program

Walking down a hallway at UCLA’s Wasserman Football Center earlier this week, I became a believer.

Bouncing hurriedly in my direction was a bright-eyed kid with a huge smile. I didn’t know him. He didn’t know me.

Yet as he passed, he suddenly stuck out his hand for a fist bump, which I was too stunned to ignore, and so I pounded back while wondering.

What just happened?

Then it hit me.

Bob Chesney just happened.

New UCLA football coach Bob Chesney has won over cynics with his unflinching optimism and attention to detail.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

The new football coach has infused the completely rebuilt program into a place so energetic, his players run around sharing their inspiration to complete strangers.

“Yeah, we’re gonna win here,” Chesney says.

This shared spirit starts every morning in this building, in the team meeting room, where Chesney orders his players to stand and sing the school fight song as if they are standing on the field after a victory.

The words to the song are displayed on a giant screen, which increasingly isn’t used because most of his players have now learned the song by heart. Those who fail to sing get tagged with a red laser pointer, so pretty much everyone croons.

“I’m not gonna let people put limits on us,” Chesney says. “I’m not gonna let them tell us what we can and can’t do.”

This shared spirit continues deep into the night, as some of his players recently had a pool party at the home of Cori Close, the Bruins national championship women’s basketball coach. She was not teaching them how to swim. She was teaching them how to win.

“People say why here?” Chesney says. “I say, why not here?”

He shows up for my early afternoon visit last week dressed uniquely for a $33.75 million coach of a Big Ten school on the outskirts of Hollywood.

He is dressed like a player. Black shirt, black shorts, thin sheen of sweat adorning his expressive forehead.

“Been lifting weights,” he says.

Are weight machines set aside for the coaches?

“Lifting with the players,” he says. “These guys are telling me what to do.”

UCLA coach Bob Chesney stands on the field in between players and shouts instructions during a spring practice.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Full disclosure: I arranged my visit full of skepticism about this guy that has UCLA fans swooning.

C’mon. Seriously? He’s ready for this? How can he be ready for this?

The son of a small-town high school football coach in Pennsylvania coal country, Chesney had risen from obscurity to … more obscurity. He had previously coached at four different small schools you couldn’t find on a map. Salve Regina? Assumption? What?

This will be Chesney’s first shot under the bright lights. And he is taking that shot with a program whose best shots couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn.

The Bruins have not been to the Rose Bowl game in 28 years, and he is going to fix that? They have not won a Rose Bowl game in 41 years, and he was going to change that culture?

The celebrated Chip Kelly couldn’t do it. The emotional Jim Mora Jr. couldn’t do it. The cheerleading Rick Neuheisel couldn’t do it. The cerebral Karl Dorrell couldn’t do it. The affable Bob Toledo thought he had done it until his team inexplicably quit on him just 60 minutes from a berth in the national championship game.

I had covered all of these coaches, hearing their annual promises, seeing their annual collapses, realizing USC had a stranglehold on the college football money and attention in this town, and I had come up with an inescapable conclusion.

What Chesney is trying to do with UCLA football can’t be done.

Then I met him.

The best word to describe initial impressions of the 48-year-old former college safety would be, wow.

He talks fast. He oozes belief. He sells UCLA. He sells himself. He doesn’t shrink from his giant task. He doesn’t rationalize or equivocate his team’s sordid history.

He’s like one of those charming smart kids who never takes no for an answer.

“I feel it,” he says.”I feel it.”

No wonder his recruiting has been phenomenal, ranked seventh nationwide for the class of 2027, a trend that began this summer with 42 transfers, many of whom will start. No wonder he has been recognized by fans while hanging out in West Hollywood or Griffith Observatory or Dodger Stadium, where he’s already sat wide-eyed in a meeting with Dodger manager and UCLA grad Dave Roberts and Sandy Koufax.

He feels it, and the Bruin Nation feels it with him.

“Everybody’s included,” he says. “You wanna be included? C’mon, you’re included.”

As the self-proclaimed driver of the Bruin bandwagon in recent years — only to be derailed by midseason every time — I’ll pass on the inclusion. I’ve got to see it before buying it. But right now, Chesney has worked me up into such a lather that, yeah, I’m believing.

First, Chesney points to his resume, a litany of small schools who accumulated big victories, a dossier that includes only one losing season and none in the last seven years.

His head coaching career started at Division III Salve Regina (Rhode Island), where he turned eight consecutive losing seasons into three straight winning seasons.

“‘You can’t win there, nobody can win there’ is what they said,” Chesney says. “We won there.”

James Madison coach Bob Chesney and running back Wayne Knight celebrate after winning the Sun Belt championship on Dec. 5 in Harrisonburg, Va.

(Robert Simmons / Associated Press)

Then there was Division II Assumption in Massachusetts, where he took a team that had two winning records in 17 years and led them to five consecutive winning records and three straight playoff appearances.

“They said, ‘You can’t do it, nobody can do it,’’’ Chesney says. “We did it.”

Then there was Holy Cross, also in Massachusetts, where he took the team to a record five straight Patriot League championships while advancing as deep as the FCS quarterfinals.

“They told us, ‘The academics are too tough, the tuition is too high, you can’t win there,’’’ Chesney recounts. “We won there.”

Finally there was James Madison in Virginia, where he took a team whose stars had all followed Curt Cignetti to Indiana and still triumphed, leading them to a Cinderella appearance in the College Football Playoff.

“A lot of people doubted it, a lot of people didn’t believe it could work,” Chesney says. “We’ve proved a lot of people wrong throughout the years.”

After his resume, Chesney points to his surroundings. He is more awed by UCLA’s gravitas than any other football coach I can remember. It’s clear he can sell the school because he has such respect for the school.

“Here you’re a handshake away from changing your life … the school has an 8% acceptance rate, you’re walking around this campus with valedictorians and future CEOs and doctors and lawyers,” he says. “You’re surrounded by greatness, you have a chance to breathe this rare air that very few people get a chance to breathe.”

But for Chesney to fill this air with a football championship requires a price. It is a price that, so far, many potential donors have been reluctant to pay. But in today’s college football world, it is the cost of doing business.

Face it, Cignetti couldn’t have changed Indiana’s fortunes so rapidly if it wasn’t for Mark Cuban money. Chesney believes he can do the same thing here … with a little push.

Longtime UCLA donor Angelo Mazzone chipped in $10 million recently, and more such gifts are needed for UCLA to be able to pay the players that bring them a championship.

”There’s a major financial commitment that comes with getting those four- and five-star kids, but we can really turn the tables with that kind of help,” Chesney says. “Every single thing that is needed is here, we just have to make sure we get the support from the people on the outside that we need to actualize our dream.”

UCLA coach Bob Chesney shares his vision for the program during his introductory news conference on Dec. 9.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

He’s doing all the right things while chasing that dream.

Even as his bosses are pushing to move the team out of the Rose Bowl to SoFi Stadium, he loves the Rose Bowl, and took his team there for its spring game on a weekend that began with him standing outside the brightly lit marquee with his father and his son in the dark.

“It was one of those moments, I was like, man, the history of this place … to me to play in the Rose Bowl, what an honor and a privilege,” he says.

The game actually drew a decent spring crowd of 10,000-12,000, partially because Chesney had worked so hard at banging the drum. He and his players even brought pizzas to various campus groups in hopes of enlisting support.

“You want to be around this program, you can be around this program,” he says.

Then there’s his opinion of USC. He doesn’t have one. He never mentions them. For a UCLA coach, this is a good thing.

“I guess we’re perceived to be in their shadow, and for whatever reasons we weren’t an option the last couple of years, but look at our recruiting, I know we’re becoming an option for L.A. again,” Chesney says. “I think you can change a lot of people’s opinions on who they want to be rooting for.”

As in all levels of football, it all comes down to the quarterback, and Chesney had his first win by convincing budding star Nico Iamaleava. The kid was roundly criticized in this space for holding out and then walking out on his Tennessee team last year, but he has since grown up, and could be the sort of game-changer that Chesney requires.

“Watching Nico with his athletic ability, his arm, creating plays after the play with his legs, I have very high hopes,” says Chesney.

There are potentially outstanding transfers at half of the positions, and, with some solid returning players — this is a team that beat seventh-ranked Penn State, remember — the Bruins have a decent foundation.

UCLA coach Bob Chesney pats running back Anthony Woods on the helmet during the team’s spring game at the Rose Bowl on May 2.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Throw in a favorable 2026 schedule that doesn’t include Ohio State or Penn State or Washington or Iowa, and one thinks they might even have a chance at making some miracles.

“You’re going to see a different brand of football, one that is united, that is passionate, that is physical, that is tough, that has a lot of fun playing together,” he said.

You’re also going to hear a sound that died in the brief DeShaun Foster era, a sound that has never lasted more than a couple of weeks in the last 30 years.

That rumble is the Bruin football bandwagon. It’s revving up again. The inimitable force that is Bob Chesney wants to include you on the start of its journey.

Let him.

The U.S. Navy is pumping $70 million into the development of a ground-launched version of CoAspire’s Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile-Extended Range (RAACM-ER) cruise missile. RAACM-ER was unveiled just earlier this year. Continued work on the design will now be done under a program aimed primarily at giving U.S. allies and partners a new, lower-cost way to strike moving targets at sea and on land.

CoAspire announced today that it had received what is known as an Other Transactional Agreement (OTA) in support of the Navy’s Coalition Heterogenous Affordable Offensive Strike (CHAOS) program. The OTA process is a contracting mechanism that U.S. government agencies use to help speed up advanced research and development and prototype efforts.

“Under a $70m Prototype Other Transactional Agreement (OTA) with CMG Networks on behalf of Naval Aviation Systems Consortium, CoAspire will design, build, test, and deliver to Program Acquisition Executive for Munitions and its program office, PMX-201, an affordable, ground-launched, mid-range, cruise missile system that can attack both land-based and moving maritime targets,” according to a press release from CoAspire. “The end-use Foreign Military Sale (FMS) customers are allies and coalition partners needing an affordable yet highly effective maritime strike weapon that can be easily manufactured at scale.”

