Senator questions military helicopter flights near civilian airplanes in DC
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee said Thursday the United States needs to reconsider the significant military helicopter flights near one of the most congested U.S. airports after a midair collision in Washington killed 67 people.
"The big question I have is why do you have a military training flight so close to the route that people are supposed to land... Why is that corridor right on top of the (civilian) flight corridor?," said Senator Maria Cantwell in an interview.
A 2021 report said there are about 11,000 military helicopter flights annually within 30 miles of Reagan National.
Cantwell, an author of aviation safety reform laws, questioned the safety of military and commercial flights separated by as little as 350 feet (107 m). "I can't imagine you can have visual separation that close... That makes no sense."
In the deadliest U.S. air disaster in more than 20 years, a U.S. Army helicopter and an American Airlines passenger jet collided on Wednesday night near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, with both aircraft plunging into the Potomac River.
The cause of the crash is under investigation. The airport is located in Arlington, Virginia, across the river from Washington.
Cantwell also questioned why the Federal Aviation Administration since 2018 has allowed military flights to fly with their installed ADS-B equipment off.
Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast is an advanced surveillance technology to track aircraft location.
Cantwell wants more information on the agreements between the FAA and the Pentagon that allow these flights.
"I do think the military was right to pause these flights now," Cantwell said. "What kind of arrangements are there as they fly into DC today?"
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the helicopter involved in the crash had a crew of three soldiers on a "continuity of government" training flight.
"It was a fairly experienced crew and it was doing a required annual night evaluation," Hegseth said.
He said there appeared to have been an elevation issue with the Black Hawk, and Army investigators were looking into the matter.
The military said the maximum altitude for Route 4 is 200 feet (61 meters) but it may have been flying higher. The collision occurred at an altitude of around 300 feet, according to flight tracking website FlightRadar24.
Army secretary nominee Dan Driscoll said Thursday the military should rethink training in congested areas.
"I think we might need to look at where is an appropriate time to take training risk, and it may not be near an airport like Reagan," Driscoll added.
Airspace is frequently crowded in the U.S. capital region, home to three commercial airports and several major military facilities, and officials have raised concerns about busy runways at Reagan National Airport. Several near-miss incidents at the airport have sparked alarm, including a near-collision in May 2024.
Republican Senator Josh Hawley questioned why military helicopter flight routes overlay commercial routes around Washington Reagan.
"Is that really a good idea?" Hawley told Fox News Thursday. "Do we really want all of that crowded airspace jammed in there?"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
Top Trump aide accuses India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine
Stephen Miller on Fox News: Trump said, 'It is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia.' WASHINGTON – A top aide to President Donald Trump accused India of effectively financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing oil from Moscow, after the U.S. leader escalated pressure on New Delhi to stop buying Russian oil, in a Fox News interview that aired on Aug. 3. More: President Trump announces 25% tariff on imports from India "What he (Trump) said very clearly is that it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia," said Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff at the White House and one of Trump's most influential aides. More: Russia does not care about Trump's 'theatrical ultimatum', senior official says Miller's criticism was among the strongest yet by the Trump administration about one of the United States' major partners in the Indo-Pacific. "People will be shocked to learn that India is basically tied with China in purchasing Russian oil. That's an astonishing fact," Miller said on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures." The Indian Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Indian government sources told Reuters on Aug. 2 that New Delhi will keep purchasing oil from Moscow despite U.S. threats. More: Trump says he ordered 2 nuclear subs to 'appropriate regions' after Russia nuclear threats A 25% tariff on Indian products went into effect on Aug. 1 as a result of its purchase of military equipment and energy from Russia. Trump has also threatened 100% tariffs on U.S. imports from countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Miller tempered his criticism by noting Trump's relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which he described as "tremendous."
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labor market. Advertisement Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than $2 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the United States abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. Advertisement 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' The Port of Baltimore on June 30, 2025. ALYSSA SCHUKAR/NYT Trump has long fantasized about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the United States away from taxing earnings and toward taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the government collects every year. Advertisement 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Workers welded steel components together at a Thomas Built Buses plant in High Point, N.C., on July 21, 2025. TRAVIS DOVE/NYT Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently introduced legislation to send $600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social program, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. Advertisement 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the United States, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
U.S. tariff: South Africa implements emergency measures to shield local exporters
The government of South Africa has announced plans to draft emergency measures to support local exporters affected by the U.S. President Donald Trump's newly imposed 30% tariff; a policy shift expected to severely impact the country's automotive and agricultural sectors. The South African government announced emergency measures to support exporters affected by the US's newly imposed tariffs. These tariffs, set at 30%, target industries like automotive and agriculture, and are part of a US trade policy shift. Negotiations with the US are open, while efforts to finalize a support package for impacted sectors continue. The tariff, which was announced via an executive order on Thursday, is set to take effect within seven days and forms part of President Trump's broader push to reshape global trade in favour of the United States. In response, the country's Trade and Industry Minister, Parks Tau announced the launch of an 'Export Support Desk' to assist affected businesses and help them identify alternative international markets. The minister described the situation as 'a trying moment for South Africa,' underscoring the immediate risks to jobs and economic stability, a Reuters report confirmed. President Cyril Ramaphosa also addressed the development, revealed in a press release that his government is finalising a support package for vulnerable exporters, with further details expected in the coming day ' All channels of communication remain open to engage with the U.S., and our negotiators are ready pending invitation from the U.S., ' Ramaphosa said. The United States is South Africa's second-largest bilateral trading partner after China, importing a wide range of goods including automobiles, iron and steel, citrus fruits, and wine. However, rising diplomatic tensions, fueled by disagreements over South Africa's foreign policy positions and domestic affirmative action laws, which the Trump administration has openly criticised, have clouded the trade relationship. Trump unmoved by South Africa's tariff plea According to Reuters, South Africa had spent several months attempting to negotiate a trade compromise with Washington. Among its proposals were increasing purchases of U.S. liquefied natural gas and committing to investments in U.S. industries in exchange for tariff exemptions. However, U.S. officials reportedly remained unresponsive. The executive order signed Thursday imposes new duties on dozens of countries, many of them emerging markets, rekindling fears that African economies could become collateral damage in Washington's increasingly protectionist trade agenda. While the establishment of the Export Support Desk has been welcomed by some stakeholders, political opponents questioned its adequacy. South Africa's official opposition party, The Democratic Alliance,, dismissed the initiative as 'laughable.'
