Belgium braces for first F-35 delivery this fall
In 2018, Belgium selected the American jet and agreed to a €3.6 billion ($4.1 billion) deal for over two dozen of them to be manufactured in the United States.
'Belgium's first F-35 to arrive in country has rolled off the production line and is gearing up for arrival in Belgium this fall,' Lockheed Martin Europe wrote in a social media post on their X platform.
Deliveries were initially slated to begin in late 2023, but due to delays in the production of the Joint Strike Fighter program, they were pushed back.
In an interview in February with Belgian newspaper Le Soir, Chief of Staff of the Belgian Air Force Gen. Frederik Vansina said the F-35 setbacks also affected the first transfer of the 30 decommissioned F-16s bound for Ukraine.
The Belgian F-16s, which have been flying for over 30 years, are intended to be phased out by late 2028 to allow for the delivery of the aging aircraft to Ukraine. The European country currently has over 50 F-16 jets in its arsenal.
According to reports from Belgian newspaper De Morgen, Brussels is assessing the possibility of ordering 21 additional F-35s, which, if realized, would bring its total fleet size to 55.
The Belgian Ministry of Defense did not respond to a request for comment.
Last month, the Belgian Minister of Defense and Foreign Trade Theo Francken said any potential follow-on F-35A purchases could be built in Europe at the final assembly and checkout (FACO) facility in Cameri, Italy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
"Big, beautiful bill" gives some seniors hefty tax break
The " big, beautiful bill" features a new tax break for older Americans who pay taxes on Social Security income. But there's a significant catch. Why it matters: The break leaves out the poorest seniors, and the very rich ones, too. How it works: Both the House and Senate bills include an increased tax deduction for tax filers age 64 and older. In the Senate version, the new deduction is $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for couples. The deduction starts phasing out for those who earn over $75,000 ($150,000 for couples), and phases out completely at $175,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples, in the Senate version. The break expires in 2028 when President Trump leaves office, as do a few other White House priorities in the bills, including no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on auto loan interest. What they're saying: "This amounts to the largest tax break in American history for our nation's seniors," per a report out earlier this week from the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Yes, but: Most seniors — 64% of them — don't pay taxes on Social Security, according to the White House's own analysis. Those who can't afford the taxes already don't pay. This break targets most, but not all, of the rest. Between the lines: Trump promised to eliminate taxes on Social Security income. Lawmakers couldn't pull that off entirely, given the constraints of passing a reconciliation bill and changing Social Security law. This break comes close. After adding the recipients of the new tax break, 88% of seniors wouldn't pay Social Security tax, per the White House. "The One Big Beautiful Bill delivers on President Trump's promise of no tax on Social Security," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson says in a statement, noting the analysis by the Council of Economic Advisers. Zoom out: For those upper-middle class folks who pay taxes on retirement benefits, this is a "substantial tax break," says Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates for fiscal responsibility. For the several million senior citizens who live in poverty, and already don't pay taxes on Social Security, this doesn't help. The bill would also accelerate Social Security and Medicare insolvency by a year, to 2032, per an analysis from the group. The bottom line: Seniors in the U.S. overall are doing great financially right now, sitting on assets that have soared in value in recent years.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Edan Alexander, freed Hamas hostage from NJ, will meet with Trump at White House
His parents have been to the White House on several occasions to plead for his release over the last two years. Now Edan Alexander, the Tenafly resident recently freed from Hamas captivity, is on his way there as well. Alexander, 21, believed to have been the last living American hostage in Gaza, will meet with President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump on July 3, the White House said. The meeting is expected to take place around noon. 'The President and First Lady have met with many released hostages from Gaza, and they greatly look forward to meeting Edan Alexander and his family in the Oval Office tomorrow," Trump's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said in a statement Wednesday. Alexander was among 251 hostages kidnapped by Hamas during the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel. Held captive for 19 months, he was released on May 12 and returned home to New Jersey to a hero's welcome two weeks ago. Hundreds of residents from Tenafly and surrounding towns lined the streets with flags and banners, cheering as he rode through town in a motorcade. Alexander was raised in Bergen County and, after graduating from Tenafly High School, went to Israel, where his parents grew up. He volunteered for the Israeli military and was stationed at a post near Gaza when he was abducted. He was 19 at the time. The other freed Hamas hostages who have met with Trump — including Omer Shem Tov, Eli Sharabi, Keith Siegel, Aviva Siegel, Naama Levy, Doron Steinbrecher and Noa Argamani — thanked him for his efforts on their behalf and pleaded for the release of the remaining captives in Gaza. Alexander is expected to do the same. More: What's next for Edan Alexander? NJ hostage is free, but trauma lingers for Hamas captives There are believed to be roughly 50 hostages or their remains still in Gaza; more than half are believed to be deceased. When Alexander was released, Hamas officials described it as a goodwill gesture toward Trump. In a phone conversation from an Israeli hospital after he was freed, the former hostage told the president, "You're the only reason I'm here. You saved my life." Trump told Alexander he was looking forward to meeting the whole family and that it would be "the biggest celebration."