Whether or not the Navy has also selected other companies to move ahead with their designs under CHAOS is unknown, and TWZ has reached out to the service for more information.

RAACM-ER is a turbojet-powered cruise missile. It has a body with a trapezoidal shape that is reminiscent, in very broad strokes, of Lockheed Martin’s stealthy AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and derivatives thereof.

“Physics is physics,” Doug Denneny, founder, CEO, and owner at CoAspire, told TWZ‘s Jamie Hunter at the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space exhibition earlier this year. “When people look at shapes, they look similar, but just like an Airbus looks like a Boeing, but what they have different inside is really what matters, and that’s how we differ in many ways.”

CoAspire’s missile has a GPS-assisted navigation system and a long-wave infrared seeker in the nose. The guidance package allows for the engagement of moving targets, as well as static ones based on fixed target coordinates. Passive infrared seekers are immune to radiofrequency countermeasures, such as jammers or decoys. They also do not pump out signals that could alert a target to the incoming danger. All of this creates advantages over active radars for terminal homing.

When RAACM-ER made its public debut, the company said the design could be fired from ground-based launchers or ones on ships, as well as be employed by aircraft. However, an air-launched version was the only one on display. Surface launch requires the addition of a rocket booster to the tail of the missile, as seen on the model in the picture at the top of this story. That booster falls away after launch.

As an aside, CoAspire is also now developing what it says is a separate surface-launched version of RAACM-ER, called GHOST, for the U.S. military’s Low-Cost Containerized Missiles (LCCM) program. The core RAACM-ER design also evolved conceptually from an earlier missile simply called RAACM, but they are entirely different. The original RAACM was developed under a U.S. Air Force program called the Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM), which has also been aimed primarily at supporting allies and partners, starting first with Ukraine.

When designing RAACM-ER, “our engineers came to us and said, ‘Hey, if we’re going to make a bigger one, should we make it look just the same?’ I mentioned earlier that RAACM was made that shape just to ease integration,” Denneny also told Jamie Hunter at Sea-Air-Space. “We’re an engineering company, so we said, ‘Let’s optimize fuel volume, let’s optimize survivability features, let’s optimize physics so that this thing can go as far as possible and take the sensors needed. That’s why it’s in this slightly different shape.”

How far RAACM-ER, now described as a “mid-range” missile, can go in any of its configurations is unclear. When it was first unveiled, the missile looked to be well suited for the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles-Beyond Adversary’s Reach (FAMM-BAR) effort, which is seeking lower-cost designs with maximum ranges of 1,000 nautical miles or more. This is roughly the same reach as is offered today by variants of the surface-launched Tomahawk cruise missile.

However, at Sea-Air-Space, Denneny separately told Naval News that RAACM-ER had roughly twice the reach of the original RAACM, which would be around 485 nautical miles (900 kilometers) based on previously stated ERAM program requirements. This would put the design more in the category, at least range-wise, of the air-launched AGM-158B JASSM-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) land-attack cruise missile. An extended-range version of the JASSM’s Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) cousin that is now in development is expected to have similar reach.

“CoAspire hasn’t discussed range capabilities of our products, so any assumptions/estimations would be speculation,” a representative for the company told TWZ today when asked for further clarification.

Even with a range of 485 nautical miles, RAACM-ER would offer a notable boost in capability over many other anti-ship cruise missiles in service today with U.S. allies and partners, as well as the U.S. military itself. For example, the reported maximum reach of extended-range variants of the Harpoon is in the 150-mile realm. Current-generation versions of the increasingly popular Naval Strike Missile (NSM) have a stated range of at least 162 miles.

In more general terms, extended reach expands the total area that a single launch platform can hold at risk, while also keeping it further away from potential threats. Longer-range munitions also offer additional flexibility to respond to targets that might emerge suddenly or other changing developments in the battlespace.

How large a warhead RAACM-ER carries is unclear. Trading warhead weight and bulk for fuel, as well as reducing total payload weight, would help extend range. A smaller warhead would have impacts on the missile’s effectiveness. At the same time, certain targets would also not necessarily require something like the 1,000-pound-class warheads found on many Tomahawk variants to achieve the desired effect. When it comes to ships, especially, destroying or even just severely damaging key systems on a ship can achieve a mission kill that substantially reduces the vessel’s combat effectiveness or might even force it back into port for a protracted period of time.

See Tomahawk missile strike a ship

Providing increased capability at a cheaper price point is also a key aspect of the CHAOS program. It was also top of mind for CoAspire in the development of RAACM-ER, though an estimated unit price for the missile has yet to be released. Current-generation Harpoons can range in price from $1.4 to $2.25 million, depending on variant, based on publicly available cost data. NSMs are also in the roughly $2 million price range. The latest versions of the Tomahawk are even more expensive.

“The most important thing is affordable mass. [This] means keeping the cost down, so that the nation and our allies can purchase these at scale. That’s number one,” CoAspire’s Denneny told us at Sea-Air-Space. “Number two is to use as many commercial off-the-shelf parts, so that we are not locked into a single supplier for anything. The final thing is to have something that can survive enemy countermeasures, and also hit the target, whether it’s stationary or moving. Those are the main requirements.”

“An additive approach also allows for rapid modifications and a reduction in tooling and touch labor that results in cost reductions and program improvements without breaking a production line for re-tooling,” CoAspire’s press release today also notes. “It also allows for the development of new variants in months compared to years needed by other missile manufacturing methods.”

Providing new standoff strike weapons in mass to allies and partners would have knock-on benefits for the U.S. military in future coalition operations. This would distribute an additional tier of capability across more friendly forces, helping to reduce reliance on American forces and foreign militaries that field higher-end munitions.

All of this could make the ground-launched version of RAACM-ER, and any other missiles developed under the Navy’s CHAOS program, attractive to the U.S. military, as well. As already noted, the GHOST version of RAACM-ER is already under development now as part of the LCCM program, which is a U.S. Army effort.

As TWZ regularly draws attention to, munitions expenditures in recent operations against Iran and other conflicts globally in the past few years have underscored the increasingly critical need for new designs that are both cheaper and easier to produce. This is vital for ensuring sufficient stockpiles of key munitions, including stand-off strike weapons, at the start of a conflict and making sure that the arsenal can be replenished as fighting continues. It is important to note that lower-cost types are not expected to supplant more expensive and exquisite capabilities now or in the future, but instead complement them.

Just in the past few months, the U.S. military has moved to lay the groundwork for the acquisition of tens of thousands of new, lower-cost stand-off munitions over the next three to five years. CoAspire is one of several companies to have received framework deals as part of these efforts. These agreements cover surface and air-launched designs being developed in support of the aforementioned LCCM and FAMM programs, respectively. It’s also worth noting here that the ERAM program, which was also foreign-focused at the outset, has already been feeding into FAMM.

With all this in mind, today’s announcement regarding CHAOS is another important win for CoAspire. This also underscores U.S. military-wide efforts to reduce reliance on traditional prime contractors and do more to leverage small and non-traditional firms for new major weapon system programs.

With the new vote of confidence from the Navy, along with the previous LCCM framework deal, CoAspire’s RAACM-ER continues to emerge as a particularly notable development for the U.S. military and its allies and partners.

Update: 2:25 PM ET –

The U.S. Navy has now provided TWZ with some additional details regarding today’s announcement about the CHAOS program.

The Navy awarded an Other Transaction Authority agreement to CoAspire for Phases 1 and 2 of the Coalition Heterogenous Affordable Offensive Strike (CHAOS) prototype effort, July 17, marking PAE Munitions’ direct investment in the emerging low-cost cruise missile market,” according to a Navy spokesperson. “The award is a significant milestone in developing an affordable maritime strike capability for security assistance partners while expanding the defense industrial base through competition and accelerating a new entrant into the Navy’s precision strike portfolio.”

“The Navy has requested appropriated funds to begin integration of this low-cost maritime capability on Navy platforms as part of the FY27 budget request,” they added. “PAE Munitions expect[s] at least one more industry agreement on CHAOS as part of its competitive strategy.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

A transcript from an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by former JSerra girls’ basketball coach Chyanne Butler indicates the school could be facing a Southern Section investigation for CIF rules violations.

“We are aware of the transcripts and the trial,” Southern Section spokesman Thom Simmons said Friday.

JSerra has “no comment” while the case continues, a school spokesman said.

Butler alleged employment discrimination after being dismissed in January of 2025. A jury trial earlier this year resulted in a hung jury over an allegation of gender discrimination and a new trial is scheduled for Aug. 24 in Orange County Superior Court with Judge David O Carter presiding. Allegations of race discrimination and a sexual harassment claim against an assistant coach were dismissed.

JSerra has not self-reported any CIF violations even though in the first trial, an assistant coach testified under oath about recruiting a player from another school and then providing family expenses including “medical insurance, medical bills, groceries, toiletries, incidentals, basketball shoes.”

That would be a violation of CIF rules.

The Southern Section usually sends allegations of rules violations back to the school to investigate.

Butler is represented by attorney Tim Lawson, who deposed JSerra officials.

The White House has formally registered its opposition to a move by Congress to block work on the nuclear-powered Trump class battleship unless the U.S. Navy provides assurances that key weapon systems are “sufficiently mature.” The House Armed Services Committee has already demanded a report from the Secretary of the Navy outlining the steps the service is taking to ensure the battleship program won’t exacerbate existing construction delays on aircraft carriers and submarines.

Earlier this week, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Statement of Administration Policy regarding the latest draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for Fiscal Year 2027 that is now making its way through the House of Representatives. The document offers support for and opposition to various sections of the proposed legislation, which is also known as H.R. 8800.

“The Administration appreciates that H.R. 8800 would provide authorization of the 18 ships requested in the Budget. These ships are a direct commitment to restoring America’s maritime dominance and maritime industrial base,” OMB’s statement, which was published on July 21, declares. “In addition, the Administration appreciates the bill’s support of the Battleship program by fully authorizing the $1 billion in advance procurement necessary to accelerate the delivery to the Fleet.”

