Protection

A Jet2 survey has shown a shift in how people are booking their holidays amid concerns over jet fuel supplies

Jet2 has revealed that passengers are making a major change to how they book holidays amid concern over major jet fuel problems this year due to teh Middle East Crisis. As the Middle East crisis deepens, mounting concerns suggest Britain could face a jet fuel shortage that may disrupt holiday flights.

Goldman Sachs has cautioned that Britain is the country “most exposed” to jet fuel shortages triggered by the Iran conflict, stoking fears of further flight cancellations and ruined summer getaways. Analysts at one of the world’s largest investment banks warned that the UK is heavily dependent on imports routed through the closed Strait of Hormuz, with “critically low levels” of supplies and inadequate refining capabilities.

And personal finance expert Martin Lewis has spoken out about the issue – highlighting people who book their flights and hotels separately might not get compensation if flights are cancelled. Jet2 said package holidays are now the top choice for travellers, with 51% opting for this booking method – a 5% rise since February. During the same timeframe, those preferring to book through separate providers has fallen by six percentage points to 20%, while ‘accommodation only’ bookings have plummeted to just 2%.

Jet2 said the results showed main attractions of package holidays have remained consistent, with value (36%) and convenience (36%) leading the way. However, the appeal of ‘added security with one provider, ATOL/ABTA protection’ has climbed by four percentage points since February to reach 26%, according to the survey.

This protection ensures customers are safeguarded against any alterations to their bookings, including the possibility of refunds should travel plans be scrapped, while guaranteeing holidays meet the highest standards for customer service, booking amendments, and health and safety.

READ MORE: Jet2, easyJet, Jet2, TUI passengers with flights booked warned of ’14 day rule’ changeREAD MORE: TV travel expert Simon Calder gives Spain, Portugal, Italy summer rule update

Jet2 has pledged not to impose surcharges on any confirmed flights or holidays to offset rising costs, such as jet fuel, giving customers peace of mind that the price they book is the final price they’ll pay.

Steve Heapy, CEO of Jet2, commented: “Consumers want assurance during times of uncertainty and package holidays provide that assurance. On top of all the protection that our package holidays guarantee, Jet2 is well known as being a consumer champion that goes above and beyond to look after customers. Ahead of a busy summer season, this means new and existing customers know that their well-deserved holidays are in the very best hands with us, and we are very excited about welcoming everyone onboard and taking them on their breaks.”

As millions of Jet2 customers gear up for a bustling summer season, the firm has confirmed it intends to run its scheduled services as planned.

Martin Lewis gave a warning for anyone who has already booked their holiday for this summer. In an update the personal finance guru gave an alert to people who have already paid for breaks from the main holiday firms and airlines like TUI, Jet2, Ryanair, Wizz, easyJet and British Airways.

During his Money Show Live on ITV, the financial expert responded to an audience member who asked: ‘If my flight’s cancelled due to no jet fuel will you definitely receive all your money back even for your hotel booking as well.’

Mr Lewis made clear that travellers would lose their hotel booking costs if they had arranged accommodation independently from flights booked with airlines such as Jet2, TUI, Wizz, Ryanair or easyJet – as they would not be protected under consumer regulations.

He stated: “No. And I think this is what people need to be very aware of. If you booked a package holiday where you booked everything in one, then under the package holiday regulations and rules and protections generally if your flight went you would get everything back.”

He went on to say: “And so actually at the moment package holidays give you a certain level of extra security that you wouldn’t get if you did a DIY booking where you bought your hotel and flight separately.” The reason behind this, he explained, is that the hotel booking itself remains valid: “Because the point is if you lose your flight and you’ve DIY booked, there’s nothing wrong with your hotel.

“The issue is you can’t get there. Your hotel is still there. It’s not faulty. It’s not cancelling. So, you don’t have those consumer rights.” If the hotel hasn’t done anything wrong, then guests might look at how they’ve made their booking – but that route offers no solution either.

He said: “So, you would then say, ‘What about using a credit card or debit card protection?’ It won’t work because there’s nothing faulty. And that’s just giving you the same replica rights that you would have with the retailer.”

Meanwhile, holiday giant TUI has issued a direct message to those with May bookings. TUI Managing Director Neil Swanson in a message on Facebook, pledged that May half-term flights would proceed as scheduled: “We know you may be feeling a little uneasy after recent headlines, and we want to reassure anyone travelling over May half term that they can look forward to their holiday with confidence with TUI. We have good visibility on fuel supplies and are operating our holiday programme as planned, with no flights being cancelled due to fuel shortages.

“Our careful planning across fuel, flying and hotel capacity means we’re able to continue offering great value and stable prices – with no fuel surcharges added by TUI. The price you see is the price you pay, and all TUI package holidays are ABTA & ATOL protected, giving peace of mind from booking right through to returning home.”

