Fighter Jets Intercept Planes Breaching Trump No Fly Zone
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Five aircraft breached restricted airspace over New Jersey on Saturday, the U.S. military said, as President Donald Trump spent the weekend in Bedminster.
Why It Matters
The U.S. military polices the airspace around the president, including over Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort or his Bedminster golf course, when the Republican is in residence.
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), made up of American and Canadian forces, has frequently intercepted aircraft that violate temporary restrictions in the airspace around the president.
What To Know
The First Air Force at Florida's Tyndall Air Force Base said in a statement on Saturday that a NORAD fighter jet had intercepted a "general aviation aircraft" over Bedminster at approximately 2:39 p.m. EDT. This is a broad term referring to non-commercial civilian aircraft.
President Donald Trump boards Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, en route to Bedminster, New Jersey, on July 4, 2025.
President Donald Trump boards Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, en route to Bedminster, New Jersey, on July 4, 2025.
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
A temporary flight restriction, or TFR, was in place, the military said. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) puts out Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) to air crews, which are enforced by NORAD. TFRs are typically put in place during presidential visits.
The fighter jet carried out what is known as a "headbutt maneuver" to get the attention of the civilian pilot before escorting the aircraft out of the area, the military said. This is a fairly typical maneuver for NORAD jets enforcing temporary restrictions in the airspace around where the president is.
The NORAD aircraft was an F-16, a spokesperson told Reuters.
The U.S. military had already reported three TFR violations earlier in the day, and a further incident later on Saturday brought the total to "five unauthorized incursions," according to the statement.
The FAA, as of early Sunday, had restrictions in place from July 4 until July 6. Pilots in the air are responsible for making sure they check Notices to Airmen, or NOTAMs.
Shortly after NORAD F-16 aircraft intercepted a civilian aircraft over Palm Beach, Florida, in early March, the command's chief, General Gregory Guillot, condemned what he termed the "excessive number of recent TFR violations."
NORAD said at the time that in the less than two months since Trump's inauguration, NORAD had "responded to over 20 tracks of interest entering the Palm Beach, Florida TFR area."
What People Are Saying
The First Air Force said in a post to social media on Saturday: "These TFRs are in place for a reason. No excuses! Stay sharp, stay legal, and stay out of restricted airspace."
What Happens Next
NORAD will continue to enforce FAA flight restrictions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Howard Lutnick Steps in After Trump Appears Clueless on Latest Tariff Drama
President Donald Trump's commerce secretary had to step in after he appeared lost on the latest development in his sprawling trade war. Speaking to reporters in New Jersey on Sunday, Trump announced that the administration would be sending out about a dozen letters throughout the week warning other countries that tariffs will be reinstated if they don't close a trade deal soon. Treasury Scott Bessent said earlier in the day that the tariffs would come back into effect on Aug. 1, effectively extending the original July 9 deadline. When a reporter asked Trump when the tariff rates would change—if at all—the president didn't seem to have a clue. 'What are you talking about?' he said, prompting the reporter to repeat herself. 'They're going to be tariffs. The tariffs are going to be the tariffs. I think we'll have most countries done by July 9, either a letter or a deal.' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick then swooped in to clarify: 'Tariffs go into effect Aug. 1, but the president is setting the rates and the deals right now.' The administration's 90-day pause on its tariff rollout is set to expire on Wednesday, meaning that countries may soon face levies of 10 to 70 percent, as announced in April. Bessent told CNN's State of the Union, however, that it remains to be seen what happens next. 'President Trump is going to be sending letters to some of our trading partners saying that if you don't move things along, then on Aug. 1st, you will be boomerang back to your April 2nd tariff level,' he said. 'I think we're gonna see a lot of deals very quickly.' The announcement postpones the original July 9 deadline, but Bessent refused to call it an extension. 'It's not a new deadline,' he argued. 'We are saying this is when it's happening. If you want to speed things up, have at it. If you want to go back to the old rate, that's your choice.' Asked whether the administration was expecting to sign any deals this week, Lutnick played it vague. 'Well, the president is right in the midst of discussing all sorts of deals with all sorts of countries,' he said. 'And I'm going to be with him when he makes that decision.' The first batch of letters is set to go out at noon Eastern Time on Monday, Trump said in a Truth Social post. The president also issued a veiled threat against any country that cozies up to BRICS, a group of countries composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. 'Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy,' Trump wrote, without offering any further details. The on-again, off-again tariff rollout has earned the president a moniker among Wall Street brokers: TACO, which stands for Trump Always Chickens Out. The nickname angered Trump, who countered that 'it's called negotiation.' But an unnamed White House insider told Politico that the tariff chaos is all just part of a show. 'Trump knows the most interesting part of his presidency is the tariff conversation,' the insider said. 'It's all fake. There's no deadline. It's a self-imposed landmark in this theatrical show, and that's where we are.'