“However, the Administration opposes the bill’s excessive reporting requirements in section 131 regarding the Administration’s priority Battleship program,” it continues. “The Administration strongly opposes any reporting requirements that delay the Battleship program without supporting national security requirements.”

On July 21, USNI News also reported that OMB was pressing members of Congress to include funding to start work on the first Trump class battleship in a proposed temporary spending bill, or Continuing Resolution. A temporary funding package could be needed if legislators cannot pass a more formal budget by September 30, when the current fiscal year ends.

When it comes to Section 131 of H.R. 8800, the provision is brief, but pointed. At the time of writing, it reads, in full:

“The Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a contract or other agreement that includes a scope of work for the construction of the lead ship of the Battleship program until the date on which the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the weapon systems planned for inclusion in such lead ship are at a sufficiently mature technology readiness level.”

The section does not name any particular weapon systems or define what level of technological readiness would be deemed sufficient. To date, the Navy has described the planned Trump class battleship as a 35,000-ton-displacement warship with a diverse array of weapons. The ship is set to be able to fire nuclear and conventional missiles, including hypersonic types, from several very large Vertical Launch System (VLS) arrays. It will also have an electromagnetic railgun, a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns, various laser directed energy weapons, and additional weapon systems for close-in defense.

TWZ previously reported on this provision, which has been in the proposed legislation since at least May. As we wrote in the past:

“In terms of technological maturity, the railgun presents particular questions. Between 2005 and 2021, the Navy had an active railgun program. Despite promising developments, plans for an at-sea test were repeatedly pushed back before the entire effort was shelved. Major technical hurdles were cited as a key factor in that decision. The railgun itself was effectively placed in storage at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico.“

“However, it emerged earlier this year that the Navy had conducted a new round of testing of the railgun at WSMR in February 2025. Whether the Navy has any plans to pick up where it left off with this prototype design, which was developed by BAE Systems, or pursue a new one remains unclear. General Atomics, which previously supported U.S. Army railgun efforts, has publicly expressed interest in being involved in arming the Trump class.”

“While the Navy has been very active in developing and fielding laser directed energy weapons, this is another area where the service has faced continued challenges in expanding their operational use. The plans for the Trump class specifically call for a 300-kilowatt-class laser, which is far more powerful than any of the designs the Navy has integrated on its warships to date. The service currently has eight Arleigh Burke class destroyers with the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN), as well as another one of those warships with the High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS). HELIOS is a 60-kilowatt-class design, though there has been talk about scaling up its power rating to 150 kilowatts. ODIN’s power rating does not appear to be officially confirmed, but it is understood to be significantly lower than that of HELIOS. You can read more about all of this here.”

“The Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missile, another key component of the future Trump class arsenal, is also still in development. The first test launch from a warship, the stealth destroyer USS Zumwalt, is expected to come next year. IRCPS is the Navy half of a joint program with the U.S. Army, which is working to field a land-based version of the same missile. The Army refers to its complete weapon system as the Dark Eagle. The Army had suffered significant setbacks in the past with the Dark Eagle, but the service had blamed those issues on the launcher rather than the missile.”

For its part, OMB’s July 21 statement does not respond to any particular concerns that might be raised by Section 131, either.

Section 131 represents just one small portion of the questions, concerns, and criticism that members of Congress have leveled at the Trump class battleship program. The first one of these ships, currently set to be named the USS Defiant, has an estimated price tag of $17 billion. This would make the vessel more expensive than each of the next three Ford class aircraft carriers. The future USS Defiant is also not currently expected to enter service until 2036. The Navy has already outlined plans to order 14 more of these battleships between Fiscal Years 2029 and 2055, as well.

With this in mind, as noted, the House Armed Services Committee has separately asked for a report from the Secretary of the Navy, to be delivered no later than March 1, 2027, on the potential industrial impacts. A particular issue is the strain that work on the Trump class could have on America’s limited nuclear shipbuilding enterprise. Currently, there are only two U.S. shipyards qualified to build nuclear-powered vessels and only one supplier of naval reactors. Currently, the only nuclear-powered ships in the Navy are aircraft carriers and submarines. The service has not operated a nuclear-powered surface combatant in decades, and it has been even longer since one was built in the United States.

TWZ has repeatedly raised questions about the basic industrial capacity to support the battleship program since it was first rolled out to the public in December 2025. It is worth noting here that third, fourth, and fifth Ford class carriers now under construction – the future USS Enterprise (CVN-80), USS Doris Miller (CVN-81), and USS William J. Clinton (CVN-82) – have all suffered delays. Concerns are also regularly voiced about potential setbacks in the construction of new Virginia class and Columbia class submarines. Navy officials have been saying for years now that there is little, if any, margin left in the Columbia class delivery timeline, which is a critical matter of national security. It is essential for those boats to be delivered on a tight schedule to ensure there is no gap in the ability of the leg of America’s nuclear triad to meet operational requirements.

The battleship effort is of particular significance to President Donald Trump and has been presented as a signature program for his administration. At the same time, the schedule that has been laid out so far means that major decisions about how to proceed in acquiring these ships, if at all, will run into the next administration. Any delays will only push that timeline further to the right at a time when there are already major competing priorities for defense spending. Some members of Congress have openly questioned whether the battleship effort is the best use of available resources already.

The annual NDAA is still far from being finalized. The House’s version will need to be reconciled with the one being advanced in the Senate before the bill can be put to a vote, let alone sent to Trump’s desk to be signed into law (or vetoed). This is a process typically marked by lengthy negotiations, and Section 131, as well as other provisions, could change in the future or be removed entirely.

Whether or not a larger political fight around the Trump class battleship emerges remains to be seen. However, OMB has now made clear publicly that the administration is against the inclusion of the guardrails around the program that the current version of H.R. 8800 proposes to establish.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Hardly anyone walking up Peppertree Lane notices the Hollywood Bowl Museum on the way to the amphitheater entrance. The overlooked museum, however, has been refreshed with an enchanting new exhibition. Well-timed, it provides an excellent primer on changing L.A. mores seen through the history of the Bowl over the past century.

Change is again upon us. As Angelenos have evolved, so have our ideas about the Bowl. A concert was a concert and audiences of yore dressed for the Los Angeles Philharmonic, indoors or out. Men wore coats, ties and fedoras. I have a photo of my mother at the Bowl on a chilly 1940s evening sporting, like other ladies around her in the inexpensive bleachers, her mink stole.

The Bowl was said to boast, before the construction of the Hollywood Freeway, a natural acoustical, well, bowl. Even so, sonic adventurers, beginning with Leopold Stokowski in the 1930s, experimented with amplification in an obsessive, seemingly quixotic effort to locate a mythical sonic grail on the Cahuenga Pass. Boys with their toys, thought The Times’ feisty critic Isabelle Morse Jones.

We now have it with a spectacular new sound system along with the old caveat: Beware of what you wish for.

The Bowl, of course, remains the Bowl. Last week when the Los Angeles Philharmonic opened its summer season in the venue it built and has managed for over a century, there were all the familiar alfresco and musical pleasures: convivial picnicking, fine weather, inimitable atmosphere, a white-jacketed orchestra on an iconic stage. The museum’s panorama of ageless ambience is this summer enhanced by increased yet snappy security and a handsome “John Williams Stage” plaque honoring L.A.’s beloved composer.

The newly designed white French loudspeakers suspended over the Bowl stage along with ground-level white cubes of super-effective subwoofers have clean, unobtrusive lines that well fit the shell. Their unobtrusive placement complements their immersive musicality, hitherto only possible outdoors with high-end earphones or headphones connected to sophisticated digital acoustic conversion equipment costing a bundle. For the first time, a dollar seat (there are still a few for the L.A. Phil) strives for such sonic bliss.

It feels miraculous. You are in an excellent concert hall-like acoustical environment while in the great outdoors. Our earbuds have already trained us to think of music as a private escape from reality. Even so, to be in that environmentally exclusive sonic world while sharing music with thousands of others in a special setting, ironically begins to feel more artificially escapist than a crummy sound system that reminds you of where you are.

Will we — should we — learn to love it and find anything less artificial? Car audio systems creating concert hall conditions suggest we will. Audiophiles well know that you get used to new equipment, no matter how revelatory it first sounds, very quickly.

A few years ago, when I heard a demonstration of a souped-up, hi-res recording in surround Dolby Atmos of excerpts from Wagner’s “Die Walküre” on a 32-speaker Burmester audio system crammed into a fancy Mercedes SUV, I was scared out of my wits. “Apocalypse Now” on the 405 is not for the faint of heart.

Yet I’ve spared no expense on what I find a more refined sound system in my Volvo, which I now use more and more for audio books than music. The richer, more human quality of a recorded voice is like having a virtual companion reading to you. I’m less in a hurry. It’s nice to have a pal at rush hour.

It is far too soon to say what ways the fabulous new Bowl sound system, which happens to be AI-endowed, might become friend and/or foe. In the first two L.A. Phil classical concerts, the white speakers brought out wonders and caused problems. But the minimal Bowl rehearsal time allows little opportunity to fine-tune.

One big change in Bowl priorities has been the rise of pop as king. Not that long ago, the L.A. Phil’s opening night was the Bowl opening night, suitable for conspicuous socialite picnicking. Not only has the Bowl opener been turned over to star pop performers (who bring in bigger bucks), this year there wasn’t even a first L.A. Phil Tuesday. That date became yet another money-maker with private event — a screening of “Moana” with live orchestra, luckily before the disappointing reviews and box office performance. The first L.A. Phil concert of the season was moved to Wednesday and poorly attended.

The back-to-back Wednesday and Thursday night programs featured music composed and performed by Americans. Each included a short new work commissioned by the L.A. Phil. On Wednesday, moonlighting Hollywood Bowl Orchestra music director Thomas Wilkins led the premiere of Shaina Taub’s “Suffs” Song Cycle — orchestrations of four songs from her recent musical about women’s suffrage that played just down the road at the Pantages last year. The next evening, Tito Muñoz made a strong L.A. Phil debut in a program that included the premiere of “The Art of the Goal,” celebrating Los Angeles Football Club, and that was credited jointly to filmmaker Josh Kahn and composer Adam Schoenberg.

