wildfire

SACRAMENTO — With just over six weeks until the Nov. 3 election, the two candidates for California governor hit the campaign trail Thursday to promote plans to address the state’s high cost of living and continue rebuilding after the deadly wildfires that burned thousands of Los Angeles homes last year.

Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton are vying to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028.

While Becerra holds a comfortable lead in the solidly-Democratic state, according to recent opinion polls, Hilton has aggressively attacked the veteran Democratic official as an “empty suit” who would bend to special interests in Sacramento.

“Xavier Becerra will be a rubber stamp for Democrat laws that raise your costs. That is the simple choice in this election,” Hilton said during a morning press conference in front of the state Capitol.

With a stack of file boxes representing the more than 1,100 bills passed by the legislature this year towering over him, Hilton, a former Fox News host and one-time advisor to a UK prime minister, pledged to veto any bill that would lead to higher costs if he is elected governor.

“We have to go in a new direction. Lower your costs, cut the BS, the bureaucracy, and these bills that raise costs for every Californian,” he said.

Hilton called out bills now on Newsom’s desk that would expand the state’s antitrust law and tighten rules for packaging made of recycled materials, measures opposed by business groups. Another signed by Newsom earlier this year allows Los Angeles and Contra Costa counties to surpass a 2% limit on local sales taxes.

California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton speaks during a town hall with union film industry workers at Blue Cloud Movie Ranch on Wednesday in Santa Clarita.

(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

He has promised to slash state regulations and the government workforce to deliver $3 gas, tax-free earnings up to $150,000 and vehicle registration fees capped at $73.

Becerra, a former secretary of U.S. Health and Human Services, met with survivors of the devastating 2025 Altadena wildfires, first responders and community leaders before outlining his plans to prevent such destruction and to deal with fires when they do inevitably break out.

Becerra said his first priority is to secure the $30 billion in disaster aid that the federal government has failed to deliver.

“Job one, if I’m fortunate to become the governor, will be to fight, fight, and fight, get that money that people for nearly two years here in Altadena and the Palisades and elsewhere have been waiting for,” he said, speaking to reporters on what used to be the deck of a home belonging to a member of the Altadena Town Council.

Becerra recalled that during his 24 years in Congress there was widespread, bipartisan support for sending federal assistance to disaster areas, including areas devastated by hurricanes on the Eastern Seaboard or floods in the South. California deserves the same response, he said.

He said he would seek to leverage tax dollars to help communities better prepare for wildfires, creating buffers and hardening structures because of wildfires that will inevitably occur in certain communities.

“It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when,” Becerra said.

Becerra said he would seek to work with local governments to create a functional emergency alert system throughout the state. In the aftermath of 2025 wildfires, there was heavy criticism about delayed emergency notifications and evacuation orders.

He also said that wildfires now occur year-round, not just during what was once called fire season, and it was critical to make sure that firefighters were prepared to respond year round by not expecting them to work more than 60 or 70 hours per week when a fire breaks out.

“We want people to stay in these positions because when the fires hit, we can’t be asking where is the fire force,” he said.

When asked about the cost of gas, Becerra blamed the Trump administration for a “reckless, illegal war in Iran” and “crazy, illegal” tariffs that have contributed to higher prices.

Hilton, who is endorsed by President Trump, blamed the state’s high cost of living squarely on state policies, not on fuel prices driven up by the war.

“We don’t need to make changes at the federal level to lower peoples’ costs in California,” Hilton said. “I’m focused on what I can do as governor to lower costs in California, and that is to roll back the Democrat policies that have given us the highest costs. It’s not federal policies that have given us the highest gas prices in the country, it’s Democrat policies in California.”

A Public Policy Institute of California survey released earlier this week showed Becerra with a 22-point lead over Hilton, driven by Democrats’ large voter registration advantage.

According to a May report from the Secretary of State’s office, just under 45% of voters were registered as Democrats, 25% Republicans and 22% with no party preference. The remaining 7% were registered with another political party.

Becerra and Hilton are scheduled to meet in a Sept. 30 debate hosted by CNN.

Thousands of Los Angeles homeowners faced a persistent problem long after the devastating wildfires in January 2025: While their homes were left standing, they had been infiltrated by heavy, toxic smoke and ash, and remained unsafe.

Residents were forced into lengthy battles with their insurance companies to prove contamination and get help paying for the cleanup and additional living expenses.

Backed by wildfire survivors and advocates in Altadena, California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday announced he had signed legislation to create new, first-in-the-nation standards to test and remediate homes damaged by wildfire smoke, and to require insurance companies to pay for the associated costs.

“California will not leave survivors to navigate recovery alone,” Newsom said. “These new protections will make insurer obligations clearer and give homeowners more financial flexibility when they need it most. As fire seasons across the West become a year-round reality, California’s commitment to recovery must be just as enduring.”

The January 2025 Eaton and Palisades fires were two of the deadliest and most destructive in state history. Together, they burned more than 16,000 structures and killed 31 people.

Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) authored Assembly Bill 1642 after hearing repeatedly from constituents concerned that the fires had left layers of ash contaminated with asbestos, lead and toxic materials in and around their homes.

The now-signed bill directs the state to create scientific standards for what constitutes a safe home and provide guidance on how to properly remediate residences.

Twenty months after Jane Lawton Potelle sat in a friend’s garage — already suffering from a cough and chest pain as her Altadena home stood contaminated with toxic smoke — she stood alongside Newsom as he signed the bill, which was championed by her advocacy group, Eaton Fire Residents United.

“Early days, we were told we were the lucky ones,” said Potelle, who founded EFRU as her neighbors shared concerning test results on Facebook — all while government agencies and insurers offered conflicting guidance and little support.

“To have this bill signed is acknowledgment that just because your home is left standing and looks fine, doesn’t mean that it’s actually safe to return,” she said.

The data EFRU collected in the months after the fire showed the vast majority of homes tested had lead levels beyond what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers acceptable. With no clear guidance, haphazard and improvised efforts by companies to clean these homes left 6 in 10 residences still unsafe.

A companion bill signed by the governor, AB 1795, was born out of a Department of Insurance task force and requires insurers to abide by the AB 1642 standards in the insurance claims process and to do so in a timely manner.

If these laws had been in place when the Eaton fire broke out, “we’d all be home by now,” Potelle said.

Potelle’s home — like many others’ — remains contaminated as disputes with her insurance company drag on. Her Christmas tree, from 2024, is still up.

“Going forward, the question of whether a family can safely return home should be answered by science, not by an insurance company’s guesswork,” Harabedian said in a statement. “Families should not have to fight for the testing they need or be left trying to figure out on their own whether their homes are safe.”

More than 13,000 insurance claims filed after the fires involved homes that were damaged by smoke, not flames, according to an estimate from the Department of Insurance.