On TUI’s Facebook page, holidaymakers reported seeing significant price hikes. Marie said: “We booked our August holiday nearly 18 months ago and paid 5.2K. Just checked it to book now and it’s 6.7K. Glad we booked so far in advance. Already booked August 2027 holiday for same price as we paid this year.”

Lynn replied: “Marie Tomes we’re the exact same. Been going to the same hotel for 7yrs. They renegotiated the contract last year. For us to book for next year its going to be nearly 1k each more for our 2weeks. We’re going to make the most of this year as our last visit.”

One concerned traveller, Rno, raised worries about upcoming summer trips: “What about those who have already booked a hotel and flight for the entire month of August? I have a booking for my family and I’m worried Note that the plane is a TUI and the flight is to Egypt.”

TUI responded: “Hi there. We’re monitoring the situation closely. Right now, we don’t expect any disruption to flights or holidays, but we’ll keep this under review and contact customers directly if anything changes that affects their booking. “

Meanwhile, Jet2 revealed it too is witnessing a notable shift in booking behaviour amongst travellers. Experts such as Martin Lewis have urged travellers to book holidays as a package deal, warning that purchasing flights and accommodation separately could leave them without full compensation should anything go awry.

The last time the Supreme Court threatened to end access to the country’s most popular abortion method, California’s network of online providers and their pharmaceutical suppliers scrambled to respond.

Now, with the fate of the cocktail used in roughly two-thirds of U.S. terminations once again in the balance, they’re not even breaking a sweat.

Dr. Michele Gomez, co-founder of the MYA Network, a consortium of virtual reproductive healthcare providers, said the supply chain is “ready to switch in a day” to an alternative drug combination.

“It’s not going away and it’s not going to slow down,” Gomez said.

On May 1, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to block the drug mifepristone from being prescribed virtually and shipped through the mail, making such deliveries illegal across the country. On Monday, the Supreme Court stayed that decision, allowing prescriptions to resume until the court issues an emergency ruling next week.

Mifepristone is the first half of a two-drug protocol for medication abortion, which made up 63% of all legal abortions in the U.S. in 2023.

Between a quarter and a third of those abortions are now prescribed by healthcare providers over the internet and delivered by mail — a path Louisiana and other ban states are fighting to bar.

“Abortion access has gone up with all the telehealth providers,” Gomez said. “We uncovered an unmet need.”

But the cocktail’s second ingredient, misoprostol, can be used to produce abortion on its own — a method that’s often more painful and slightly less effective.

It would be easy for suppliers to switch to a misoprostol-only protocol — and much harder for courts to block it, experts said.

“We heard about this on Friday and organizations that mail pills were mailing misoprostol on Saturday,” Gomez said. “They already knew what to do.”

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022, California became one of the first states to enshrine abortion rights for residents in its Constitution and legislate protection for clinicians who prescribe abortion pills to women in states with bans.

Last fall, legislators in Sacramento expanded those protections by allowing pills to be mailed without either the doctor or the patient’s name attached.

But cases like the one being decided next week could still sharply limit abortion rights even in states with extensive legal protections, experts warned.

“Even though California has built a fortress around its own constitutional protections of reproductive freedom, those [protections] become vulnerable to the whims of antiabortion states if the Supreme Court gives those states their imprimatur,” said Michele Goodwin, professor at Georgetown Law and an expert on reproductive justice.

Coral Alonso sings in Spanish as protesters rally on the three-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade on June 24, 2025, in Los Angeles. The ruling ended the federal right to legal abortion in the United States.

(David McNew / Getty Images)

Legal experts are split over how the justices will decide the medication’s mail-order fate.

“This is a case where law clearly won’t matter,” Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and an expert on the Supreme Court.

“In a very important midterm election year, I think there’s at least two Republicans on the court who will decide that upholding the 5th Circuit would really hurt the Republicans at the polls,” he said. “If women can’t get this by mail in California or other blue states where abortion is legal, it’s going to have devastating consequences, and I think the court knows that.”

But he and others believe it’s no longer a matter of if — but when and how — the drugs are restricted, including in California.

“This is curating a backdrop for a legal showdown that may surely come,” Goodwin said.

The court’s most conservative justices could find grounds to act in the long-forgotten Comstock Act of 1873. The brainchild of America’s zealously anti-porn postmaster Anthony Comstock, the law not only banned the mailing of the “Birth of Venus” and “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” but also condoms, diaphragms and any drug, tool or text that could be used to produce an abortion.

Though it hasn’t been enforced since the 1970s, the antiabortion provision of the law remains on the books, experts said.

“The next move is with the Comstock Act, which Justices Alito and Thomas have already been hinting at,” Goodwin said. “In that case, it’s like playing Monopoly — we could skip mifepristone and go straight to contraception. The goal is to make sure none of that gets to be in the mail.”

That move would upend how Americans get both abortions and birth control, and put an unassuming L.A. County pharmacy squarely in the government’s crosshairs.

Although doctors in nearly two dozen states can safely prescribe medication abortion to women anywhere in the U.S., only a handful of specialty pharmacies actually fill those mail orders, Gomez explained. Among the largest is Honeybee in Culver City, which did not reply to requests for comment.