Both premieres were reminders that the sound system will have many purposes. In “Suffs,” stalwart amplification emphasized the predictability of forthright lyrics and score. AI is supposed to make voices stand out, but it is not helpful to singers’ limitations. On the other hand, is brought out the sumptuous quality Alex Newell’s voice potently making the adamant “Keep Marching” keep marching.

Muñoz’s program was titled “The Classical World Cup,” with music by Argentine composer Alberto Ginastera, Mexican composer Silvestre Revueltas and U.S. composers Samuel Barber and Aaron Copland along with Schoenberg. As it turned out, Mexico and the U.S. were already out of World Cup competition, and “Art of the Goal” came across as an eight-minute advertisement for the L.A. footballers. They’re in the dressing room revving up and, on the field, revved up, sped up, cut up with music that excites and far too many shots of a soccer field lined with advertisements, just the kind of branding we hope to escape at the Bowl.

Then again, even though “Goal” was shown only on video monitors, the Bowl with its new sound system worked brilliantly as the grandest cinema on the planet. Hollywood may be hurting, but let the Bowl now save the day by inspiring Hollywood to reinvent, in its backyard, film with live music.

As for regular orchestral music, the sound system was hit and miss. On Wilkins’ program, Valerie Coleman’s dark “Fanfare for Uncommon Times” brought a listener inside brass and percussion. Leonard Bernstein’s lavish orchestrations of his “Three Dances from ‘On the Town’” and Ellington’s “Harlem” benefited from Wilkins’ low-key conducting, offering ease and freedom to the players.

Muñoz’s program was bookended by dance scores — Ginastera’s “Four Dances from ‘Estancia’” and Copland’s ballet “Billy the Kid” — that evoke the prairie and the people in it in both viscerally and spiritually. The new sound system and eager performances made the prairie feel close. In between, violinist Randall Goosby brought richness to Barber’s Violin Concerto and the L.A. went in for gripping weirdness in “Sensemayá.”

But who did what? Were balances the conductors’, the sound engineers’, AI’s? While the amplified soundstage is now as huge as the Bowl, attention was increasingly drawn to individuals, heightened by video closeups. A horn flub (and horns flub) stands out. The sound is not just big and bold, but scrubbed clean by AI with the goal of maddening perfection. Will such scrutiny, in the end, make players uptight or liberate them? It’s well to remember that in the early days of synthesizing instruments, violins with perfect vibrato sounded especially fake, until tiny errors generated by chance were added to the sine waves.

The Hollywood Bowl has created a beast. If humanized, the Bowl could serve as antidote to a worrisome AI future. But the question remains whether we can change AI or the newly potent sound waves only make matters worse.

The U.K. Royal Air Force has launched a new collaborative combat aircraft (CCA) program, named Storm Fighter, reviving a British push into the autonomous ‘loyal wingman’ arena as the service seeks to build what officials describe as “Europe’s first sixth-generation air force.” The announcement, made by a senior government official today, marks a renewed effort to field uncrewed combat aircraft designed to operate alongside crewed combat jets after earlier British CCA initiatives lost momentum.

Storm Fighter forms part of a much broader U.K. push to introduce uncrewed and autonomous systems across the armed forces under a defense modernization effort backed by around $6.6 billion over the next four years. You can read more about this Defense Investment Plan (DIP) here.

Speaking at the Air & Space Power Association Global Air and Space Chiefs’ Conference in London today, Luke Pollard, the U.K. minister for defense readiness and industry, said that Storm Fighter will be funded using the $406 million investment in CCAs included in the DIP published earlier this month.

“We are maximizing our air power in the eye of the storm of future combat, that will be swarming with drones, sixth-generation fighter jets and ever evolving EW [electronic warfare] capabilities,” Pollard said, adding, “I am delighted to reveal that our new autonomous CCA program will be named Storm Fighter […] to deliver guardian angel and attack dog drones to fly into combat with the Typhoon, F-35, and Tempest. Storm Fighter will make the RAF Europe’s first sixth-generation air force.”

The Storm Fighter nomenclature is in line with a set of ‘Storm’ programs in the air warfare domain. Previous ones include Storm Shroud, which will provide the Royal Air Force with a new uncrewed electronic warfare drone, that will enter service this year. Meanwhile, the Royal Air Force today also announced a new EW drone, named Storm Chrome, as well as Storm Fire, a 1,000-mile-range one-way attack drone.

As an example of the experimental programs that could feed into Storm Fighter, Pollard highlighted Project Vanquish, which is intended to demonstrate a fixed-wing, short takeoff and landing autonomous collaborative platform (ACP) from a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier before the end of 2027. The ACP terminology has been used in the United Kingdom in the past and is broadly equivalent to CCA.

The Royal Navy has explored various drone options for its carriers in the past. It has tested the General Atomics Mojave short takeoff and landing (STOL) drone from HMS Prince of Wales class, as well as catapult-launching smaller, jet-powered drones.

Mojave Aircraft Carrier Takeoff and Landing

Pollard referencing the Royal Navy Vanquish ACP program is noteworthy and reflects the struggles that the Royal Air Force has faced in getting similar efforts off the ground.

The Royal Air Force had been working on the Project Mosquito as part of the broader Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA) initiative. Project Mosquito called for a prototype “uncrewed fighter aircraft” flying by 2023, and in 2021 a contract for the aircraft was awarded to Spirit AeroSystems. Mosquito was canceled in 2022 for reasons that are not entirely clear, although it may well have become clear that the ambition couldn’t be realized with the relatively tiny budget, just $41 million across three years.

Speaking at the Global Air and Space Chiefs’ Conference, a Royal Air Force official stressed that Storm Fighter should result in a vehicle “that is good enough, that is cheap enough, that can be produced fast enough, and we need enough of them.” The official added: “If you’re building something that takes 70 percent of the build time of an F-35 and costs three-quarters of it, then rip up your CCA program and start again.”

Clearly, however, the Royal Air Force still needs a loyal wingman-type platform. This is the same ambition outlined by the U.K. Ministry of Defense in the past, when it described drones that would “fly at high speed alongside fighter jets” and would carry “missiles, surveillance and electronic warfare technology.”

When Project Mosquito was still active, the U.K. Ministry of Defense also stressed that its future loyal wingman would be expected to target and shoot down enemy aircraft and “survive against surface-to-air missiles.”

While Pollard’s words today were ambiguous, his reference to providing “guardian angel and attack dog drones” suggests that both aerial combat and strike missions could be covered. On the other hand, this might also describe both offensive and defensive counter-air missions.

It’s notable, too, that the new CCA should fly into combat with the F-35, Tempest, and Typhoon. The last of these is currently planned to be withdrawn from service by 2040, so the drone would have to be in operational use ahead of the arrival of the sixth-generation Tempest.

As to who might build the Storm Fighter, Janes reports that “several contractors have already indicated their interest, most prominently BAE Systems and Boeing,” although a formal set of requirements is yet to be published.

In the case of Boeing, the company’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat has already attracted some official interest in the United Kingdom. In 2023, Rear Adm. James Parkin, Director Develop for the Royal Navy, gave a presentation that included a slide with a Boeing rendering showing a variant or derivative of the MQ-28 with a visible tailhook landing on a Queen Elizabeth class carrier.

TWZ has also made the case for the Australia-United Kingdom-United States defense cooperation agreement, or AUKUS, to be extended to cover the MQ-28 and other uncrewed technologies.

Meanwhile, BAE Systems is also involved in the MQ-28 program, providing the autonomous Vehicle Management System (VMS) and elements of the Ground Control Station (GCS) that monitor and control the drone. The company has also presented a rendering of a notional stealthy CCA, as seen at the top of this story. This has some features reminiscent of renderings of the Tempest crewed combat jet, including large-area trapezoidal wings and cropped outward-canted tailfins. The drone has a wedge-shaped nose intake, partially shrouded by a prominent ‘lip.’

In its work on CCAs, BAE Systems is also working in collaboration with Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works division, which is also heavily involved in this field. This includes a higher-end stealthy CCA-type drone named Vectis. The uncrewed aircraft is designed to be highly adaptable to an operator’s requirements, which would appear to place it particularly well for the U.K. Storm Fighter initiative, especially if paired with BAE Systems.

When it comes to stealthy drones, BAE Systems’ experience dates back far longer, including a proof-of-concept UCAV testbed called Taranis.

BAE Systems – Taranis Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) First Flight [1080p]

Apart from the two contractors mentioned, the Royal Air Force CCA effort is likely to attract attention from others, too.

General Atomics has pitched to the United Kingdom a carrier-capable member of its Gambit drone family, which is based around a common modular core ‘chassis’ concept, and which could fit into a future air wing aboard the Queen Elizabeth class. The company already provides the Royal Air Force with Protector drones.

Other U.S. pitches could come from Northrop Grumman or Kratos, while there is also a growing pool of potential European players.

For now, Storm Fighter remains little more than a name attached to an emerging requirement, with no design, contractor, or acquisition timeline yet formalized — as far as we know. Even so, today’s announcement signals that the Royal Air Force is once again serious about fielding a loyal wingman capability after the demise of Project Mosquito. This comes as other European nations are already firming up their CCA requirements and setting in-service goals, while more major players are now deeply involved in proving out operational concepts.

With autonomous aircraft now central to the broader U.K. defense strategy and the Tempest program steadily advancing, the pressure will be on to turn Storm Fighter into an operational capability.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

More than three dozen California legislators are calling for Gov. Gavin Newsom to exempt the state’s film and TV production incentive program from a recently approved cap on corporate tax credits, warning that without action it will be “significantly kneecapped.”

Though the state’s budget has already been approved, the legislators say a solution must be devised before the end of the year so that production companies do not lose the “full value of tax credits they earned in exchange for creating middle-class entertainment industry jobs,” according to a letter dated Friday and addressed to Newsom, State Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas.

“Tax credits earned for creating jobs in motion picture and television production are not the same as tax credits provided for research and development,” the letter states. The legislation “creates short-term budget savings by reneging on commitments made to the entertainment industry and the working families who depend upon it for their livelihoods.”

