deal with Democratic senators after negotiating for weeks on their demands for new restrictions on the department’s immigration enforcement work. Offers were traded several times. The talks moved along at a stop-start pace. Votes failed again and again.

Out of time and patience, senators essentially settled on a draw for the bill: They would not include funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and for U.S. Border Patrol, as Democrats had proposed repeatedly in the last week, but while setting aside all the Democratic demands for new limits on the agencies.

Thune pointed out that Congress had allotted money for immigration enforcement and he told reporters that “we can get at least a lot of the government opened up again and then we’ll go from there.”

Asked if he had cleared the compromise with Johnson, Thune said the two had texted.

“I don’t know what the House will do,” the senator said early Friday as the deal came together.

But as House Republicans woke up to the news, their outrage was swift.

Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) said that on a GOP conference call that morning to discuss their path forward, a few dozen members ranging from moderates to hard-line conservatives spoke in opposition to what the Senate had done.

“The Senate chickened out,” he said. “The cowards there, only a few of them in the middle of the night with I think only three to five senators present on the floor, chickened out because they wanted to go home for two weeks. We need to raise the bar.”

What’s next for Republicans?

The bitter split threatens to make the job for Republican leaders more difficult as they try to advance their priorities while they still have guaranteed control of both chambers. Trump has said that legislation to impose strict new proof of citizenship requirements on voting is his top priority, but there is no real path for that plan in the Senate with its 60-vote threshold for advancing legislation.

Some Republicans have pushed instead for a budget package that could potentially put some parts of the voting law in place. Republicans are also contemplating how to pass an expected request from the White House to fund the war with Iran that could total more than $200 billion, among other priorities.

Meanwhile, the flop of the funding deal has given Democrats another chance to pin the partial shutdown on House Republicans.

“They know this is a continuation of the shutdown because the Senate is gone,” said Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, the No. 2 Democratic leader. “So they know fully well what they’re doing.”

It is not clear what the Senate will do next. A quick resumption of talks is unlikely. Negotiations ended acrimoniously on both sides, with each blaming the other as moving the goalposts along the way.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said he was proud of his caucus for “holding the line.” But Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who leads the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Democrats were “intransigent and unreasonable.”

Thune said he believed that Democrats never wanted a deal and would not vote for ICE funding under any circumstances.

“I felt like from the beginning, they just didn’t want to get to ‘yes,’” Thune said after the vote.

The dynamic left senators convinced that the deal was the only way to move past their disagreements and reopen the Homeland Security Department.

But House Republicans on Friday night seemed to revel in the fact they had defied the wishes of the Senate. GOP members said that they work from a perspective that is closer to the will of their constituents.

To Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the Senate’s proposal was “nothing more than unconditional surrender masquerading as a solution.” She said the House ”will not bend itself into submission by acquiescing.”

Those searching for a way out of the shutdown seemed discouraged.

“This takes two chambers to get the job done,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a moderate Republican. “Apparently, there’s not enough communication between those chambers.”

Groves, Jalonick and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

Kerr would love to add a Commonwealth gold to his Olympic medals and his world and world indoor golds.

“What else would you want from a season really, every four years, in Scotland in front of a home crowd, going after a gold medal in the mile distance as well, that is why it is a massive priority in the season,” he explained.

“That is what I grew up thinking about, for me that is what my family spoke about, it is how we were when we were getting our first Scotland vests in cross country and on the track and on the road.

“That is what we always used to discuss when we were sitting on the bus going to these championships. ‘Who is going to the Commonwealth Games? What is everyone’s goals for the Commonwealth Games?’

“And to know that it is in Scotland, it is just pretty special so why would I give up that opportunity for something else? When you look back on your career these are the kind of moments that you are like, ‘that was awesome, that was a huge moment’ regardless of the result, you have got to enjoy it.”

Kerr expects his ambition to be matched by his fellow Scottish runners.

“I haven’t pulled on the Scotland vest since the Commonwealth Games in 2022,” he explained. “It is not something that happens really often.

“I know it will be a priority for Jake Wightman, I know it is a priority for Neil Gourley – that is who they are, it is who I am and that is the system we grew up in so I think all of us just have that ingrained in us.”

US-based Kerr’s last major outing ended in disappointment in Japan with a pulled calf muscle resulting in him finishing a distant last in the 1500m final at the World Championships in September.

Despite having limited race time since then, Kerr believes he is in good shape for 2026.

“Chatting about going after a world indoor title not that many months afterwards is a very proud moment for me and my team,” he added.

“To be honest, I am as fit or fitter than I have been in an indoor season in the past.

“Indoors is an odd time of year for athletes – some people do it, some people don’t and I like to do it normally but I am very proud of the position I am in.

“That is to do with coaching as well, Danny [Mackey] has done a great job with the coaching side of things.”