Newsom also signed legislation from Harabedian that will allow homeowners in the future to seek up to one year of mortgage forbearance if their home becomes uninhabitable due to the effects of a wildfire or other disaster. Another bill signed into law extends existing mortgage relief for those affected by the Palisades and Eaton fires for another year.

Los Angeles County launched a probe into Farmers Insurance Company’s handling of claims by policyholders impacted by last year’s devastating Eaton and Palisades wildfires, after a growing number of residents complained of delays, denials and underpayments.

In a letter sent to Farmers on Wednesday, the county’s lawyers said if the company is engaging in any unlawful or unfair business practices, it must immediately stop.

“Eaton Fire survivors did everything right—responsibly paying their premiums year after year—but when disaster hit, Farmers left them with a contaminated home and refused to pay for testing and cleanup,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, in a statement.

“My constituents shouldn’t have to walk back into homes with lead and asbestos because an insurance company won’t pay for the test that would prove it’s there,” she added.

Farmers disputed the county’s claims.

“As always, we operate in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,” the insurer said in a Thursday statement. “We do not believe the inquiry accurately characterizes our actions or practices and will cooperate through the appropriate process.”

“Serving our customers during difficult times is at the heart of what we do, which is why each claim is reviewed individually, taking into account the specific circumstances of the loss and the coverage provided under the policy,” the company said. “We remain focused on handling claims with care, consistency and attention to each customer’s unique situation.”

County officials said that at a recent meeting with Eaton fire survivors, those with Farmers policies said the insurer had been slow or resistant to pay for toxin testing by qualified industrial hygienists, forcing residents to pay for it themselves.

The testing revealed that many homes were contaminated with unsafe levels of lead, asbestos, chromium, and other toxic substances, the county said.

The residents also told the county that Farmers has refused to pay for adequate remediation of the contaminants and declined to cover ongoing living expenses.

“After paying millions of dollars in premiums, policyholders deserve the benefits and support they paid for,” said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades. “Families whose homes survived the Palisades and Eaton Fires but remain damaged or contaminated should not be forced to choose between returning to an unsafe home and financial devastation.”

The new investigation comes after the county filed a lawsuit against State Farm on Aug. 31 for its handling of Eaton and Palisades fire claims. The county claims State Farm engaged in illegal and deceptive business practices that kept victims from receiving what they were entitled to under their policies. State Farm denied the county’s claims.

General Atomics has given us the first look at its new Wildfire drone design. The company is developing this armed medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) uncrewed aircraft in response to new U.S. Air Force requirements for a lower-cost successor to the MQ-9A Reaper.

A rendering of Wildfire was included in a video montage, seen below, which General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. division (GA-ASI) released earlier today. GA-ASI first announced work on this new drone last month. The Air Force, in partnership with the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), formally kicked off its new search for a Reaper successor, currently called the Massed Modular Aircraft (MMA), in July. GA-ASI also developed the MQ-9A, which is now out of production.

Wildfire’s pusher-prop design shown is clearly an extension of the existing MQ-9 family, with an overall planform that is extremely similar to that of the Reaper. Like the latest versions of the MQ-9A, the new drone has a sensor turret under the nose and a large blade antenna under the rear fuselage.

Wildfire does notably lack the Reaper’s distinctive hump on top of the forward fuselage. On the MQ-9A, this feature contains the drone’s satellite communications (SATCOM) antenna. What this might mean about how Wildfire is controlled and otherwise communicates is not immediately clear, but it points to the use of a smaller, lower-cost SATCOM terminal. That, in turn, would most likely be tied to a network like Starshield, the government-focused cousin of SpaceX’s Starlink. We could also see greater semi-autonomous control here, or at least a greater reliance on it.

The resulting shape of the forward end of the fuselage is vaguely reminiscent of GA-ASI’s Gnat series of drones from the 1990s, which evolved into the iconic Predator. The MQ-9 family, in turn, is an outgrowth of the Predator.

The rendering of Wildfire also depicts the drone armed with four Joint Strike Missile (JSM) cruise missiles, with two loaded on what appears to be a single pylon under each wing. The stealthy JSM can be employed as an anti-ship or land-attack weapon. GA-ASI has released renderings of MQ-9s in the past with similar loadouts. The Air Force is already acquiring stocks of JSMs, primarily to arm its F-35A Joint Strike Fighters. Stand-off munitions like the JSM have long been seen as an increasingly important, if not critical, addition to the non-stealth Reaper’s arsenal, helping to keep the drones further away from potential threats.

TWZ has reached out to General Atomics for more details.

“General Atomics is looking at it and asking ourselves, ‘What can we really do? No kidding, no BS, actually do,’” GA-ASI spokesperson C. Mark Brinkley did tell us back in August when asked about Wildfire. “Let’s be honest with ourselves first. How do we come out of the box, day one, with a 10,000-nautical-mile ferry range? Can we carry four LRASMs [AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles]? Can we swarm 100 aircraft under semi-autonomous control? Can we fuse all of that data into a highly effective common operating picture? Can we do that at scalable, affordable mass?”

“So that was the assignment, and our engineers sharpened their pencils and got to work,” he added. “What came out the other side was our new Wildfire UAS. That thing is a beast, and no one who actually does this for a living, and is honestly concerned about America’s warfighting edge, can look at it and not want 100 of them as fast as we can make them.”

Wildfire “addresses all of the concerns posed by the MMA solicitation. We can deliver years earlier and maintain the same high quality. You can have everything that makes Reaper special, plus more, at a price that doesn’t break the bank,” Brinkley also told Breaking Defense for a story published last week.

In terms of what the Air Force has said it is looking for with the MMA, as we have previously written:

“[The service] …wants the MMA drone to perform the same general intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike missions as the MQ-9A. To that end, stated program requirements to date include a speed of at least 200 knots true airspeed, a munition and sensor payload capacity of at least 2,800 pounds, an unrefueled combat radius of at least 2,300 nautical miles with payload, the ability to self-deploy one-way at least 8,000 nautical miles, and the ability to operate from runways no longer than 6,000 feet. The MMAs also need to be highly modular and use open architecture mission systems to make it easier to integrate new capabilities and functionality down the line.”

The Air Force also shared last week that it is targeting a roughly $10 million unit cost for the MMA drones, not including sensors and certain other systems. As mentioned, the Reaper is out of production, but the price tag on a fully-equipped Reaper today is widely reported to be between $30 million and $50 million. The Air Force has itself used the $50 million figure as a reference point in discussing its latest plans for what comes after the MQ-9.

It is unclear how Wildfire might achieve this cost goal while retaining so much obvious Reaper DNA, but even a major 30 to 50 percent reduction in the price tag compared to its predecessor would be a huge deal. In the past, General Atomics’ Brinkley has openly questioned just how cheap an MMA drone could realistically be while still offering comparable capabilities to MQ-9.