The letter comes shortly after Newsom signed his final state budget as California’s governor, a $351.7-billion spending plan that includes new limitations on corporate tax credits.

The budget includes a provision that restricts the maximum tax credit companies can claim in a given year to $5 million or 50% of a company’s tax state tax liability, whichever is greater.

Hollywood industry representatives had warned the governor’s office that the new restrictions could affect the state’s production incentive program, which was just bolstered last year to an annual cap of $750 million.

The film and TV industry in Southern California has struggled to rebound from the effects of the pandemic, the dual writers’ and actors’ strikes in 2023 and the exodus of production to other states and countries.

Members who voted for the budget bill had believed there was a carve-out for the film and TV tax credit program, said Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), chair of the Assembly Democratic Caucus.

“I don’t think that anyone understood what this cap was, what it did and that it effectively kneecapped and reverses the progress that we made last year,” Zbur, who co-authored last year’s bill, said in an interview. “We need to have people understand that these changes, which I think people believed were minor, are really significant and will result in significant job loss if we don’t fix them.”

The new changes to the state’s film and TV tax credit program, which included expanded eligibility for additional shows and films, came after intense lobbying from studios and industry workers, who argued that more funding was necessary to lure production back from other states and countries.

Last week, the California Film Commission said the expanded tax credit program was set to deliver $6.6 billion in direct production spending in-state and more than 34,000 cast and crew jobs across the 170 total film and TV shows that received production incentives this year.

The Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, which is moving at light speed toward its Sept. 22 opening, announced Thursday that it will give free annual passes to its South L.A. neighbors living in the 90037 ZIP Code. The 300,000-square-foot, $1-billion museum located in Exposition Park will also host a special community preview day on Sept. 13, more than a week before the general public gets to step inside.

The 90037 ZIP Code has a population of more than 65,000 and is bordered roughly by the 110 Freeway to the west, Slauson Avenue to the south, Central Avenue to the east and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to the north. Residents can register for passes at lucasmuseum.org/lm37 and will be alerted in August when the program launches. Pass holders can reserve tickets for themselves and one guest.

Tickets for non-pass holders go on sale July 21. They cost $25 for adults and $21 for seniors. Kids 17 and under are free.

“Storytelling has the power to bring people together and create a sense of community,” said Lucas Museum Chief Executive Tracey Bates in a news release about the program. “Through LM37, we are inviting our South Los Angeles neighbors to make the museum part of their lives and take their own path of discovery through the art, programs and experiences that will help shape this new cultural hub for Los Angeles.”

The community preview day is designed to give local business owners, community partners, civic leaders and registered LM37 pass holders a sneak peak of the 10,000 square feet of exhibition space, as well as the expansive gardens with 11 acres of park space.

The opening programming, curated by co-founder George Lucas, features 20 inaugural exhibitions across more than 30 galleries, including one titled “Star Wars in Motion,” containing vehicle designs, high-speed racers, flying vessels, props, costumes and illustrations from the first six films in the beloved franchise.

More than 1,200 objects will be on display from Lucas’ personal collection of narrative art. Highlights include work by Norman Rockwell and Dorothea Lange, as well as a variety of manga, children’s book illustrations and comics.

A new rule proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally overhaul the way federal grants are awarded and overseen — a sweeping change that one scientific society said “would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government.”

Proposed in late May, the rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over federal grants for research, education and infrastructure, and specifies that government funds can only be spent on projects “aligned with administration policies and priorities,” according to a copy of the proposed rule.

The rule would also restrict research topics, limit U.S. scientists’ ability to collaborate with colleagues in other countries and make it easier for the government to suspend or cancel grants at any time.

The changes are intended to improve “transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards” while “ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused,” according to the White House office.

But critics say that if the rule is implemented, the final sign-off for grants will no longer be in the hands of subject-matter experts within individual agencies, but in those of political appointees.

“This touches all parts of American life,” said Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, a psychiatrist who practices at the Veterans Administration and San Diego County’s psychiatric hospital.

“Control of how all of the federal grants and programs are funded will fall under a small group of highly partisan individuals who would have very few limits on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars,” said Rafla-Yuan, who also chairs the Committee to Protect Public Mental Health advocacy group. “This touches everyone’s life, even if they don’t realize it.”

OMB published the proposed rule May 29, opening a 45-day comment period that closes July 13.

Opposition to the proposed rule has mobilized multiple sectors of society. Professional groups representing cancer researchers, civil engineers, county governments, medical schools, housing agencies, city and municipal governments, nonprofits and others have publicly expressed concerns about potential consequences.

By midday Thursday, the Federal Register logged nearly 100,000 comments about the proposal, many of them expressing concern.

“I understand the need for oversight, fiscal responsibility, and accountability. That is not the issue,” wrote Jack Feldman, a neuroscientist who holds the David Geffen School of Medicine Chair in Neuroscience at UCLA. “The issue is whether scientific research is to be judged by scientific merit, or whether it can be approved, denied, or terminated according to broad political criteria that may change from one administration to the next.”

Crucially, the rule converts policies governing federal grants from “guidance” into binding regulations that all agencies would be required to follow. It would give political appointees power to override federal agencies’ merit-based reviews and mandate that a political appointee review decisions to ensure that all awards “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The elevation of political appointees in what were previously merit-based decisions has alarmed many scientists.

“The proposed rule changes would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government,” read a statement from the Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space research.

Researchers and science groups have also expressed concern about a section of the rule prohibiting the promotion of “theories of disparate-impact liability” — a legal concept that refers to policies that appear neutral but cause disproportionate harm to certain groups.

The section’s vague language and many loopholes could have a chilling effect on any research that studies the effects of a disease, policy or public health intervention on any specific group of people, Rafla-Yuan said.

As an example, he said, “if there’s a specific age range that is at higher risk for suicide, and we want to figure out, well, what’s going on with people that are aged 14 to 19 … we can’t do that under the wording in this rule.”

New restrictions on collaborations with scientists in other countries would hinder opportunities for U.S. researchers and limit innovation, said Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.

“Science is a global enterprise. Especially in biomedical and public health fields, diseases don’t care about borders or government policies,” she said.

California’s congressional delegation sent a letter Wednesday asking OMB to rescind the proposal, outlining concerns about its impact on scientific innovation, U.S. competitiveness and the fiscal stability of local governments, many of which rely on federal grants for local services.

The proposed rule grants the federal government broad powers to suspend or cancel grants for any reason, introducing “unprecedented unpredictability into local governance,” the lawmakers wrote, “leaving vital infrastructure projects unfinished and abandoning vulnerable populations who rely on these services.”

Republican Sen. Susan Collins has also asked the White House to withdraw certain parts of the letter and extend the public comment period, saying the proposed rule as written would “harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.”

With the 2026-27 season premiere of “60 Minutes” just two months away, CBS News leadership is getting closer to deciding who will fill the recent departures of longtime correspondents Scott Pelley, Sharon Alfonsi, Cecilia Vega and Anderson Cooper.

Seth Doane, a longtime correspondent based in Italy who is often seen on “CBS Sunday Morning,” is under consideration, along with chief investigative correspondent Jim Axelrod, who currently has a lead role in the “Eye On America” series featured on the “CBS Evening News with Tony Dokoupil.”

Trevor Phillips, a British journalist and former politician who recently joined CBS News as senior global affairs correspondent, is expected to have a role on the program, according to people briefed on the plan. Phillips had a long career in the U.K., producing and writing documentaries and most recently hosted the Sky News program “Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips.”

Phillips received a knighthood in 2022 for his service to equality and human rights for the U.K. But he also generated controversy over his career for comments about the British Muslim community, which led to a yearlong suspension from the Labor Party in 2020.

A CBS News representative declined comment beyond saying the division is looking at a number of internal and external candidates.

Dokoupil is expected to deliver four “60 Minutes” pieces a season. Major Garrett, the network’s chief Washington correspondent, will also have a contributor role.

Matt Gutman, hired from ABC News last year as national correspondent, is under strong consideration. He is being put in front of test audiences, according to several people at the network.

Holly Williams, a foreign correspondent working out of Istanbul for CBS News since 2012, and Mariana van Zeller, a journalist for National Geographic Channel, are both said to remain in contention.

The newcomers will join Bill Whitaker, Lesley Stahl, Jon Wertheim and Norah O’Donnell, who are all returning as correspondents. O’Donnell will also continue in her role as senior correspondent for the network, occasionally anchoring specials.

The rebuild of the talent lineup comes after the upheaval at the program that has occurred since Bari Weiss joined CBS News as editor in chief in October.

Pelley was fired last month after confronting management about the May 28 dismissal of his colleagues Alfonsi and Vega along with the program’s executive producer Tanya Simon and her second-in-command Draggan Mihailovich.

In February, Cooper decided not to sign a new deal as a “60 Minutes” contributor, as the CNN anchor cited a desire to spend more time with his family. But Cooper has reportedly told colleagues that he does not want to work for Weiss.

The internal disruption at “60 Minutes” followed a highly successful season. In its 57th season, “60 Minutes” was the most watched news program on television with an average of 9.1 million viewers a week, according to Nielsen data. The program bucked the overall decline in traditional TV viewing by growing 9% over the previous season.

After the dismissal of his “60 Minutes” colleagues, Pelley accused Weiss of trying to “murder” the program and claimed she was putting “her thumb on the scale” for more favorable coverage of the Trump administration. He was fired with cause after confronting management at a June 1 meeting.

Weiss came to CBS when parent company Paramount acquired her digital website The Free Press, known for its criticism of progressive policies and its strong support of Israel.

Weiss was hired by Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison with a mandate to move the news division to the political center. The pronouncement has created the perception that CBS News is looking to placate the Trump administration as Paramount sought regulatory approval for its $111-billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, which will also give the company ownership of CNN.

The noise surrounding Weiss has hurt CBS News despite strong reporting that is often far from being pro-MAGA. This past weekend’s “CBS Sunday Morning” featured a segment from national security correspondent David Martin about the Department of Defense interfering with the editorial independence of Stars & Stripes, the military newspaper.