Even if the justices don’t reach for Comstock, a decision in Louisiana’s favor next week could create a two-tiered system of abortion across California and other blue states, experts said.

“The people this case hurts the most are the poor and the rural,” said Segall, the Supreme Court expert.

National data show that abortion patients are disproportionately poor. Most are also already mothers. Losing mail access to mifepristone would leave many with the more painful, less effective option while those with the time and means to reach a clinic continue to get the gold standard of care.

“There are fundamental questions of citizenship at the heart of this,” said Goodwin, the constitutional scholar. “Under the 14th Amendment, women are supposed to have equality, citizenship, liberty. It’s as though the Supreme Court has taken a black marker and pressed it against all of those words.”

For Gomez and other providers, that’s tomorrow’s problem.

“The lawyers and the politicians are just going to do their thing,” the doctor said. “The healthcare providers are just trying to get medications to people who need them.”

U.S. Central Command said its new plan to protect commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz kicked off Monday with the safe passage of two U.S.-flagged merchant ships. Dubbed Project Freedom, the operation is designed to “restore freedom of navigation for commercial shipping” through this strategically vital body of water, the command stated on X. Iran closed the Strait after being attacked by the U.S. and Israel on Feb. 28. Meanwhile, Iran says this move will threaten the fragile ceasefire and that it will attack any ships transiting the Strait without permission.

“U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers are currently operating in the Arabian Gulf after transiting the Strait of Hormuz in support of Project Freedom,” CENTCOM stated in a message posted on X Monday morning. “American forces are actively assisting efforts to restore transit for commercial shipping. As a first step, 2 U.S.-flagged merchant vessels have successfully transited through the Strait of Hormuz and are safely headed on their journey.”

CENTCOM didn’t say which ships transited the Strait and it is unclear if the Navy destroyers escorted them. We have reached out to CENTCOM for more details.

Project Freedom involves “guided-missile destroyers, over 100 land and sea-based aircraft, multi-domain unmanned platforms, and 15,000 service members,” CENTCOM said in a post on X Sunday.

“The mission, directed by the President, will support merchant vessels seeking to freely transit through the essential international trade corridor,” CENTCOM added. “A quarter of the world’s oil trade at sea and significant volumes of fuel and fertilizer products are transported through the strait.”

“Our support for this defensive mission is essential to regional security and the global economy as we also maintain the naval blockade,” said Adm. Brad Cooper, CENTCOM commander.

President Trump on Sunday framed Project Freedom as an effort to gets ships and crews out of the Strait. It is unclear if this operation will also protect ships trying to enter as well. It’s possible this could occur once CENTCOM evaluates the realities in the waterway as ships are evacuated. We will update this story with any additional details we learn.

As part of Project Freedom, vessels “choosing to transit the Strait of Hormuz should consider routing via Oman territorial waters south of the Traffic Separation Scheme,” U.S. Navy Central (NAVCENT) cautioned Monday morning. The Traffic Separation Scheme refers to new traffic patterns Iran set up for ships transiting the Strait through its territorial waters.

“Due to anticipated traffic volume, coordination with Oman authorities via VHF channel 16 is advised to maintain safety of navigation,” according to NAVCENT. “Transit via or in close proximity to the Traffic Separation Scheme should be considered extremely hazardous due the presence of mines that have not been fully surveyed and mitigated.”

Iran has placed an undetermined number of mines in the Strait since the war broke out, a U.S. official told us.

As we noted last week, the UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) group says strait transits have fallen by more than 90%, leaving 850 merchant ships and around 20,000 sailors trapped inside the Gulf and unable to leave. 

In reaction to Project Freedom and the new NAVCENT transit guidance, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on Monday warned that “maritime movements of vessels, contrary to the regulations declared by the Iranian Navy, would face serious risks, and that they would be stopped by force.”

The IRGC added that it maintains control over the Strait and that ships adhering to its rules will be safe. In addition, it called Project Freedom, as well as the ongoing U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports, acts of “piracy.” IRGC also said that Project Freedom is in violation of the April 8 ceasefire agreed to by the U.S. and Iran.

In addition to the IRGC warning, Iranian media claimed that “two missiles struck a U.S. Navy patrol boat. This patrol boat, which today moved near Jask violating security and navigation rules intending to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, was targeted by a missile attack after ignoring the warning from the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy.”

The official Iranian FARS news agency added that the “patrol boat was unable to continue its route due to the hits and was forced to retreat and flee the area.”

Iranian media offered no proof of the attack. In a post on X, CENTCOM denied that claim.

“No U.S. Navy ships have been struck,” the command stated. “U.S. forces are supporting Project Freedom and enforcing the naval blockade on Iranian ports.”

🚫 CLAIM: Iranian state media claims that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps hit a U.S. warship with two missiles.