The original timeline for the MMA program envisioned the Air Force reaching initial operational capability in 2031 after receiving 20 of the drones. The service is now looking to accelerate that schedule by around two years. The Air Force expects to eventually acquire around 180 MMAs.

The Air Force has tried, without success, to develop a successor to the MQ-9 on several occasions in the past. However, a key driving factor now is huge losses of Reapers in the course of the ongoing conflict against Iran. The service’s MQ-9 fleet has already shrunk dramatically in recent years, in part due to additional losses during operations targeting Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen last year.

“Although we have plenty of MQ-9As today, we are going through them at a rate that is concerning to us,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Niemi, the service’s Chief Modernization Officer, told reporters at a roundtable at the Pentagon last week, according to Air & Space Forces Magazine. “There’s not a lot of good options to immediately replace those aircraft.”

GA-ASI has long had a monopoly on MALE combat drone sales in the United States, and is clearly looking to extend that now with Wildfire. However, this market space has been expanding, and other companies are already competing for what could be a very lucrative new deal with the Air Force. Winning the MMA contract could open doors to opportunities elsewhere within the U.S. government and with foreign countries. Variants and derivatives of the MQ-9 are also in service today with the U.S. Marine Corps, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and several additional air arms globally.

More information about Wildfire, as well as its competitors, is only likely to continue emerging as the Air Force pushes ahead with new and aggressive plans to finally acquire a follow-on drone to the venerable Reaper.

Update: 2:15 PM ET –

General Atomics spokesperson C. Mark Brinkley has now shared additional details about Wildfire with TWZ.

“You’re not imagining it. These new Wildfire renders do lack the dorsal hump you see on Reaper, MQ-9B, Gray Eagle, Mojave STOL and many copycat aircraft,” Brinkley explained. “General Atomics has pushed proliferated low-earth orbit controls onto many of our existing aircraft and pioneered that integration across unmanned aerospace. That is a relatively new technology that we already have great experience integrating, and it makes sense to bring that into Wildfire.”

“Proliferated low-earth orbit” (abbreviated variously as pLEO and P-LEO) refers to distributed constellations of hundreds or potentially thousands of satellites in that orbital region. SpaceX’s constellations supporting the aforementioned Starlink/Starshield networks fall into this general category.

“Wildfire is going to leverage ongoing advancements in autonomy on Day One. We envision networking dozens of Wildfires for true combat mass,” according to Brinkley. “Again, not a hypothetical. We’ve been pioneering many advancements in autonomy, AI, and machine learning across the FQ-42A program and using our own MQ-20 Avenger as a CCA [Collaborative Combat Aircraft] surrogate connected to F-22 and F-35. That’s proven, not concept.”

The FQ-42A, also known as the Dark Merlin, is one of two designs now in development under the first phase, or Increment 1, of the Air Force’s CCA program, the other being Anduril’s FQ-44A Fury. The service announced in June that its initial CCA force would be a mixed fleet of FQ-42As and FQ-44As.

“Four JSMs tells you something about Wildfire overall. We can’t just look at overall external weight limits. You have to consider individual hardpoint capacity,” Brinkley continued. “We’ve concepted four JSMs on MQ-9B before, as a concept, but we’ve never done that on Reaper. Wildfire can absolutely do that, from a hardpoint capacity and also an overall MGTOW [maximum gross takeoff weight] perspective.”

“We’re showing two LRASMs on Wildfire, which is twice as much as the DIU solicitation asked for. If you’re going to build a flying weapons truck, give it some teeth,” he added. “These longer-range missiles also give you increased standoff compared to other weapons you associate with the MQ-9, so that also gives you some flexibility. Wildfire can carry two LRASMs for meaningful combat distances.”

The AGM-158C LRASM (Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile) is a derivative of the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) family of land-attack cruise missiles, and is also in the Air Force’s inventory today.

Brinkley also said that Wildfire’s ferry range will exceed the MMA’s target of 8,000 nautical miles.

“We can deliver way ahead of the original FY 2031 schedule [for MMA]. We can deliver more than twice as many aircraft as requested in the same amount of time, because our manufacturing is real. Our network of suppliers, subcontractors and partners is real,” he added. “The obvious question is always cost, and I struggle to discuss costs because no one ever wants to compare apples to apples. There are stated price targets out there, and we’ll hit those. We’ll do it with an aircraft you can trust. We have nearly 10 million flight hours and more than 1,600 aircraft delivered. This is what we do.”

Speaking more generally, Brinkley also highlighted General Atomics’ extensive experience in developing and producing armed MALE drones, including the MQ-9.

“It’s important to remember that Reaper made its first flight 25 years ago and was so far ahead of everything else that it still defines the entire category of medium-altitude, long-endurance strike aircraft worldwide. When you build something new to do this kind of work, it rolls out into the Reaper’s shadow,” he said. “I don’t have to defend MQ-9 because the track record speaks for itself. It’s been called the MVP of Epic Fury [the U.S. military’s nickname for the initial phase of operations against Iran this year] for good reason, and I think it has squashed all questions about the relevance of MALE ISR and strike.”

“So that brings us to questions of affordability versus attrition, cost-per-effect, and the true price of combat operations. It also brings up questions of reliability and mission availability, and Reaper excels at both of these, so you can’t replace it with junk and expect to get the same effects,” he continued. “That’s where Wildfire comes in. Our team went to the graph paper and started sketching out what they would do differently and what they would keep the same. Where are the tradeoffs, and what do you change? No one knows this category of aircraft and missions like we do. We’re not guessing and hoping.”

“I can’t get into deep specifics on Wildfire yet, because it’s too early for that and the goalposts seem to move every time I say something publicly. What I can say is that Wildfire takes all of the known quantities of Reaper, blends them with some cutting-edge technologies and manufacturing advancements, and incorporates our more than three decades of lessons learned about large, unmanned combat aircraft to drive cost-per-effect math down.”

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

SACRAMENTO —  It was unprecedented and stunning: California’s governor and top two legislative leaders negotiated a compromise on a big bill — and one house rebelled, refusing to bring it to a vote.

Not just any bill, but this year’s biggest in the state Legislature, dealing with catastrophic wildfires, arguably the state’s most perilous problem.

The issue: who gets hit the hardest financially when a for-profit utility’s electrical equipment ignites a blaze. The utility’s investors? Its ratepayers? The insurers? Their premium payers?

At stake, depending on who you talk to, is whether the electricity providers can afford to stay in business and keep our lights on. Will some utility — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric or San Diego Gas & Election — be forced into bankruptcy when the next powerline-caused wildfire explodes?

Alternatively, there’s another unacceptable potential outcome: Property insurance companies completely stop issuing policies — not just in obvious fire-prone areas, but in tree-lined urban neighborhoods — and basically pull out of California. Or their premiums become flat-out unaffordable.

Politically, the wildfire legislation’s flameout called into question Gov. Gavin Newsom’s seeming weakness as a lame duck chief executive who will be termed-out of office in January.