Trump complained vehemently about his last interview with O’Donnell on “60 Minutes,” — conducted the day after a gunman tried to enter the White House Correspondents Assn. dinner in Washington on April 25.

Mérida, July 7, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government has launched a reconstruction program to recover damaged housing and infrastructure in the wake of the June 24 double earthquake.

Acting President Delcy Rodríguez oversaw the official launch of the Great Mission Venezuela Renace (“Venezuela reborn”) on Monday, with dozens of brigades simultaneously deployed to evaluate the condition of affected structures. Officials have estimated 190 flattened buildings and 856 with some level of damage.

“Venezuela is a seismic country and we have to ensure that, from a technical standpoint, families are protected from risk,” she said during a televised broadcast in Caracas. “This reconstruction is a task for the whole country, and it’s not just about infrastructure.”

Technical brigades will classify buildings using a traffic-light code, with green meaning they are safe to be occupied, yellow meaning that they require work before families can move back in, and red that they must be cleared for significant repairs or demolition.

On Sunday, the acting president appointed Jacqueline Faría to head the new government program. She will be “responsible for coordinating and leading housing and infrastructure recovery efforts to provide timely assistance to families affected by the earthquakes.”

During a meeting with governors from affected states, Faría detailed the mission’s first purpose as generating “a diagnosis for action.” The Venezuelan official underscored the need for an exhaustive structural census for reconstruction work.

Faría, who has held multiple cabinet posts since 1999, will be replaced by Francisco Garcés as minister of transport.

The new mission is going to unify the existing infrastructure-oriented social programs “Barrio Nuevo, Barrio Tricolor,” “Juntos Todo Es Posible,” and “Venezuela Bella” to execute repairs and allow families to reoccupy their homes as soon as possible. 

Rodríguez announced that an initial US $200 million fund, set up with resources frozen by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), will be used for the reconstruction and recovery of the affected areas.

During a Saturday meeting with her economic team, the acting president reported talks with public and private banks “to activate the mortgage portfolio,” adding that loans would be subsidized up to 80 percent. Rodríguez went on to announce the exoneration of fees and taxes related to property transactions and a temporary ban on the export of construction materials.

The June 24 twin earthquakes, with 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude and their epicenter near Morón, Carabobo state, have left an official death toll of 3,685 and more than 16,000 injured. The search for bodies continues to be a priority task for Venezuelan teams and volunteers, especially in the coastal La Guaira State where most of the building collapses are concentrated.

Coordination of these search and rescue operations has been transferred to Venezuela’s Civil Protection agency. Unofficial counts estimate over 40,000 missing people.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has noted a growing displacement of affected families from La Guaira to other regions and has warned of the “many needs” of the population.

The wind-down of the search and rescue operations to find survivors has seen most of the foreign specialized teams leave the country in recent days. Venezuelan authorities have acknowledged the role played by international brigades and decorated them.

On July 4, acting President Delcy Rodríguez decorated US rescue teams with “Hero of Venezuela” and “Canine Heroes of Venezuela” medals. During the ceremony, the acting president thanked the American people for their help, expressing her wish that the rescuers “carry in their hearts part of the Venezuelan people.”

US emergency rescuers included the Los Angeles USAR International Team and Virginia’s Urban Search and Rescue Task Force 1.

In addition to its emergency brigades, Washington also deployed hundreds of military personnel to the Caribbean nation following the natural disaster. US forces have taken control of operations at the Simón Bolívar International Airport and La Guaira port after executing repair works. Helicopters and surveillance drones are likewise flying daily over the capital and surrounding areas.

Venezuela’s earthquake recovery efforts have also seen the controversial arrival of a diplomatic and military delegation from Israel led by Home Front Command Chief of Staff Brigadier General Elad Edri.

The Israeli mission has held multiple meetings with Venezuelan officials and, according to Edri, was asked by the Rodríguez government to evaluate infrastructure conditions and formulate a reconstruction plan.

In a press conference, the acting president expressed her appreciation for the arrival of the “highly trained and professional” Israeli team.

Caracas and Tel Aviv have not held diplomatic relations since former President Chávez severed ties in 2009. Both Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro recurrently condemned Israel for genocide and excoriated its war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon.

The Maduro administration publicly endorsed South Africa’s activation of the Genocide Convention against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2024.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Walt Disney Co.’s ABC network has stepped up its defense of “The View” amid its battle with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, who has targeted the network’s programming and its hiring policies.

At issue is whether “The View” still qualifies for an exception to FCC rules that require broadcasters to provide equal air time for opponents of various political candidates.

Carr has called the daytime talk show “overtly political.”

Late Monday, ABC filed documents with the FCC to support its request for a declaratory ruling that “The View” is indeed a bona fide news interview program entitled to the equal-time rule exemption that covers newscasts, political debates and documentaries.

The show was granted the exception in 2002.

“Today, the program in the Commission’s sights is The View,” ABC said in this week’s filing. “The principle in the balance is far larger: whether a federal regulator may override a broadcaster’s editorial judgment about whom to interview — a judgment the Constitution commits to broadcasters and their audiences, not to the state.”

Since the FCC opened its inquiry in late May, the agency has received more than 77,000 public comments — most in support of the long-running daytime talk show.

“While ABC insists that ‘The View’ is a ‘bona fide news program’ under the law, ABC should focus on complying with its public interest obligations, rather than misleading the public about them,” an FCC spokesperson said in a statement sent to The Times.

Separately, the FCC also took the unusual step of calling in the licenses of eight Disney-owned television stations for early review. The move — widely interpreted as an effort to chill the Disney network’s speech — came a day after President Trump demanded that ABC fire its late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

Losing the licenses for its stations, including KABC-TV Channel 7 in Los Angeles, would be a significant blow to the Disney-owned network.

Some conservatives, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have suggested the FCC actions are an overreach while others have encouraged the agency to come down hard on Disney.

“The Commission can take this opportunity to address multiple pending complaints against ABC related to its programming,” conservative lawyer Daniel Suhr, head of the Center for American Rights, wrote in his 65-page petition in support of revoking Disney’s licenses.

“The View,” which features Trump critics Whoopi Goldberg, Sunny Hostin, Joy Behar and Ana Navarro, helps make a case that Disney is running a partisan network, Suhr alleged in his documents.

“Democrats are featured on The View at an insanely high ratio compared to Republicans,” Suhr wrote, noting that at least a third of the show’s 348 guests in 2025 were liberals — including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). Meanwhile, two prominent conservatives, former Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and actor Cheryl Hines, the wife of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., were featured last year.

Since Carr opened the review, the ABC show has avoided conversations with political candidates in competitive races leading up to this year’s pivotal midterm elections.

The show has continued its tradition of hosting politicians, though, including a highly rated interview last month with a Carr ally — Vice President JD Vance.

ABC has asked the FCC for a declaratory ruling on the status of “The View.” The network maintains that “The View” books politicians based on newsworthiness and not partisanship.

The network has run on-air spots urging its viewers to support the program by filing comments with the FCC.

“Big fan of the show. Hope my vote counts,” wrote one viewer, Wilson Vélez, in a comment filed with the FCC on Monday.

Another viewer, Patricia Pomeroy, wrote: “Freedom of speech, Freedom of speech, Freedom of speech.”

ABC’s filing noted that the program has kept the same format and focus on topical news events since its inception.

“What has changed is not the program but the political climate around it,” ABC said in the petition.

Disney’s filing, signed by attorney Paul Clement, commended the “robust response” from the public, saying the outpouring “represents laudable civic engagement of the kind the Commission should welcome given its statutory obligation to make decisions based on the public interest.”

Corona High baseball coach Andy Wise has pulled off the most intriguing acquisition of the summer season.

Former Dodgers relief pitcher Joe Kelly, a Corona graduate, is joining the program as an assistant coach to help guide pitchers.

Known for his quirky personality and ability to thrive under pressure, Kelly has followed the program in recent years after retiring as a player and jumped at the chance to help the pitchers, Wise said.

“My conversations with him over the years have been incredible,” Wise said. “What an asset for the pitching staff and the whole program. He’s got the time and he’s got a lot of kids. He’s not going to be here six days a week. He’s excited.”

The plan came together after Wise went up to Northern California to speak with a group of players with Kelly.

“No stress, no pressure, anything you might help us with would be awesome,” Wise said he told him.

Wise said Kelly has been following the team in person and on GameChanger and offering ideas.

Just having around a 13-year former MLB pitcher should be inspiring to players next season.

“Joe is Joe and I expect him to be Joe,” Wise said.

As CNN prepares for change under a new owner, the network’s chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, is heading for the exit and expected to jump to MS NOW.

The Washington-based Reid’s contract with CNN is up in several months and she has told the network she does not plan to renew. She is expected to sign on with CNN competitor MS NOW, according to people familiar with her plans who were not authorized to comment publicly.

A representative for MS NOW said the network does not comment on personnel matters but added, “as everyone in Washington knows, Paula Reid is an exceptional reporter, and any news organization would be fortunate to showcase her journalism.”

Reid‘s planned departure comes ahead of the impending merger of CNN parent Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount. The combination has led to speculation over who will run CNN, and the uncertainty is said to have played a factor in Reid’s decision.

Reid joined CNN from CBS News in 2021.

CNN and Paramount’s CBS News will be combined after the merger, but the management structure is still under discussion. Paramount put Bari Weiss, founder of the heterodox digital news site the Free Press, in charge of CBS News in October, with a mandate to move the network’s coverage more to the political center. Based on the chaos that has ensued at CBS News under her watch, many CNN insiders are concerned over her possible stewardship of an even larger and more complex organization.

CBS News executives and on-air talent have pushed back at Weiss’ efforts to make changes at the division, which many insiders have viewed as an attempt to placate the Trump White House while Paramount seeks regulatory approvals needed ahead of closing the $111-billion Warner Bros. Discovery deal.

Internal resistance to Weiss has been strongest at the venerable news magazine “60 Minutes.” The program’s star correspondent Scott Pelley was fired last month after he confronted management over the dismissals of executive producer Tanya Simon and his on-air colleagues Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega.