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
Trump's legislative win could make him a political loser
is a senior politics reporter at Vox, where he covers the Democratic Party. He joined Vox in 2022 after reporting on national and international politics for the Atlantic's politics, global, and ideas teams, including the role of Latino voters in the 2020 election. President Donald Trump speaks during an address to a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol on March 4, 2025. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images President Donald Trump is about to achieve his biggest legislative victory yet: his 'one big, beautiful bill' — the massive tax- and Medicaid-cutting, immigration and border spending bill passed the Senate on Tuesday — is on the verge of passing the House of Representatives. It's a massive piece of legislation, likely to increase the national debt by at least $3 trillion, mostly through tax cuts, and leave 17 million Americans without health coverage — and it's really unpopular. Majorities in nearly every reputable poll taken this month disapprove of the bill, ranging from 42 percent who oppose the bill in an Ipsos poll (compared to 23 percent who support) to 64 percent who oppose it in a KFF poll. And if history is any indication, it's not going to get any better for Trump and the Republicans from here on out. In modern American politics, few things are more unpopular with the public than big, messy bills forged under a bright spotlight. That's especially true of bills passed through a Senate mechanism called 'budget reconciliation,' a Senate procedure that allows the governing party to bypass filibuster rules with a simple majority vote. They tend to have a negative effect on presidents and their political parties in the following months as policies are implemented and campaign seasons begin. Part of that effect is due to the public's general tendency to dislike any kind of legislation as it gets more publicity and becomes better understood. But reconciliation bills in the modern era seem to create a self-fulfilling prophecy: forcing presidents to be maximally ambitious at the outset, before they lose popular support for the legislation and eventually lose the congressional majorities that delivered passage. Presidents and their parties tend to be punished after passing big spending bills The budget reconciliation process, created in 1974, has gradually been used to accomplish broader and bigger policy goals. Because it offers a workaround for a Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes to break, it has become the primary way that presidents and their parties implement their economic and social welfare visions. The public, however, doesn't tend to reward the governing party after these bills are passed. As political writer and analyst Ron Brownstein recently pointed out, presidents who successfully pass a major reconciliation bill in the first year of their presidency lose control of Congress, usually the House, the following year. In 1982, Ronald Reagan lost his governing majority in the House after using reconciliation to pass large spending cuts as part of his Reaganomics vision (the original 'big, beautiful' bill). And the pattern would repeat itself for George H.W. Bush (whose reconciliation bill contradicted his campaign promise not to raise taxes), for Bill Clinton in 1994 (deficit reductions and tax reform), for Barack Obama in 2010 (after the passage of the Affordable Care Act), for Trump in 2018 (tax cuts), and for Biden in 2022 (the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act). The exception in this list of modern presidents is George W. Bush, who did pass a set of tax cuts in a reconciliation bill, but whose approval rating rose after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Increasing polarization, and the general anti-incumbent party energy that tends to run through midterm elections, of course, explains part of this overall popular and electoral backlash. But reconciliation bills themselves seem to intensify this effect. Why reconciliation bills do so much political damage First, there's the actual substance of these bills, which has been growing in scope over time. Because they tend to be the first, and likely only, major piece of domestic legislation that can execute a president's agenda, they are often highly ideological, partisan projects that try to implement as much of a governing party's vision as possible. These highly ideological pieces of legislation, Matt Grossman, the director of Michigan State University's Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, and his partners have found, tend to kick into gear a 'thermostatic' response from the public — that is, that public opinion moves in the opposite direction of policymaking when the public perceives one side is going too far to the right or left. Because these bills have actually been growing in reach, from mere tax code adjustments to massive tax-and-spend, program-creating bills, and becoming more ideological projects, the public, in turn, seems to be reacting more harshly. These big reconciliation bills also run into an issue that afflicts all kinds of legislation: It has a PR problem. Media coverage of proposed legislation tends to emphasize its partisanship, portraying the party in power as pursuing its domestic agenda at all costs and emphasizing that parties are fighting against each other. This elevates process over policy substance. Political scientist Mary Layton Atkinson has found that just like campaign reporting is inclined to focus on the horse race, coverage of legislation in Congress and policy debates often focuses on conflict and procedure, adding to a sense in the public mind that Congress is extreme, dysfunctional, and hyperpartisan. Adding to this dynamic is a quirk of public opinion toward legislation and referenda: Proposals tend to get less popular, and lose public support, between proposal and passage, as the public learns more about the actual content of initiatives and as they hear more about the political negotiations and struggles taking place behind the scenes as these bills are ironed out. Lawmakers and key political figures also 'tend to highlight the benefits less than the things that they are upset about in the course of negotiations,' Grossman told me. 'That [also] occurs when a bill passes: You have the people who are against it saying all the terrible things about it, and actually the people who are for it are often saying, 'I didn't get all that I wanted, I would have liked it to be slightly different.' So the message that comes out of it is actually pretty negative on the whole, because no one is out there saying this is the greatest thing and exactly what they wanted.' Even with the current One Big Beautiful Bill, polling analysis shows that the public tends not to be very knowledgeable about what is in the legislative package, but gets even more hostile to it once they learn or are provided more information about specific policy details. Big reconciliation bills exist at the intersection of all three of these public image problems: They tend to be the first major legislative challenge a new president and Congress take on, they suck up all the media's attention, they direct the public's attention to one major piece of legislation, and they take a pretty long time to iron out — further extending the timeline in which the bill can get more unpopular.