Newsom stuck out his neck and took it on the chin from fellow Democrats — showing that even with lopsided one-party rule, unity and success aren’t always guaranteed.

But the episode also raised doubts about Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas’ leadership capability. The Hollister Democrat signed off on the deal with Newsom and Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limon (D-Santa Barbara), but reneged at the last minute under pressure from the Assembly Democratic Caucus. They killed the bill without a floor vote.

I’m in my seventh decade of covering California governors and legislatures and never have seen — or heard of — anything like this: a legislative leader backing out of a deal agreed to with the governor and the other house’s leader.

But in truth, Newsom didn’t really like the agreement much anyway. He was on the utilities’ side, and they were out-lobbied by the insurers and ratepayers.

“I know we all hate utilities, so no one wants to defend a utility. But you’ve got to deal with reality. This thing’s not going to get better on its own,” Newsom told reporters at the Capitol on the night before the deal collapsed, referring to the utilities’ worsening financial liability.

Personally, I think it’s an overreach to conclude that Newsom’s power has been severely weakened — or that Rivas necessarily showed lack of leadership. One can question their reasons for doing what they did, but that doesn’t mean it was because of political debility.

“Newsom’s still a powerful lame duck because he could be a presidential nominee,” Republican consultant Rob Stutzman says.

“One of the better things he has done all year is taking on this issue. It would have been very easy for him to just pass it on to the next governor.”

Leaving aside whether this governor could become a president, there are hundreds of bills piling up on his desk that he must sign or veto by Sept. 30. That gives him tremendous clout. It’s good politics — and human nature — for a governor to lean more favorably toward a measure if it’s authored by a legislator who has voted with him.

Plus, one of the Legislature’s last acts last week was to send Newsom a bloated supplemental budget bill containing more than $3 billion in spending, including countless stacks of pork sought by lawmakers for their districts. Newsom easily and gleefully could discard any or all of it.

So Newsom has awesome power, lame duck or not.

But he’s vulnerable to criticism for his style. He has had an annoying habit of waiting until the very end of a legislative session to spring a hefty proposal on the lawmakers. It’s called “jamming.”

In the past, this pressure tactic mostly worked, although it ticked off lawmakers. This time Assembly members rebelled.

It’s not clear whether his jamming is mainly strategy, or just lack of focus and a tendency to push too many projects at once. Or is he preoccupied with positioning himself to run for president in 2028? Probably all of the above.

“If we had more time, we could have had a different outcome,” Rivas told me.

With only a few days remaining in the legislative session, Newsom initially proposed an ambitious plan that would have shifted more cost for utility-sparked wildfires to property insurers, sharply raising premiums across California. Utilities would have gotten some relief.

It became a titanic fight between two powerful special interests. And insurers — teamed with consumer advocates — triumphed, forcing Newsom to back down.

After hard bargaining, the governor and legislative leaders finally agreed on a post-midnight deal to help wildfire victims receive compensation more quickly — a so-called fast-pay program — and to step up fire preventative efforts.

But utilities’ financial risks weren’t significantly reduced, and they quickly mounted an opposition campaign. That resulted in Assembly Democrats scuttling all of it on the session’s last day.

“It’s unfortunate that [bill] was not given a vote,” Limon said, adding that the Senate was prepared to pass it.

“I don’t want us to do the easy stuff and call it a day,” Rivas told me. “I wanted to see real utility accountability. This bill did not go nearly far enough.”

It went a fair distance, however, in helping future fire victims get their insurance payouts faster. And it probably should have been passed.

Half a loaf. Bird in hand. Incremental change. Next year more incrementalism. Ultimately it can add to massive reform.

Some problems are just too tough to resolve in one sitting.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Reining in Big Tech: How California lawmakers plan to regulate AI and social media
California vs. Trump: Judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit challenging California transgender sports policies
The L.A. Times Special: Texas is red, California blue — but for how much longer? A Lone Star toss-up will tell

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers passed laws that would ensure insurance companies provide better coverage for smoke-damaged homes and financing for upgrades protecting residences from future fire damage.

The measures were among a slew of bills approved during the 2026 legislative session to deal with the continuing aftermath of the devastating 2025 Los Angeles area fires.

The Eaton and Palisades fires, which destroyed more than 16,000 structures and killed 31, were two of the deadliest and most destructive fires in state history. Like with catastrophic fires before them, tragedy spurred action.

Much of the focus on wildfire issues by Gov. Gavin Newsom and California lawmakers in the waning days of the legislative session focused on a proposal to shift liability away from utilities whose equipment ignites wildfires.

The complex, high-stakes policy debate attempted to address the needs and financial risks faced by the utilities, their customers and insurance companies following the catastrophic wildfires that have plagued California in recent years, but a proposed compromise recently pieced together by lawmakers and the governor fell through Tuesday.

However, lawmakers did pass several bills this year to help fire victims navigate burdensome insurance requirements in the aftermath of a disaster and increase prevention efforts. All head to Newsom for his consideration.

Two complementary bills approved Monday ensure homes that survive a wildfire but are contaminated by the onslaught of smoke are properly remediated before residents move back in.

The bills were prompted by the 2025 Eaton fire, which left thousands of homes contaminated with lead, some at levels hundreds of times what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers safe. Homeowners routinely reported that their insurance companies refused or delayed claims, advocated for cleaning methods that experts deemed insufficient and pushed residents to move back before testing showed their homes were safe.

The first bill, AB 1642, would direct the Department of Toxic Substances Control to create scientific standards for what constitutes a safe home and provide guidance on how to properly remediate homes. The second, AB 1795, would require insurers to abide by those standards in the claims process and do so in a timely manner.

The companion laws only take effect if Newsom signs both.

The two bills originally conflicted with one another. The scientific standards bill was supported by many Eaton fire survivors from the get-go. However, the insurance bill — born out of a Department of Insurance task force — was widely criticized by survivors for leaving insurance companies wiggle room to deny claims and placing a burden on homeowners to prove their home was in fact contaminated by a fire.

In an eleventh-hour sprint of “sleepless nights,” “five-hour Zooms” and intervention from the governor’s office, advocates won additional protections for fire survivors in the insurance bill and brought the two into harmony, said Dawn Fanning, managing director at the smoke-damaged home advocacy group Eaton Fire Residents United.

“It took a lot of work to get here, and we’re really happy where we landed,” Fanning said.

After the Eaton fire, “it was the Wild West, trying to scramble to find answers,” she said. “If these laws were in place, so many thousands of people would be back home by now.”

Separate legislation by Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), who is in a hotly contested race for California Insurance Commissioner, seeks to give homeowners more notice and options before being dropped by their insurer, a problem homeowners increasingly face as wildfires have become more frequent and destructive.