Weiss’ overhaul of the “CBS Evening News” with her handpicked anchor Tony Dokoupil has failed to improve the third-place program’s competitive position in the ratings. The program has also been criticized for some of its editorial decisions and logistical snafus.

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper has reportedly told colleagues he does not want to work for Weiss if the cable network is put under her purview. He already rejected an offer from Weiss to anchor the “CBS Evening News” and declined to renew his deal as a “60 Minutes” contributor after nearly two decades with the program.

The chaos at CBS has given pause to people at CNN. Larry Ellison, the tech billionaire and father of Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison, has reportedly promised Trump there will be sweeping changes to CNN after the merger.

Reid, 43, is among the many TV news correspondents and anchors that Trump has disparaged over the years, claiming they are unfair in their coverage. As White House correspondent for CBS News, Reid was known for asking tough questions of Trump during his White House briefings on the coronavirus.

Reid was a lawyer before becoming a journalist at CBS News in 2010. In addition to serving as White House correspondent for the network, she covered the Justice Department and the Supreme Court.

Reid would be another significant hire for MS NOW, the progressive-leaning channel that is rebuilding its roster after separating from NBC News and its parent, Comcast. The network formerly known as MSNBC is now part of Versant, a company with a stable of cable networks spun off by Comcast.

Peter Alexander, former chief White House correspondent for NBC News, is joining MS NOW as a morning anchor later this year. The network also hired former “CBS Mornings” executive producer Shauna Thomas as political director.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed his final state budget as governor, a $351.7-billion spending plan that seeks to uplift the poorest Californians through a tax system reliant on the stock market gains of the wealthy.

In a video message, Newsom extolled free school meals, universal transitional kindergarten, 130,000 subsidized childcare slots and other accomplishments in his tenure at the state Capitol, a period in state history marked by a dramatic expansion of state government and over $100 billion in increased spending.

“Over the past eight years, we built great things for the people of California — some of the boldest actions any government in this country has taken in a generation,” Newsom said. “And we did this without breaking the bank. We did this by design.”

The agreement ends weeks of lobbying by outside interests and negotiations among lawmakers and the governor at the state Capitol about how to handle a surge of income tax collected on stock market gains related to artificial intelligence.

Economists have warned that the revenue bump is potentially temporary and analysts say the growth in state spending could leave California in a challenging position if the economy declines.

Assemblymember David Tangipa (R-Fresno) agreed with Democrats that the budget is “compassionate.”

“My fear is that it’s not too much of a competent budget, and the budget continues a pattern that Californians know all too well: Spend now, justify it later, and hope somebody else pays the bill,” he said during a floor debate Monday.

Here’s what you need to know about the spending plan, which takes effect July 1.

Who decides the state budget?

The simplest answer is: Democrats. California voters have elected Democrats to represent 30 of the 40 seats in the Senate and 60 seats of the 80 seats in the Assembly. The budget was passed through a majority vote in each house of the Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat.

A more complex answer is that the budget is a product of dozens of legislative hearings, millions of dollars spent on lobbying by outside interests, talks among lawmakers and the governor and ultimately subject to the same political dynamics that rule the Democratic party.

Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), in consultation with the chairs of the budget committees, represent their Democratic caucuses and reach a final agreement on the details of the spending plan with Newsom. In reality, staff members for the three parties handle most, if not all, of the back of forth negotiations to get there.

Union leaders seeking better pay, working conditions, benefits for workers and opportunities to expand their ranks are often brought in to consult or hammer out thorny deals as business groups try to fight off more regulations, taxes and costs, and support policies that increase their financial performance.

Democrats are spending more than ever before. How is that possible?

The Legislative Analyst’s Office, the nonpartisan fiscal advisor for lawmakers, recently examined the increase in state spending since 2019-20, Newsom’s first full year in office.

Between the budget approved that year and the spending proposal Newsom unveiled in January, spending from the state’s main operating fund had grown by over $100 billion, or 70%. That was largely by a 60% increase in revenue during that time. California typically operates with a spending deficit because Democrats spend more money than the state brings in.

The LAO found that the increase in spending stemmed from the growing cost of sustaining programs and services that were already in place when Newsom took office. About 30% of the remaining spending growth was categorized as new, either by newly created programs or the expansion of existing services.

Among the report’s conclusions: California could not afford the programs that predated Newsom and the ones he and the Legislature adopted.

To balance the budget over the last few years, Newsom and lawmakers have dipped into the state’s reserves at a time when California is experiencing strong revenue growth, which the LAO has cautioned against. Democrats have also increased taxes on businesses, paid for programs out of other funds and suspended reserve deposits among other solutions.

This year, the state budget places $6.4 billion in higher than expected revenue into a temporary holding account to knock down a deficit and balance the budget through 2027-28.

Democrats are pursuing a change to the state constitution on the November ballot that would allow them to set aside more money in years of good revenue growth to prevent cuts in future downturns.

Where is the money going?

Education and Medi-Cal are the two largest costs for the state.

Medi-Cal is the state’s version of subsidized health insurance for low-income Californians and provides medical, dental and vision care for an estimated 14.5 million people, or about one-third of the state population.

The federal government pays for more than half of the cost of the program. California is expected to spend about $50 billion from the general fund next year out of a total estimated at more than $220 billion in costs shared between the state and federal government, according to the LAO. State taxes and fees on providers also help fund Medi-Cal.

Overall, Medi-Cal costs more than any other state program and takes up about 40% of total spending, including federal funds the state receives, according to the LAO.

Spending on Medi-Cal has more than doubled over the last 10 years, which the LAO attributes to an increase in costs per enrollee, more enrollees and a greater share of seniors seeking care, among other factors.

Under Newsom, California has expanded Medi-Cal, including offering coverage to include all immigrants regardless of their immigration status, which the governor said has dropped the state’s uninsured rate down to 5.9%

The cost of Medi-Cal has grown beyond what Democrats expected and resulted in Newsom suggesting spending cuts.

The final budget agreement rejects a call by Newsom to lower the asset limit to $2,000 now and instead lowers it to $21,000 in 2027-28 to be eligible for Medi-Cal. The Legislature also delayed the governor’s proposal to reduce dental coverage and shift asylum seekers and other immigrants to restricted scope Medi-Cal, according to Jason Sisney, the lead budget advisor for the Assembly who posts about the budget on Substack.

The budget includes Newsom’s proposal to shift enrollees with unsatisfactory immigration status, a term that includes undocumented immigrants and others, from managed care to fee-for-service to save costs.

Under Proposition 98, approved by voters in 1988, California has a minimum funding guarantee for schools and community colleges and dedicates roughly 40% of general fund revenue to education.

Sisney said the budget increases the Local Control Funding Formula by $2.2 billion and provides historic general fund per pupil spending of $21,148. Support for special education also grew by $1.8 billion.

The California Community Schools Partnership Program received a $1-billion boost and Democrats directed $2.8 million in additional funding to the program that provides free meals for school children.

The budget also establishes 22,770 new slots for free or reduced childcare, which Newsom had proposed decreasing.

In the latest twist in Canada’s long-running saga to field a new fighter, the country’s defense minister has said that Ottawa is “interested in learning more about” the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) next-generation fighter. GCAP is currently a trinational effort, led by the United Kingdom and involving Italy and Japan. Its centerpiece is the Tempest crewed fighter. A demonstrator for this jet is currently taking shape with BAE Systems in the United Kingdom.

David McGuinty, the Minister of National Defense of Canada, made the remarks after a meeting in Tokyo with his Japanese counterpart, Shinjiro Koizumi. Breaking Defense reports that McGuinty confirmed he had spoken with Koizumi about the GCAP, which the Canadian official described as a “promising initiative.”

“We are interested in learning more about it. I’ll take it back to my team and see what it looks ‌like,” McGuinty told Reuters.

Until now, no senior Canadian official appears to have spoken publicly about interest in GCAP. However, the development comes as Ottawa weighs up the option of a split fighter buy, which would involve acquiring the U.S.-made F-35 and one other type. This thinking has been driven by a growing rift between Ottawa and Washington.

However, the possibility of Canada coming on board GCAP as an ‘observer’ had been raised in March of this year. According to The Asahi Shimbun, a Japanese daily newspaper, unnamed Japanese officials disclosed that, during a previous meeting, McGuinty and Koizumi discussed such an arrangement.

Canada’s joining GCAP with observer status would provide it access to information on the program and could be a stepping-stone to deeper involvement.

Earlier this week, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto raised the possibility of other nations joining GCAP, noting that, were that to happen, “we would be completely willing, because the more there are, the greater the chances of creating something and bringing down costs.”

Crosetto then identified Canada as “the country most interested [in GCAP] at the moment.” He said he would be “fully open” to Canada joining as an observer.

For Canada, however, GCAP would require a rethink of Canada’s potential pursuit of a split-buy approach to its new fighter.

Until now, the Saab Gripen E had been identified as the most likely candidate to be bought alongside the F-35.

Sweden has made a strong push to sell Gripen to Ottawa, and Saab offered to build the jet in Canada, in an effort to secure support for its previous bid, which it lost to Lockheed Martin. Since then, Saab has also emerged as the preferred candidate to supply Canada with its future airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) via its GlobalEye.

In April of this year, McGuinty confirmed that Ottawa was still reviewing its earlier plan to buy 88 F-35s.

“The review of the purchase of the F-35s is continuing… We are taking the necessary time to study very, very closely the question of the fighter fleet,” McGuinty told the Senate’s defense committee.

The split-buy option emerged since Canada has already made a firm commitment to buy 16 F-35As to start replacing its aging CF-18 Hornets. Canada’s industry also has a significant degree of involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Canada currently has around 75 CF-18A/B+ jets and has also added 18 upgraded former Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F/A-18A/Bs, plus seven more as spares, to help bolster its fleet.

Of Canada’s first 16 F-35s, four have already been paid for in full, while parts for eight others have also been purchased. The first Canadian F-35s were expected to be delivered for training at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, in 2026.