Indianapolis Star
26 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana's high gas tax makes tolling interstates unfair
The Indiana General Assembly, which has a Republican supermajority, passed a law to make it easier to toll any interstate highway in the state. State lawmakers have tried to justify the legislation by claiming the state can't afford the expense of maintaining and modernizing roads as revenues from gas taxes decline, as cited by IndyStar in their article 'Indiana lawmakers clear the path for new toll roads, higher speed limits on I-465. What to know.' However, in 2018, the Indiana General Assembly passed a law that provided for automatic increases in the state gasoline excise tax, which is now at 36 cents per gallon. Indiana's gasoline sales tax also costs residents more than 17 cents per gallon. Federal gas taxes add an additional 18.4 cents per gallon at the pump. Overall, Indiana has the fifth highest state gas tax in the nation and billions in reserves, so where is all this money going? More: New state law allots $50M for Indianapolis roads but can't be used for sidewalks, bike lanes These highways are the lifeblood of all 92 counties in the state, so tolling them would be a terrible mistake. It would take away your right to freely travel in the state and charge you an arm and a leg for it instead.
27 minutes ago
Supreme Court's expansive view of presidential power is 'solidly' pro-Trump: ANALYSIS
President Donald Trump may not have a perfect rubber stamp in the U.S. Supreme Court, but he is finding little willingness by the six-justice conservative majority to stand in his way. As the justices begin the traditional summer recess, the sweeping impact of their judgments from the recently concluded term -- in 56 cases argued and more than 100 matters from the emergency docket -- is coming into focus for the administration and the country. Despite the nation's narrow political divide, the court delivered rulings disproportionately advantageous to interests of the Republican political establishment in power. "Time and again, the Supreme Court came down on one side, and solidly so -- on the very conservative side," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar and dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. Most notably, the court imposed dramatic new limits on the ability of federal judges to check presidential power, coming one year after it established sweeping, presumptive immunity for presidents engaged in "official acts." "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies," explained Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her historic opinion allowing Trump to move forward with plans to end birthright citizenship, which has been the law of the land for more than a century. In 14 other emergency appeals Trump brought to the high court, the justices granted his request -- at least in part -- on 12 occasions. The conservative majority gave the green light to the Trump administration's mass layoffs of federal workers, the removal of openly transgender service members from the U.S. military, deportation of noncitizens to third countries with little due process, and access for DOGE staffers to Americans' most sensitive information held by the Social Security Administration. The court did narrowly block Trump's request to continue a freeze of $2 billion in foreign aid money owed to nonprofit groups for services rendered and denied a bid to dismiss the legal case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland migrant and alleged gang member whom the administration deported to El Salvador in violation of a court order, and other alleged Venezuelan criminals. The successive decisions have increasingly incensed the court's liberals. "Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote bluntly Thursday in a dissent from the court's decision clearing the way for the government to send eight migrants to South Sudan. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in extraordinarily stark and impassioned language in dissent in the birthright citizenship case, accused her conservative colleagues of creating an "existential threat to the rule of law" by frequently overriding lower court judges. "This Court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise," she wrote. Many legal scholars don't share Jackson's ominous view, including several critical of Trump. "I'm pretty confident that within a matter of weeks … there's going to be basically nationwide coverage of declarations or injunctions making clear that the birthright citizenship contention of the government is just absolutely absurd, insane, and unlawful," said George Conway III, a prominent conservative lawyer who now leads a coalition of attorneys opposed to actions of the Trump administration. As for a broader fear about the erosion of judicial authority, Conway suggested fixation on the court system as a check on the president might be misplaced. "We can't expect the courts to save us. Even if every district judge in the country and every appellate court in the country, and every justice … on the Supreme Court agrees that this administration is violating the law, left and right," Conway said. "They can't save us. The people have to save themselves here." Still, the Supreme Court's expansive view of presidential power is giving Trump significant leeway -- with potentially more to come headed into the summer. The justices will soon decide whether to roll back a temporary nationwide injunction currently barring the Trump administration from moving forward with large-scale reductions of the federal workforce across 19 agencies and offices. They are also expected to weigh in on whether to let the president move forward with elimination of most employees at the Department of Education in an effort to dismantle the agency while litigation over its future continues in federal court. Many veteran court watchers have decried a lack of explanation from the justices for its decisions in these consequential cases. "This court not only militantly refuses to talk about the effect of their decisions, they kind of gaslight us into pretending that the effects of their decision won't be what they are," said Sherrilyn Ifill, Howard University law professor and former director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Chief Justice John Roberts -- who was the justice most often in the majority last term at 95% of the time -- was the first member of the court to speak out publicly after the flurry of controversial decisions. In rare televised remarks at a federal judicial conference in North Carolina, Roberts confronted what he called "some sharp adjectives" directed at the court amidst a wave of critical public opinion. "The idea that we're responsible for whatever somebody is angry about -- it just doesn't make any sense, and it's very dangerous," Roberts said of the critics. "What they're angry about or upset about is probably not that you applied the principle … It's that they lost whatever they were looking for." A judge's role, Roberts said, is to "interpret the law to the best of our ability," not to write the laws.