✅ TRUTH: No U.S. Navy ships have been struck. U.S. forces are supporting Project Freedom and enforcing the naval blockade on Iranian ports. pic.twitter.com/VFxovxLU6G

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) May 4, 2026

However, the United Arab Emirates on Monday said that one of its oil tankers was attacked by two Iranian drones as it sailed through the Strait.

“The UAE condemns in the strongest terms the targeting of a national tanker affiliated with [Abu Dhabi National Oil Company] ADNOC while passing through the Strait of Hormuz,” the UAE Foreign Ministry stated on X, adding that there were no injuries in the attack.

The ministry did not say which ship was attacked or when. However, the United ​Kingdom ⁠Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) agency said it received a report of an incident on May 3 “78NM north of Fujairah, United Arab Emirates. A tanker has reported being hit by unknown projectiles. All crew reported safe. No environmental impact reported.”

Project Freedom and the new NAVCENT transit guidance were launched following a message U.S. President Donald Trump posted Sunday on his social media.

“Countries from all over the World, almost all of which are not involved in the Middle Eastern dispute going on so visibly, and violently, for all to see, have asked the United States if we could help free up their Ships, which are locked up in the Strait of Hormuz, on something which they have absolutely nothing to do with — They are merely neutral and innocent bystanders!” Trump proclaimed on Truth Social. “For the good of Iran, the Middle East, and the United States, we have told these Countries that we will guide their Ships safely out of these restricted Waterways, so that they can freely and ably get on with their business.”

The president added that Project Freedom is a humanitarian effort, conducted as the U.S. and Iran are working on ways to end the conflict.

“I am fully aware that my Representatives are having very positive discussions with the Country of Iran, and that these discussions could lead to something very positive for all,” Trump avowed. “The Ship movement is merely meant to free up people, companies, and Countries that have done absolutely nothing wrong — They are victims of circumstance. This is a Humanitarian gesture on behalf of the United States, Middle Eastern Countries but, in particular, the Country of Iran.”

Still, if Iran does not comply, Trump issued a warning to Tehran. 

“I think it would go a long way in showing Goodwill on behalf of all of those who have been fighting so strenuously over the last number of months,” the American leader posited. “If, in any way, this Humanitarian process is interfered with, that interference will, unfortunately, have to be dealt with forcefully.” 

Trump on Truth Social announces that “Project Freedom” will begin in the morning to get ships out of the Strait of Hormuz pic.twitter.com/a7ygbWUEFQ

— Ben Jacobs (@Bencjacobs) May 3, 2026

As Project Freedom kicks off, shipping companies are taking a wait-and-see attitude about its effectiveness.

“We of course welcome initiatives aimed at improving the security situation in principle,” a spokesperson for German shipping giant Hapag-Lloyd told us Monday morning. “However, we currently have too little information on how such an escort service could be safely implemented in practice, so we are maintaining our risk assessment. We have taken note of the latest announcement. We are currently reviewing the information available and are in close contact with relevant authorities and our security partners.”

“At this stage, our risk assessment remains unchanged and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed for Hapag-Lloyd transits until further notice,” the company added.

While CENTCOM says Project Freedom had a successful first encounter, there are still many questions to be answered about this operation. Despite Iranian bluster, it is unknown so far if its threats are just posturing for domestic consumption or if they will really fire on U.S. warships. Such a move would guarantee a ferocious U.S. response and an end, at least temporarily, to the ongoing moves to stop the now-paused war.

Update: 2:15 PM EDT –

Earlier today, U.S. Army AH-64 Apache and U.S. Navy MH-60 Seahawk helicopters destroyed six small Iranian boats that were threatening commercial ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz, according to Cooper. You can read more about that here.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The U.S. Marine Corps is working toward adding an active protection system (APS) capability to its fleet of 8×8 wheeled Amphibious Combat Vehicles (ACV). APSs on the market today are generally designed to defeat incoming anti-tank guided missiles and other infantry anti-armor weapons. However, many of them also have the inherent ability to down incoming drones or are being modified to address this ever-growing threat, something TWZ previously explored in a detailed feature. The Marines are already exploring additional options to improve the ACV’s defenses against uncrewed aerial attackers, as well as other upgrades to the vehicles.

Chris Melkonian, the Marine Corps’ current Program Manager for Advanced Amphibious Assault (PM AAA), talked today about APS for the ACV fleet and other plans for those vehicles at the annual Modern Day Marine exposition, at which TWZ is in attendance.

The Marines currently field two ACV variants, the baseline personnel carrier type (ACV-P) and a version optimized for command and control tasks (ACV-C). The service is in the process of acquiring two more variants, one armed with a turreted 30mm cannon (ACV-30) and a recovery vehicle version fitted with a crane and other specialized features (ACV-R). The Corps is presently targeting 2028 for reaching initial operational capability with the ACV-30 and the ACV-R.