Back in 2023, Canada’s Liberal government announced plans to buy 88 F-35s, a decision that appeared to bring closure to what had already been a very protracted process. You can read about this here.

However, amid growing trade tensions and a war of words with the United States, Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney launched a review of the F-35 program shortly after taking office in the spring of 2025.

There are other arguments for a split buy, too. Back in 2019, the cost of buying the planned 88 F-35s was put at $19 billion. Now it has rocketed to $27.7 billion, not including weapons and infrastructure.

Bill Blair, who was Canada’s defense minister when the review of the F-35 buy was launched last year, pointed to the advantages of a mixed fleet, saying it would give the RCAF more options to handle different types of threats.

“What happens if you have to persist in that space for months and months and years? The tool that you use, is it the right tool to do that job?” Blair said. “We need to have a whole wide range of capability sets to deal with all the eventualities that we could face.”

Were Canada to procure the Tempest, it would surely have to wait longer than 2035 — the prospect of GCAP’s fighter entering service at this date, as planned, is highly unlikely. Canada would be fourth in line behind the three core partners. Ottawa would need to buy more F-35s, perhaps around two thirds of its original intended number, or around 60 aircraft, and also keep the best of its CF-18s in service for longer, if that’s even possible. The Hornets are getting very old and disappearing from service abroad. Supporting them will become increasingly problematic. When the Tempest finally arrived, it would provide a flipped high-low fighter mix. This is essentially the same approach that the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan — all current F-35 operators — are taking.

However, the Tempest does appear to be especially well-suited to Canada’s fighter requirement.

The design of the jet will stress extreme range and a large payload — roughly twice that of the F-35A. Senior GCAP officials have said the jet could potentially carry enough internal fuel to fly across the Atlantic without refueling.

While these attributes are optimized for a future conflict in the Indo-Pacific region, they are equally applicable to dealing with the ‘tyranny of distance’ and the increasing Russian threat posed around Canada’s enormous land mass, which extends far into the highly strategic Arctic region.

“Both China and Russia have fifth-generation fighter aircraft and fifth-generation missiles that are able to go at much greater speeds and with much more that are holding Western allies at risk at this moment in time,” the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), Lt. Gen. Jamie Speiser-Blanchet, said in the past.

Plans to arm the Tempest with larger air-to-air missiles offering a longer range than those currently used by any of the three GCAP partner countries have also been revealed, as you can read about here.

If Canada decides it wants a sixth-generation combat aircraft to tackle current and emerging threats from China and Russia, the GCAP might be the only realistic choice. The rival pan-European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) has collapsed, and there is little chance of Canada getting its hand on the Boeing F-47.

But any kind of split buy “would duplicate a certain amount of infrastructure and training,” Speiser-Blanchet admitted.

In some cases, however, there could be cost-benefit arguments in having a mixed fighter fleet, as well as the important factor of not relying entirely upon one source of this type of combat equipment.

There is also the question of how feasible it would be for Canada to join GCAP at this point, at least in terms of industrial participation and steering requirements. The latter point seems next to impossible, with national requirements already set, and most of the workshare agreement has also been divided up between the three partners.

The same applies to India, which has also looked at joining GCAP in the past.

There has been talk of Saudi Arabia possibly joining GCAP in some capacity, and, more recently, Poland has been reported as being interested in buying the aircraft, too.

With that in mind, Canada’s best shot might be to buy the jet ‘off the shelf,’ rather than hope for industrial windfalls.

At the same time, Canada and the United Kingdom are partners on some other key military programs, including the Royal Canadian Navy’s future River class Canadian Surface Combatants, derived from BAE Systems’ Type 26 design for the U.K. Royal Navy. 

Meet The River-Class Destroyer – State-of-the-art WARSHIP!

Returning to the Tempest, the broader GCAP program still has to survive considerable challenges, both technical and political, that lie ahead.

As we have explained many times in the past, the process of creating an all-new fighter, especially one incorporating stealth technologies, brings very lengthy development times and high costs.

At this point, BAE Systems is in the process of building a demonstrator as part of the GCAP program, with a first flight planned by the end of 2027.

The latest rendering of that demonstrator appears at the top of the story. Notably, it retains the Typhoon’s EJ200 turbofan engines, with non-stealthy nozzles. The Tempest will have an all-new powerplant.

As we have argued in the past, the more time that passes, and the more deeply intertwined with the F-35 Canada becomes, the arguments in favor of a split fighter buy become harder to justify. Buying the Tempest would certainly not be the cheapest option, and would force a rethink of timelines, but it does underscore the fact that Canadian officials are casting their net wider, looking at very high-end capabilities, and seeking to build deeper strategic relationships outside of the United States.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

For the second straight year, the City Section is allowing a pilot program of high schools forming a boys flag football league as its popularity grows.

This year’s group of high school participants is expected to double in size between eight and 16 teams, City Section commissioner Vicky Lagos said. All will be small charter schools. Last year, several teams that temporarily dropped 11-man football, Sotomayor and Torres, had flag teams in a league that was played in the fall. Sotomayor and Torres will have 11-man teams this season.

When Lagos mentioned the pilot boys flag football league at an 11-man coaches meeting this month, there was clear skepticism voiced by coaches. If boys flag football ever gets approved, Lagos said schools would have to choose between having an 11-man team or a flag team. When Lagos mentioned having the flag season in the spring, there was concern it would take away participants from track and field teams.

This issue figures to come up around the state as schools in the California Interscholastic Federation have similar discussions. Flag football is likely to gain a boost in exposure when it is played at the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles.

Lagos points out that boys flag football participants would be different than 11-man. Middle school students engage in flag football and attract students whose parents don’t want them to play 11-man tackle football for fear of head injuries.

Girls flag football is in its fourth year and rising fast. Adding boys flag football is a debate and issue that will need to be addressed in the future.

Ron Nocetti, executive director of the CIF, said a section must first bring up adding boys flag football as a sport before real discussions can begin.

Veteran MS NOW anchor Alex Witt is leaving the news network, which is moving away from live programming on the weekends.

The new weekend programming strategy announced Friday is a cost-saving measure that will give parent company Versant more resources for a new direct-to-consumer streaming offering that makes MS NOW available to consumers without a pay-TV subscription. The company is also looking to expand its live event business.

According to a memo from MS NOW President Rebecca Kutler, “The Weekend: Primetime,” a live discussion program launched last year, will have its final airing Saturday.

One of the program’s co-hosts, Antonia Hylton, will take over Witt’s midday shifts later this year. Hylton’s co-hosts Ayman Mohyeldin, Catherine Rampell, and Elise Jordan, will remain with MS NOW and continue to appear on other programs.

Kutler said job losses from the moves are minimal and encouraged staffers who lose their current roles to apply for 40 current job openings at the company with more on the way. MS NOW has been staffing up its news operation since separating from NBC News last year.

MS NOW changed its name from MSNBC in November. The network, along with other Comcast-owned cable channels, were spun off into Versant in January.

Weekends have long been a ratings weak spot for MS NOW, which while a distant second to Fox News, has seen audience growth in 2026 and remains ahead of CNN. The network has started to rely on podcasts such as “Pod Save America, from Crooked Media to fill some hours. The episodes have performed strongly enough for MS NOW to try similar deals with outside podcast producers.

“Throughout the summer, we will expand our taped strategy and announce new content partnerships,” Kutler said in her memo.

With the changes, MS NOW will still have 20 hours of live programming each weekend and will be staffed to handle breaking news.

Witt joined the network formerly known as MSNBC in 1999, long before it began its strong tilt toward progressive political commentary. Over the years, Witt’s weekend newscast became one of the few programs on the network that delivered straight news without opinion.

Kutler called Witt “a beloved longtime member of our MS NOW family” and “a continued, trusted, and steady presence for our audiences.”

While Witt works through the summer, Hylton will anchor the 11 a.m. weekday time period, which will eventually be handled by former NBC News White House correspondent Peter Alexander.

The first appearance by Vice President JD Vance on ABC’s “The View” delivered the most-watched edition of the talk show since November 2024.

The June 16 program averaged 3.3 million viewers, according to Nielsen data. The figure was well above the average of 2.6 million viewers for “The View” in the 2025-26 season.

Vance appeared on the liberal-leaning program to promote his new book on his decision to become a Catholic. While the co-hosts mostly questioned him on the Trump administration’s policies on immigration and race, the discussion was cordial.

The panel of co-hosts — Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Ana Navarro, Sunny Hostin and Alyssa Farah Griffin — did not ask Vance to address the program’s ongoing tension with the Federal Communications Commission.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has questioned whether “The View” should have the status of news programs, which are exempt from giving equal time to the opponents of political candidates who appear as guests.

ABC has asked the FCC to rule on the status of “The View,” which received an exemption from the rarely enforced equal time provision in 2002. ABC has maintained that “The View” books politicians based on newsworthiness and not partisanship.

The FCC is currently taking comments from the public on the matter. ABC is running on-air spots urging viewers to support the program.

“‘The View’ has welcomed your favorite guests and covered the issues you care about for nearly 30 years,” the spot says. “Now the FCC wants to control who is allowed to appear on the show.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee submitted comments Monday, asserting that “The View” takes advantage of its exemption and favors Democratic candidates and permits “only rare appearances by Republican-aligned figures.”

ABC has told the FCC that “The View” has invited politicians from both sides of the aisle to appear on “The View,” including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of State Marco Rubio and entrepreneur Elon Musk. They have declined the invitation as did Vance before his appearance last week.

The letter from the GOP committees also cited the ideological leanings of the co-hosts, saying they are “not selected for their journalistic talent or excellence in commentary, but for their partisan tilt.”

Over the last two decades, “The View” has used five liberal hosts and filled one seat designated for a conservative voice. The right-leaning co-host role has had the most turnover.

“The View” has been the most-watched daytime program for the last nine years. As a live, topical program, it has remained an important media platform while the rest of the talk show genre has largely faded due to diminishing audiences.

Carr’s targeting of “The View” is part of his ongoing criticism of broadcast platforms that annoy President Trump, who has urged that TV station licenses be pulled when he’s been unhappy with coverage.