Many nonrenewal notices sent by insurance companies include vague reasoning, Allen said during a May hearing on the bill, SB 1301. His legislation would require specific information so property owners can have a chance to mitigate problems and keep their insurance.

Another bill from Allen, who represents the Palisades area that burned in 2025, would create a new loan program to help property owners mitigate fire risks through home hardening, or installing fire-resistant materials on the outside of a structure.

“It can sometimes cost tens of thousands of dollars for homeowners and there’s simply not a lot of financing for this kind of work. There’s not a market for that,” Allen said during an April hearing.

The program is expected to help fund 1,000 projects in its first year and up to 2,400 within five years, according to a bill analysis.

A budget bill approved Tuesday morning also includes $25 million for home hardening grants, rebates or loans to be distributed through a separate program to be created by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. It would cap assistance at $25,000 per homeowner or property.

But other proposals to provide financial incentives for home hardening did not pass, including bills by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) to exclude home hardening upgrades from property tax reassessment and to require insurance companies to provide two quotes to inquiring homeowners: one for the property as is, and another for if it met full home-hardening certification by the state.

Another bill on Newsom’s desk seeks to get restitution for victims of utility-caused wildfires who in some cases have waited more than a decade, said Assemblymember Joe Patterson (R-Rocklin).

In 2019, the state established a wildfire fund paid by utility companies that reimburses claims stemming from wildfires caused by the companies’ equipment. But the fund was not retroactive, and some people who suffered losses before its creation are still waiting to be paid.

Patterson’s bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission to determine how much is still owed to those victims, including for losses from the deadly Camp fire that was sparked by a PG&E power line and destroyed the town of Paradise in 2018.

“For years, wildfire survivors have been forced to wait for answers while restitution shortfalls remain unresolved,” Patterson said in a statement after the bill passed. “AB 2700 is about doing what is right for wildfire survivors who have waited far too long to be made whole.”

Legislation that would have helped wildfire victims receive compensation more quickly, but that utilities said didn’t do enough to reduce their financial risks, died in Sacramento on Tuesday after the Assembly declined to vote on it.

The failure of Senate Bill 492 disappointed wildfire victims and lawmakers who had negotiated the language in a last-minute deal with Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“It is unfortunate that SB 492 was not given a vote,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limon (D-Santa Barbara). “Thousands of survivors made their voices clear — they needed reform to ensure the next wildfire does not continue to cause the mental and financial stress that recent disasters have placed on Californians.”

The bill’s failure was a win for the state’s three biggest for-profit utilities. Lawmakers say they will now continue working on reforms that Newsom had been pushing for, including limiting how much utilities have to pay for fires sparked by their equipment.

Share prices of Edison International and Pacific Gas & Electric had plummeted Monday after their investors learned that SB 492 did not include transferring more of the cost of utility-sparked fires to property insurers, a measure Newsom had proposed.

Insurers had warned the proposal could raise premiums by as much as 50%.

On Tuesday, with the failure of SB 492, the two companies’ stock recovered. Edison’s share price climbed nearly 9% to close at $58.80. PG&E’s shares rose 6% to $14.06.

The top executives of the two companies had written to legislative leaders Monday, calling on them to do more. The executives said their companies needed additional protection from wildfire costs because utility investors faced higher financial risks from such disasters in California than in other states.

“Faced with those risks, investors demand a higher return or invest elsewhere,” they wrote.

The companies had asked Newsom to strengthen a framework that he and lawmakers created in 2019 to protect utilities from bankruptcy after their equipment ignites a catastrophic fire.

With the help of those protections, even though investigators found Edison’s equipment sparked last year’s deadly Eaton fire, the company’s profit in 2025 soared by more than 200% — from $1.3 billion in 2024 to $4.5 billion

Some wildfire victims and consumer groups said Tuesday they were angry that lawmakers had backed away from the bill.

“If Wall Street does not trust Edison and PG&E to stop causing catastrophic fires, California should not solve that problem with another bailout,” said Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, and Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, in a statement. “Edison and PG&E should solve it by stopping the fires.”

The three utilities have caused at least seven of California’s 20 most destructive fires, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) told reporters Tuesday that the final proposal had “some half measures” and “Californians expect a lot more than half measures.”

He said that Newsom didn’t ask him to abandon the bill.

“We’re going to tackle this issue in the best interest of our state, of residents, but certainly wildfire victims that expect a lot more from us,” Rivas said.

Newsom’s office declined to say Tuesday whether the governor would call a special session this year to debate the issue.

“The reforms in this bill, while important, did not address the underlying structural problems driving this crisis, as the initial market reaction this week demonstrates,” Newsom said in a statement. “Simply put, this measure did not meet the gravity of this moment. The only solution is to return to fix the entire problem, not part of it.”

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine) said that the Legislature plans to hold a series of hearings this fall on how to deal with wildfire costs.

She acknowledged the rushed process of the last-minute proposal.

“It should come as no surprise to anybody that sometimes when policies get written at 6 a.m. perhaps we can do better,” Petrie-Norris said.

Democratic state Sen. Ben Allen, who represents the Pacific Palisades fire zone, said that he would have voted for the bill if it had cleared the Assembly.

“This bill package had a lot of good in it,” Allen said, adding that he understands “why a lot of colleagues felt as though it didn’t go far enough.”

The three utilities had been lobbying Newsom and lawmakers to further shield them and their shareholders from wildfire liabilities ever since last year’s Eaton fire.

Government fire investigators said the fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes in Altadena, was caused by electrical arcing on Edison’s out-of-service transmission line in Eaton Canyon. Edison kept the line in place despite not using it since 1971.

More than 11,000 households have filed suit against the utility, claiming it acted negligently, which the company denies.

Los Angeles County announced Monday that it had filed a lawsuit against State Farm General after hundreds of victims of last year’s devastating wildfires complained that their claims had been delayed, denied or underpaid.

The lawsuit alleges that State Farm engaged in illegal and deceptive business practices that kept victims of the Palisades and Eaton fires from receiving what they were entitled to under their policies.

County officials said their investigation into the complaints found unreasonable delays in processing claims, as well as “systematic underpayments.”

Officials said they also found that State Farm had illegally suppressed smoke damage claims.

“Survivors are just asking for what’s right,” L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, said at a Monday news conference.

Bob Devereux, a State Farm spokesman, said in a statement that the company would respond to the lawsuit through the legal process.

“State Farm General strongly disagrees with Los Angeles County’s characterization of our wildfire claims response,” he said.

Devereux said that State Farm has so far paid more than $6.2 billion on claims related to the two wildfires, including about $1 billion for smoke-related damage. About 78% of the claims have been closed, he said.

“We continue working directly with customers whose claims remain open and evaluating each claim based on the facts of the loss and the coverage provided by the customer’s policy,” he said.

“Our focus remains on helping customers recover,” he said.

Wildfire victims praised county officials for the lawsuit, which was filed in L.A. County Superior Court.

Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, said at the news conference that, in the months after the fires, it became apparent in talking to victims that those with State Farm policies were not getting the benefits they had paid for.

She said for those families, insurance had become “a barrier to recovery” rather than a safety net.

“Nineteen months after the fires, families are still suffering,” she said.

The county’s investigation included looking at complaints that Chen’s group and others had collected, as well as hundreds of other documents from State Farm policyholders.

County officials said that State Farm “failed to substantially comply” with their requests for documents and information during their investigation.

With more than 2.8 million residential and commercial policies, State Farm is California’s largest private insurer.

The county’s lawsuit includes dozens of complaints of L.A. County fire victims.

“After six decades of paying thousands a year for insurance, we expect them to honor their agreement,” said one family.

Many families say the insurer refused to test their homes for toxins left by smoke.

The lawsuit claims that State Farm “drastically lowballed” estimates of financial losses for destroyed or partially damaged homes.

“They offered us $11,000 to remediate our five-bedroom house,” complained one family. ”That’s only 13% of the actual cost.”

According to the California Department of Insurance, 11,300 State Farm policyholders filed homeowner claims arising from last year’s L.A. County fires.

The lawsuit asks the court to require State Farm to pay full restitution to policyholders, as well as civil penalties for violating state law.

In a late-night deal with lawmakers, Gov. Gavin Newsom agreed to drop his push for legislation that would have shifted more of the cost of utility-sparked wildfires to property insurers, sharply raising premiums across the state.

After weeks of closed-door negotiations with lawmakers and protests by wildfire survivors, the governor also backed away from a proposal that reduced amounts fire victims could receive and transferred more of the damage costs to local governments.

Wildfire victims and other critics had called the plan a corporate bailout.

According to a 96-page bill, published at 7:26 a.m. Saturday, Newsom and lawmakers agreed on some measures aimed at reducing the costs of future utility-sparked wildfires.

The bill would limit certain fees of attorneys representing insurance companies, while also stopping hedge funds and private equity firms from profiting on wildfire claims.

Last year, hedge funds were offering to buy claims that insurers had against Southern California Edison for the Eaton fire, leading to calls for reform.

The bill would also create a state program to get payments more quickly to wildfire victims.

“This is all real progress for future fire survivors,” Newsom said in a statement.

“Nonetheless, this system needs full structural reform — not a partial one,” he added. “I urge the Legislature to build on this progress next year and finish the work we started to secure the Wildfire Fund’s long-term durability, stabilize electricity rates, and ensure fire victims are never again turned into unsecured creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding.”

The complex legislation — added by gutting and amending a bill known as Senate Bill 492 — was introduced less than three days before the legislative session was to end Monday.

The session must now be extended until Tuesday because of a 2016 voter-approved proposition that requires bills or amendments to be in print at least 72 hours before the state Senate or Assembly can vote on them.

Eaton wildfire survivors and other groups had been calling on Newsom for weeks to unveil the legislation so that they could see the details.

More than 50 Eaton fire survivors showed up to protest in front of the governor’s mansion on Monday night in Sacramento, where Newsom was holding an event for legislators.

“Who should pay?” they chanted. “Shareholders should pay!”

On Saturday, wildfire victims praised lawmakers who had stood up to the governor’s push for legislation benefiting the utilities.

“Survivors from across California came to Sacramento and asked our elected representatives to stand with the people whose homes, communities and lives have been devastated,” Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, said. “They listened. And in the face of extraordinary pressure from some of the most powerful interests in our state, they centered on survivors and California families.”

Edison and the state’s two other big for-profit utilities had been lobbying Newsom and lawmakers to further shield them and their shareholders from wildfire liabilities ever since last year’s Eaton fire caused some investors to flee and the price of their stock to tumble.

Government fire investigators said the fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes, was caused by electrical arcing on Edison’s out-of-service transmission line in Eaton Canyon. Edison kept the line in place despite not using it since 1971.

More than 11,000 households have filed suit against the utility, claiming it acted negligently, which the company denies.

Utilities asked Newsom to strengthen a framework that he and lawmakers created in 2019 to protect utilities from bankruptcy after their equipment ignites a catastrophic fire. The law created a $21-billion wildfire fund, which is now reimbursing Edison for the settlements it is making to victims who agree not to sue.

Last year, also in legislation revealed in the session’s last days, Newsom created a second fund of $18 billion to pay for future fires.

According to a confidential document Newsom’s staff sent to lawmakers, the governor also wanted to cap the amount the fund would reimburse a utility for wildfire damages at $6 billion and require electric customers to pay for costs above that amount. That would have limited utilities’ liability for the fire but increased electric bills.

That measure was not in the legislation published Saturday morning.

Newsom said in his statement Saturday that the bill would strengthen accountability for utilities that spark fires by stopping executives from receiving bonuses after a fire.

The fine print in the bill states that the company must have a plan that prevents top executives from receiving “short-term” bonuses after a fire that results in 500 or more structures damaged.

The governor had touted in 2019 that his legislation had tied utility executive pay to the company’s safety performance. But the language allowed the companies to decide how to do that.

Despite the deadly Eaton fire, bonuses awarded to Pedro Pizarro, the chief executive of Edison International and other executives soared last year. Pizarro received $16.6 million in cash, stock and other compensation last year, up 20% from 2024.

The new legislation applies only to Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric. Those three for-profit utilities have caused at least seven of California’s 20 most destructive fires, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Insurance company executives warned Gov. Gavin Newsom in a letter Wednesday that his plan to shift utility wildfire liability to property insurers would raise premiums across California.

“The party whose equipment ignites a catastrophic fire should bear the economic consequence of that fire,” the 15 executives wrote. “Shifting those costs to policyholders does not reduce the cost of electricity but does make homeownership more expensive and insurance coverage harder to find.”

As the legislative session nears its end, Newsom’s staff and lawmakers have been negotiating behind closed doors on a deal to limit utilities’ wildfire liabilities.

According to a confidential document that Newsom’s staff sent to lawmakers and was obtained by Politico, the governor wants to stop property insurers from recouping their losses from homes destroyed in utility-sparked wildfires.

That could increase homeowners’ property insurance rates by as much as 50%, according to the Personal Insurance Federation of California. The highest hikes would be for those families living in severe fire risk areas.

“The proposal would shift billions of dollars in wildfire costs away from utilities and onto insurance consumers across the state, making coverage more expensive and harder to find,” said Denni Ritter at the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn.

Southern California Edison and the state’s two other big for-profit utilities have been lobbying Newsom and lawmakers to further shield them and their shareholders from wildfire liabilities ever since last year’s Eaton fire caused the price of their stock to tumble.

Government fire investigators said the fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes, was caused by electrical arcing on Edison’s out-of-service transmission line in Eaton Canyon. Edison kept the line in place despite not using it since 1971.