The Marines view the entire ACV family as central to its ability to conduct amphibious operations, as well as for providing additional lethality and other support to forces once ashore. At present, the service is planning to acquire a total fleet of 608 ACVs, consisting of 389 ACV-Ps, 33 ACV-Cs, 152 ACV-30s, and 34 ACV-Rs. Prime contractor BAE Systems has also proposed additional variants, including ones configured for electronic warfare or dedicated to the counter-drone role.

In 2018, the Corps announced it had selected the ACV as the replacement for its Cold War-era tracked Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) family. The service announced the formal retirement of the AAV last fall.

There are already “things that we’re doing today to make the ACV family vehicles even more capable,” Melkonian said at Modern Day Marine. “The analogy I use is the ACV that Marines are using today is not the ACV that they’re going to use in the future.”

This includes an “active protection system,” he added. “We’re working with the vendor to mature that capability. We’re going to move that right into production.”

Recently released budget documents also say that the Marines are asking for $28.35 million in Fiscal Year 2027 for “Ancillary Equipment” for the ACV fleet, which “is primarily attributed to the procurement of Special Mission Kits for the Active Protective System (APS).” Those same documents further note that the “funding provides APS production kits, integration kits, installation labor, countermeasures, and spares for 21 ACV-P vehicles and will add a new defensive capability to existing vehicles.”

However, neither Melkonian nor the budget documents have said what specific type of APS the ACVs are now in line to get, or when. TWZ has reached out to the service for more information.

This is certainly not the U.S. military’s first foray into APSs for armored vehicles. The U.S. Army previously integrated the Israeli-designed and combat-proven Trophy APS onto a portion of its M1 Abrams tanks.

TROPHY is the world’s ONLY operational APS (Previous Version – Updated Video Available)

That service is also now in the process of adding another Israeli-developed APS, Iron Fist, onto at least some of its Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The Army’s version of Iron Fist, now designated as the XM251, is also set to be fitted to next-generation M1E3 tanks and a planned replacement for the Bradley family, tentatively designated the XM30.

There are other APS designs on the market today that the Marines could have chosen for integration onto the ACV, as well.

As noted, APSs available today are generally designed to neutralize anti-tank guided missiles and other infantry anti-armor weapons. They typically achieve this through the use of ‘hard-kill’ projectiles designed to destroy targets either using an explosive warhead or via the sheer force of impact. Hard-kill APSs use a mixture of sensors, which can include small-form-factor radars and electro-optical/infrared cameras, to cue those interceptors to engage incoming threats.

From when the Marines first announced the selection of BAE’s ACV back in 2018, TWZ has noted that an APS could provide the vehicles with a valuable extra layer of defense against anti-armor missiles and rockets. More capable infantry anti-armor weapons continue to be developed and proliferate globally. Those threats present additional challenges in beach landing scenarios for amphibious vehicles like the ACV, which move much more slowly in the water than they do on land.

The threat that drones pose, and to armored vehicles in particular, which TWZ has been sounding the alarm on for years, has also now been fully rammed into the public consciousness. This is thanks largely to the stark visuals of tanks and other vehicles being attacked by uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) that emerge on a daily basis now from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

A Ukrainian drone from the 79th Air Assault Brigade drops a 40mm HEDP grenade on a Russian UR-77 Meteorit, causing a catastrophic payload explosion. pic.twitter.com/SsaQCKXsNL

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) August 14, 2023

Drones are an ever-more common and still evolving threat across a growing number of conflict zones worldwide. First-person view (FPV) type kamikaze drones controlled via fiber optic cable have become a particular point of concern, since they are impervious to radio frequency jamming. In turn, this has already prompted the development of a variety of active and passive countermeasures for armored and unarmored vehicles. We will come back to this in a moment.

TWZ has previously laid out a detailed case specifically for using hard-kill APSs to provide added counter-drone defense for armored vehicles. The Israeli firms behind Trophy and Iron Fist have both now notably demonstrated the ability of their respective systems to defeat uncrewed aerial threats in certain envelopes, as can be seen in the videos below. It should be noted that Trophy, Iron Fist, and other hard-kill APSs have a limited number of engagement opportunities and are not really intended to defeat large volumes of threats simultaneously, such as drones attacking in swarms.

Trophy® APS – The land maneuver enabler

Iron Fist APS | Active Protection System for Armored Vehicles

When it comes to the APS capability now planned for Marine ACVs, “that is not going to be the end-all, be-all,” Melkonian, the Marine Corps’ Program Manager, said today. “We’re constantly looking at what the next generation of APS is and how we can get that onto the platform in a lightweight form factor.”

Melkonian also highlighted other potential counter-drone and more general survivability upgrades that could be on the horizon for ACV. This could include the integration of directed energy weapons and some form of added overhead protection. Top-down attacks on vehicles where the armor is typically thinnest can be very threatening, in general.

As an aside, the Army has already been working to acquire hundreds of Top Attack Protection (TAP) add-on armor systems for installation on its M1 Abrams tanks and other armored vehicles. This reflects an expanding global trend in the integration of so-called ‘cope cage’ type armor around the turrets and other areas of armored and unarmored vehicles, primarily to protect against drone attacks. The first cope cages appeared on Russian tanks in the lead-up to the all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This kind of armor does present tradeoffs, including the potential to interfere with other capabilities, such as APSs.

Improved “situational awareness, that’s kind of a gateway to counter-UAS, in terms of the ability to sense your environment,” Melkonian also noted today while talking about other possible upgrades for the ACV. “Take all that video on board and then be able to feed that into [a] counter-UAS system.”

Melkonian highlighted several other areas of interest where the Marines are looking to improve the ACV’s capabilities. His list included things like reducing the vehicle’s signatures to make it harder for enemies to spot, improving its mobility while in the water, and upgrades to just help keep everything inside dry.

“Marines operate in very humid, very difficult environments,” he explained. “The ability to dehumidify the vehicles is a critical enabler, being able to improve the maintenance strategy and keeping [sic] those components running for as long as they need to.”

Broadly speaking, the Marines are interested in new “lightweight solutions, advanced technology, and anything that’s going to be marinized. It must be marinized,” he added. “I can’t tell you how many solutions have been picked, and that’s one of the first questions we ask, and sometimes the solutions are designed for a marinized environment, sometimes they’re not. Marines go where no one else goes, and we’ve got to be able to make sure that our capabilities can support their needs.”

The core marinization requirement will apply to the APS integration just like any other upgrades for Marine ACVs.

Altogether, the addition of active protection systems looks to be just one important upgrade for the Marine Corps’ ACV fleet now on the horizon.

Eric Tegler contributed to this story.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Taylor Swift is entering her trademark era.

The global pop star’s company, TAS Rights Management, filed three new trademark applications last week, per the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Two of the applications relate to soundbites of her voice, saying the phrases “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift” and “Hey, it’s Taylor.” The other is a well-known image of Swift, often representative of her recent Eras tour, featuring the 36-year-old onstage, holding her pink guitar and dressed in a shimmering bodysuit.

The push to lock down her public image comes at a time when many high-profile celebrities have called for regulations against unauthorized AI-generated content. Matthew McConaughey was one of the first Hollywood A-listers to leverage trademark law as an extra layer of protection.

In January, the “Interstellar” actor secured eight trademarks for his likeness, including images of him smiling and the iconic recording of him saying, “Alright, alright, alright,” from the 1993 movie “Dazed and Confused.”

“My team and I want to know that when my voice or likeness is ever used, it’s because I approved and signed off on it,” the actor told the Wall Street Journal in January. “We want to create a clear perimeter around ownership with consent and attribution the norm in an AI world.”

Registering a trademark for a celebrity’s speaking voice to defend against the prospect of AI-voice generation is a novel legal approach that has not yet been tested in court. Representatives for Swift did not respond to a request for comment on the intent of the recently filed trademarks. But Josh Gerben, one of the first attorneys to report Swift’s latest legal moves, said this is one of the growing gaps in intellectual property protection that AI can exploit.

Before AI infiltrated the internet, musicians, like Swift, would typically rely on copyright law to help prevent the unauthorized use and distribution of their music, while right to publicity laws would protect them from unlawful commercial use of their likeness. But with AI, users can manipulate people’s voices and images to sing or say practically anything.

So if McConaughey has a trademark on his voice saying a phrase, then theoretically any AI-generated voice that sounds similar to it could be considered a violation of that trademark, according to Gerben.

“If they have this trademark protection in place, then the [AI] platforms can’t use that same voice to create new content,” Gerben said. “Every celebrity would essentially have to go and do the same thing, but it’s trying to cut this off at the source as much as possible.”

Variety first reported news of Swift’s trademark filing.

As one of the most popular musicians, Swift has dealt with her share of unauthorized AI-generated content. She was previously one of the many female celebrities whose likeness was among several of Meta’s AI chatbot virtual celebrities. The illicit chatbots allegedly produced pornographic images. Before the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump also shared AI-generated images of Swift falsely suggesting that she had endorsed him, including one of her dressed as Uncle Sam with the words, “Taylor wants you to vote for Donald Trump.”

Because Swift is such a recognizable public figure, Luke Arrigoni, the chief executive of Loti AI, a tech company that focuses on likeness protection, said trademark filings like these aren’t merely defensive but rather a setup for a long-term protective infrastructure.

“By locking down these trademarks now, she’s ensuring that if a brand wants to use a ‘Swift-like’ AI voice in 2027, they’ll have to go through her authorized gates or face federal trademark infringement,” Arrigoni said in a statement. “She’s essentially putting a price tag on her digital self, and that’s exactly where the entire talent industry needs to go to survive.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week over whether the Trump administration may revoke temporary protected status for about 350,000 Haitian and 6,100 Syrian immigrants.