More than 11,000 households have filed suit against the utility, claiming it acted negligently, which the company denies.

Edison is offering settlements to victims of the Eaton fire. A $21-billion state wildfire fund that Newsom and lawmakers created in 2019 to protect the state’s three big utilities from bankruptcy after a fire is reimbursing Edison for its payments to victims.

At a press conference Wednesday, Newsom defended his plan, which also includes limiting the fees of attorneys in wildfire litigation and stopping hedge funds from profiting on the claims.

Newsom said that current law allows insurers to be paid before victims after a fire.

“The insurance industry is going to do everything to make sure they get paid first,” Newsom said.

No legislation has yet been filed to end what are called insurers’ subrogation claims. The legislative session ends Monday at midnight. The short time frame would allow for little public debate of a bill filed this week.

According to the document written by Newsom’s staff, the governor also proposed reducing amounts that local governments receive from utility-caused fires. The California State Assn. of Counties said that would shift costs to local taxpayers.

“Shifting wildfire costs to local governments is unjustified when utilities continue to generate significant profits and return billions to shareholders,” the association said in a brief recently sent to lawmakers.

Newsom also wants to reduce payments that fire victims can receive for non-economic damages including pain and suffering, angering victims of the Eaton fire.

More than 50 Eaton wildfire victims showed up to protest in front of the governor’s mansion on Monday night in Sacramento, where Newsom was holding an event for legislators.

They chanted, “Who should pay? Shareholders should pay!”

Fire containment has reached 27 percent in the rampant wildfire that first erupted in the Sierra Nevada foothills near the city of Reno in the state of Nevada in the United States. At least seven people – three first responders and four civilians – have been injured.

The blaze first broke out on Saturday and exploded in size by Sunday, destroying at least 32 homes and damaging six as it spread perilously close to dense neighbourhoods. Local officials, speaking at an afternoon news briefing on Monday, said those numbers are sure to rise as assessment teams begin to survey the charred areas.

They also said the fire had no new growth and has held steady at about 60 square kilometres (23 square miles) since it burned out of control on Sunday.

“We are making progress,” assured US Forest Service District Ranger Matt Zumstein.

Videos posted on social media showed the smouldering ruins of homes and cars, with only a scorched basketball hoop still standing.

By Monday, the number of residents under evacuation orders and warnings was lowered to about 63,000, down from more than 90,000 people when the blaze first mushroomed over the weekend. While winds have eased, there are still concerns that gusts could propel the flames through dry brush into newly developed neighbourhoods in Nevada’s largest city outside of metro Las Vegas. Reno is home to about 280,000 people.

Schools across the local area were closed because of the evacuations and to keep roads clear for emergency crews.

‘Like nothing I’ve seen before’: Reno faces third wildfire in two weeks

Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve said the way the fire spread so quickly at its peak had her fearing for the worst.

“It lit up these areas like nothing I’ve seen before,” she said Monday, adding, “it took your breath away, in the worst way”.

This is the third large wildfire in the craggy, high-desert region north of Reno in just the past two weeks – driven completely by human behaviour, according to fire officials. They have not disclosed whether the Hawk Fire, which is what the blaze is known as due to having started near the Hawk Meadow Trail, was intentionally set or accidental. Much of the area that burned was sagebrush and grass.

Resident Crystal Hallock, 53, has lost her home to a fire twice in under a decade. She moved into the rebuilt house in 2019, a year after an electrical fire burned it down.

Nevada’s governor quickly declared a state of emergency in Washoe County over the weekend after mobilising the National Guard to help with aerial firefighting and protecting evacuated neighbourhoods northwest of downtown Reno. But at one roadblock, residents expressed frustration that they could not get back into their homes, according to The Associated Press news agency.

“There’s no fire here! Why are the National Guard here?” a driver yelled.

Washoe County Sheriff Darin Balaam said he understands that some residents are frustrated that they can’t get home, but the danger isn’t over yet. “It just takes that little breeze and one ember,” he said.

Reno is southwest of Nevada’s Black Rock Desert, site of the annual Burning Man festival, which begins on August 30.

Many who travel to Burning Man make Reno a regular pit stop. Organisers on Monday requested that attendees not take hotel rooms and other resources away from fire evacuees, while being mindful of closures.

“Treat our neighbors, first responders, hospitality workers and everyone affected by this emergency with patience and care,” a Burning Man statement read.

Western wildfire risk stays high

Much of Nevada’s western edge is under an increased risk of wildfires this week because of high winds and low relative humidity, the National Interagency Fire Center said. The National Weather Service says the region will see warm, dry and breezy conditions, and that critical fire weather conditions are possible in the week’s latter half. Reno sits at an elevation of 1,370 metres (4,500 feet).

Extremely dry conditions across the American West have sparked a rash of wildfires this summer. Fires in eastern Washington state forced the evacuation of 60,000 people in the Spokane area in early August.

Nationwide wildfires have topped 50,000 this year, marking a 10-year high for the same period, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

Aug. 23 (UPI) — A fast-growing wildfire in Nevada has grown to 10,000 acres since it began burning just outside Reno on Saturday, officials said.

The Hawk Fire remained uncontained as of Sunday and forced 14,000 homes to be evacuated.

Gov. Joe Lombardo declared a state of emergency in Washoe County, which contains Reno, and urged residents to stay vigilant and heed warnings.

“This is an active and rapidly evolving situation, and I urge everyone in the affected areas to remain vigilant and follow the direction of local officials,” he said in a statement on X.

Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve said “structures have already been burned in this fire.”

“Evacuating before the fire arrives also allows our firefighters to focus their efforts on battling the blaze,” the mayor said in a statement on X.

Truckee Meadows Fire Chief Richard Edwards said the fire is being driven by strong winds, ABC News reported.

“The wind-driven fires move very rapidly into our residential areas, creating a lot of challenges for our firefighters to save homes and protect lives,” Edwards added.

Reno’s Northwest Specialty Hospital said it was evacuating patients due to the fire.

“The safety and well-being of our rehabilitation and behavioral health patients and staff remain the highest priority and we are evacuating out of an abundance of caution,” the hospital said in a statement.

“Patients have been safely transported to appropriate locations where their care will continue without interruption ” no patients or staff remain in the building.”

General Atomics (GA) has unveiled plans for what it calls the Wildfire Unmanned Aerial System, a next generation medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) drone. The move comes as the Pentagon is seeking an updated, modular, cheaper successor for the MQ-9 Reaper – one that is easier to produce and can be more freely sent into higher-risk environments where losses are likely to occur. 

The Reaper, a workhorse for U.S. uncrewed strike and ISR missions for decades, suffered heavy losses during the war with Iran and against the Houthis in Yemen. This has added a new level to already existing concerns about how they would perform against a peer threat like China. It also has decreased the MQ-9 fleet so dramatically that there are real concerns above operational impacts and the force size going forward overall. The MQ-9 is now out of production and cannot be directly replaced.

Aviation Week was the first to report about the Wildfire.

GA spokesman C. Mark Brinkley offered limited details about the Wildfire system, which he claimed is a leap beyond what the Pentagon is currently seeking in a new MALE combat drone. The company, he added, is not yet providing any images.

“General Atomics is looking at it and asking ourselves, ‘What can we really do? No kidding, no BS, actually do,’” Brinkley told us. “Let’s be honest with ourselves first. How do we come out of the box, day one, with a 10,000-nautical-mile ferry range? Can we carry four LRASMs [AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles]? Can we swarm 100 aircraft under semi-autonomous control? Can we fuse all of that data into a highly effective common operating picture? Can we do that at scalable, affordable mass?”

“So that was the assignment, and our engineers sharpened their pencils and got to work,” he added. “What came out the other side was our new Wildfire UAS. That thing is a beast, and no one who actually does this for a living and is honestly concerned about America’s warfighting edge can look at it and not want 100 of them as fast as we can make them.”

Last month, the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) announced its plans for what it has dubbed the Massed Modular Aircraft (MMA) program to replace the Reaper. The objective is to bring several companies together to help determine the way forward.

“The math of modern warfare is changing, and our force design must change with it,” DIU stated. “For decades, the Joint Force has relied on low-density, high-value, ‘exquisite’ (>$30M) manned and unmanned aircraft. In a high-end fight, this model is simply unsustainable. To win, we must design for, and accept, inevitable attrition while retaining the advantage.”

“The Joint Force seeks a cost-effective, theater-range, massed, and modular Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) to provide a flexible, operationally-responsive, risk-tolerant option in the air domain,” the DIU explained. “The ability to employ many aircraft at once ensures a persistent overwhelming credible threat despite inevitable attrition.”

Massed Modular Aircraft “are envisioned as in-theater reconfigurable platforms capable of long-range payload delivery,” DIU added. “Crucially, MMA must retain the ability to be outfitted with a variety of payloads, including Full Motion Video (FMV) sensors, to execute missions that the MQ-9A performs today.”

Primarily, DIU wants an aircraft with a munition and sensor payload capacity of at least 2,800 pounds, an unrefueled combat radius of at least 2,300 nautical miles with payload, and able to self-deploy one-way at least 8,000 nautical miles. It must also have a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) to rapidly swap in different payloads and system upgrades.

As for secondary attributes, DIU wants autonomy for control, allowing one pilot to operate several aircraft. In addition, it is seeking “resilient and integrated communications – hybrid SATCOM/mesh network connection” and to be able to conduct “local airfield operations under highly degraded or denied primary C2/SATCOM conditions.”

In addition, the aircraft would have “at least 200 knots true airspeed” and operate from runways with a maximum length of 6,000 feet.

The MQ-9A Reaper has a 3,850-pound payload capacity and can fly for more than 20 hours unarmed, or more than 12 hours with weapons. In the case of the latest MQ-9B version, with an extended wingspan, flight endurance can be increased to more than 40 hours.”

The deadline for submissions on this program ended July 23, but it is unclear when contracts will be awarded. However, proposed solutions “must be capable of full-scale prototype flight testing within 21 months of award, with a targeted Initial Operating Capability in FY2031 (20 mission-ready aircraft delivered to an operational unit, able to be deployed),” DIU noted.

To put the DIU goal into perspective, official budget documents say the Air Force had 165 Reapers in inventory as of the start of Fiscal Year 2026, which began on October 1 of last year. This had already marked a significant year-over-year decrease, down from 231 MQ-9As at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2025. These figures don’t include the Marine Corps and Central Intelligence Agency, which also fly Reapers.

General Atomics is turning the MQ-9 Reaper family of drones into cruise missile ‘trucks’

As noted earlier in this story, the DIU announcement of the MMA program came as Reaper losses in the war against Iran were mounting.

By May, the Air Force’s total MQ-9A fleet had shrunk to 135 aircraft, Air Force Lt. Gen. David Tabor, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, told members of Congress at a hearing.

There was enough concern that the service has scrambled to replace some of those airframes.

“So there’s a bit of a short-term effort to buy back things immediately, in this fiscal year,” Tabor testified.

The picture has only grown bleaker since then.

“The U.S. military has lost at least 45 MQ-9 Reaper drones during the war with Iran, or roughly 25 percent of its fleet,” The Washington Post reported last week, citing three U.S. officials familiar with the matter. The newspaper, citing the Air Force, stated that Reapers can cost between $30 million and $50 million each, depending on the type of sensors and weapons they carry.

“The potential taxpayer cost of recent losses is over $1.3 billion for that weapon system alone,” the publication added.

TWZ cannot independently verify those figures.

The MQ-9 Reaper Keeps Getting Shot Down – And Still Gets Used

The MMA program is not the first effort to replace the MQ-9. The Air Force has tried multiple times to develop a Reaper replacement without success. While GA had long held essentially had a monopoly on the MALE combat drone market in the U.S., the DIU competition has a host of other companies competing. 

As we highlighted in a past report on this subject:

“…the U.S. drone landscape has changed considerably in terms of manufacturers. A few years ago, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and General Atomics would have been seen as the front-runners for the MQ-9 replacement. Now, there are more contenders, often with a founding focus on rapidly scaling up production at low cost. Still, these firms have much to prove, especially considering the risk in replacing an aircraft as important as the MQ-9. At the same time, in the more advanced drone space, the legacy defense “prime” contractors are also making major progress in leveraging new technologies to reduce production costs and migrating away from exquisite, very expensive drones as their default offerings.”

As for General Atomics, Brinkley pushed back against the notion that the MMA program is actually a Reaper replacement.

“I think it’s really unfortunate that MMA has been branded as a ‘Reaper replacement’ because it misrepresents what America needs now and what we need later,” he suggested. “We need an immediate backfill solution to a critical shortage of unmanned MALE ISR/Strike. We need to get going on that now. MMA isn’t a backfill solution, or even a bridge to a backfill solution. This isn’t that.”

“Some say we need cheaper, disposable aircraft, so that we can use them and throw them away, or lose them and not feel bad about it. No one is talking about actual capability, ready today,” Brinkley told us previously. “No one is talking about all of the hard lessons, already learned, about icing and weather and weapons integration. No one is talking about the multiple survivability upgrades available for the existing platforms and the lack of investment in those.”

“These make-believe weapons that don’t exist have the luxury of being anything you imagine them to be,” Brinkely added. “Unscratched lottery tickets, promising all of the win and none of the lose [sic].

Still, the company did submit a proposal for MMA, Brinkley told us on Wednesday, “but the aircraft [Wildfire] is not dependent on that program.”

“We can deliver Wildfires years earlier than the current schedule, and absolutely no one on Earth wants to see them coming over their horizon,” he stated.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com