TPS allows people who are already in the United States to legally reside and work here if they are unable to safely return to their home country because of a sudden emergency such as war or a natural disaster. The humanitarian program, enacted by Congress in 1990, has since been used by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Since President Trump returned to office last year, his administration has terminated such protections for immigrants from 13 countries. Court challenges on behalf of Haitians and Syrians have been consolidated into a single case, Mullin vs. Doe, which the justices will hear Wednesday.

The high court’s ruling could eventually have sweeping repercussions for all 1.3 million immigrants from the 17 countries that were designated for TPS at the start of this administration. That’s because the federal government is arguing that decisions regarding the program are almost entirely immune from review by courts.

“Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from activist judges legislating from the bench,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, who did not provide their name, wrote in response to a request for comment.

Lower courts have repeatedly deemed the administration’s actions improper.

“We’re seeing clear gamesmanship from government to insulate all TPS decision-making from any oversight,” said Emi MacLean, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, who is counsel in the case for Syrians and in other cases challenging five of the terminations. “They’ve created a farce of a process to justify the ends that they sought, which was to strip humanitarian protections from over a million people.”

In the Trump administration’s appeal, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that Congress gave the Homeland Security secretary the power to grant or end the temporary protected status for troubled countries and barred judges from intervening.

He pointed to a provision that says: “There is no judicial review of any determination of the [secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.”

Citing this hands-off provision, Trump’s lawyers won brief emergency orders last year that allowed the administration to strip legal protections from about 600,000 Venezuelans. In that case, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had quickly reversed an extension granted by the Biden administration three days before Trump was sworn in.

The circumstances surrounding the Syria and Haiti cases are different. Advocates for the immigrants argue that the administration failed to conduct the required process to properly evaluate each country’s conditions.

They point to emails in July from a Homeland Security official to a State Department official. The Homeland Security official listed TPS designations coming up for review — Syria, South Sudan, Myanmar and Ethiopia. In response, the State Department official wrote: “I confirm that State has no foreign policy concerns with ending these TPS designations.”

State Department travel advisories for both countries warn people against traveling to either because of the risk of terrorism, kidnapping and widespread violence. U.S. citizens are advised to prepare a will.

For Syria, the advisory cites active armed conflict since 2011. For Haiti, it says the country has been under a national state of emergency since March 2024.

But Federal Register notices announcing the terminations said country conditions had sufficiently improved. The notice for Syria, for example, says “the Secretary has determined that, while some sporadic and episodic violence occurs in Syria, the situation no longer meets the criteria for an ongoing armed conflict that poses a serious threat to the personal safety of returning Syrian nationals.”

If the government loses, Homeland Security officials would have to reevaluate the TPS decisions in consultation with the State Department and make a decision based entirely on the country conditions themselves.

The government could start over, in that case, and still find that TPS is no longer warranted — if the process bears that out.

In a friend-of-the-court brief led by immigration law scholars at Georgetown and Temple universities, they explained that before TPS existed, similar forms of humanitarian relief were determined by the executive branch “without reference to any statutory criteria or constraints, and with little if any explanation for why nationals of certain countries received protection while others did not.”

With TPS in 1990, Congress sought to end that “unfettered discretion,” they wrote. Instead, the statute requires the Homeland Security secretary to terminate TPS if the review finds that conditions justifying the designation no longer exist. Otherwise, the law states, it “is extended.”

“The point of the TPS statute was to depoliticize humanitarian decisions,” said MacLean, the ACLU attorney. “Secretary Noem in all of her TPS decisions has completely undermined that fundamental goal.”

Ahilan Arulanantham, who is arguing for the Syria case on Wednesday, added that if the government wins, “it also means they could probably grant TPS to countries that don’t deserve it.” Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA, has represented the National TPS Alliance in separate litigation during this administration and Trump’s first.

Top Homeland Security and State Department officials from the George W. Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations filed a brief arguing that the Trump administration’s terminations of TPS for Syria and Haiti were “not based on evidence and sharply departed from past inter-agency practices.”

Haiti was originally designated for TPS in 2010 after a massive earthquake devastated the country and redesignated because of subsequent natural disasters and gang violence. In November, Noem announced that she would terminate TPS for Haiti, effective Feb. 3. She wrote in the Federal Register that “there are no extraordinary and temporary conditions in Haiti” that prevent Haitians from safely returning.

But even if there were, she continued, “termination of Temporary Protected Status of Haiti is still required because it is contrary to the national interest of the United States.”

The Homeland Security spokesperson said TPS for Haiti “was never intended to be a de facto amnesty program, yet that’s how previous administrations have used it for decades.”

Syria, meanwhile, “has been a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades,” the spokesperson wrote, “and it is contrary to our national interest to allow Syrians to remain in our country.”

In the Federal Register notice for Syria, Noem added that maintaining its TPS designation would “complicate the administration’s broader diplomatic engagement with Syria’s transitional government” by undermining peace-building efforts.

The Supreme Court will take up the question of whether the Homeland Security secretary can use national interest as a reason to revoke TPS. Attorneys for the TPS holders believe any decision to revoke TPS must come down to the country conditions alone.

Syria and Haiti are among the countries for which the Trump administration has also paused processing all immigration benefits. If their TPS protections expire, those immigrants would become vulnerable to detention and deportation even if they are eligible for other forms of relief.

U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that Congress gave the Homeland Security secretary the power to grant or end the temporary protected status for troubled countries and barred judges from intervening.

(Aaron Schwartz / Getty Images)

Attorneys for the TPS holders say the terminations were also driven by racial animus. They point to various statements by Trump over the years, including his false claim that Haitians were eating the pets of people in Springfield, Ohio, that they “probably have AIDS” and that Haiti is among the “shithole countries” from which he would permanently pause migration.

Among those affected is a 35-year-old Haitian woman who has lived in the U.S. since 2000 and is raising her four U.S. citizen children in a Southern state. The woman requested to be identified by her middle and last initials, B.B., out of concern for her immigration case.

After graduating high school, B.B. got into nursing school but couldn’t attend because she didn’t qualify for financial aid. She said later getting TPS allowed her to become a certified nursing assistant, and she now works as a medical coordinator while owning a nail salon and three real estate properties.

Though B.B.’s TPS remains active because of the court proceedings, her driver’s license expired Feb. 3 and she has since had to rely on friends and rideshares to get around while repeatedly requesting a renewal.

She said she worries most about her children. If she were deported back to Haiti, she said, she would leave them in the U.S. for their own safety.

“It’s like planning your death,” she said. “I’m 35 and I already have a will — not because I’m going to die but because of the situation.”

On a call with reporters, attorneys and advocates, a Syrian man said he earned his master’s degree in the U.S. and now works in the healthcare industry. The man, who was identified by a pseudonym, said he and his wife are afraid of what their future will look like.

“TPS gave us something we had not had in years: a place to settle and a moment to grieve,” he said, later adding that “telling Syrians to go back right now is not a policy — it’s abandonment.”

Among the public, there is broad support for TPS and other humanitarian programs. According to a poll conducted last month by the firm Equis Research, 68% of Latino and 65% of non-Latino voters support fighting to give back legal protection to those who have lost their temporary protected status or asylum protections as a result of the current administration’s actions.

Earlier this month, the House voted in favor of a bill that would require new Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to redesignate Haiti for TPS. Among those who crossed the political aisle to support it were 10 Republicans and Rep. Kevin Kiley, an independent from Rocklin, Calif., who caucuses with Republicans. The measure faces an uphill battle in the Senate.

In an interview with The Times, Kiley said his vote was about common sense and being humane.

“It’s particularly dangerous for people that would be returning where the gangs that are ravaging the country are just lying in wait outside the airport in Port-au-Prince,” he said, referring to the Haitian capital.

And because most won’t return willingly, Kiley added, “really all you’d be doing is removing work authorization from 350,000-some people who are going to mostly remain in the country, who will not be able to work anymore and may end up being more reliant on public assistance in states where they’re eligible.”

At the same time, Kiley said, the TPS system hasn’t worked as intended because most so-called temporary designations drag on.

“The system needs to be reformed,” he said. “But that’s all separate and apart from what we do with the folks who were already given this designation.”

Times staff writer David G. Savage in Washington contributed to this report.

April 16 (UPI) — The House on Thursday passed a bill to extend temporary protected status for people from Haiti who are living in the United States through 2029.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., who is co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus, introduced a discharge petition to advance a bill to extend protection for Haitian nationals.

The legislation was initially introduced by Rep. Laura Gillen, D-N.Y., whose Long Island district — as well as the rest of Long Island and New York City — have large Haitian populations, and is the first bill she introduced after her election to the House.

After the discharge petition succeeded, with bipartisan support, the bill passed the full House with 10 Republicans voting in support of it.

“This is a critical step forward in our fight for immigrant justice and delivering our Haitian neighbors the protections they deserve — and it’s a testament to the strength of our broad, diverse and bipartisan coalition,” Pressley said in a statement after the motion to discharge was agreed to.

“I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who supported our discharge petition,” she said.

After the vote, Gillen in a statement encouraged the Senate “to take up this measure and show the compassion and good sense to protect our Haitian community members.”

“Not only would this threaten the lives of our neighbors, it would also have a devastating effect on our economy,” Gillen said, noting that the extension protects “law-abiding and tax-paying Haitians who would face horrific condition if forced back to Haiti.”

The bill, however, faces a battle in the Republican-run Senate and, if it does get passed, the White House has indicated that it will veto the legislation, reports have said.

Although former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had attempted to end TPS for at least half a million Haitians last Fall, a judge in February blocked the Trump administration from carrying it out.

As a result of the ruling, TPS for people from Haiti expired on Feb. 3, its original expiration date, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which Pressley said made the discharge petition to force a vote on the bill so crucial.

The Supreme Court also is due to rule on the Trump administrations efforts to end TPS for Haitians, as well as for people from Syria, who have protected status because of the dangerous situation in that country.