Business
Inside the Controversy Surrounding Disney’s ‘Snow White’ Remake

Disney knew that remaking “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” as a live-action musical would be treacherous.
But the studio was feeling cocky.
It was 2019, and Disney was minting money at the box office by “reimagining” animated classics like “Aladdin,” “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Jungle Book” as movies with real actors. The remakes also made bedrock characters like Cinderella newly relevant. Heroines defined by ideas from another era — be pretty, and things might work out! — were empowered. Casting emphasized diversity.
Why not tackle Snow White?
Over the decades, Disney had tried to modernize her story — to make her more than a damsel in distress, one prized as “the fairest of them all” because of her “white as snow” skin. Twice, starting in the early 2000s, screenwriters had been unable to crack it, at least not to the satisfaction of an image-conscious Disney.
“Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” which premiered in 1937, posed other remake challenges, including how to sensitively handle Happy, Sneezy, Sleepy, Dopey, Bashful, Grumpy and Doc. (One stalled Disney reboot had reimagined the dwarfs as kung fu fighters in China.)
Still, Disney executives were determined to figure it out. They had some new ideas. More important, the remake gravy train needed to keep running.
“It’s going to be amazing, another big win,” Bob Chapek, then Disney’s chief executive, said of a live-action “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” at a 2022 fan convention.
Instead, “Snow White,” starring Rachel Zegler, arrives in theaters on Friday as one of the most troubled projects in Disney’s 102-year history. The movie became a cautionary tale about relevance — how trying to strike the right cultural chord at the right cultural moment can turn a seemingly innocuous movie into a proxy battle for special interests. And just about everything that could go wrong did, resulting in a case study of the perils of big-budget moviemaking in a volatile, fast-moving world and the risks of trying to endlessly mine existing intellectual property.
For Disney and Hollywood as a whole, this weekend will be a test: How much does prerelease Sturm und Drang even matter these days? Will family ticket buyers steer clear? Or will they ignore the negative chatter and trust a vaunted entertainment brand to provide a little escapist fun?
This article is based on interviews with more than a dozen people involved with the film. Together, their accounts show how “Snow White” went from promising idea to poisoned apple, and how the entertainment giant and the film’s creative team scrambled to save it.
Some “Snow White” challenges amounted to bad luck. Pandemic Covid cases flared up just as production got underway in London, forcing Disney to adopt stringent safety protocols and adding millions of dollars to the budget. One of the sets, a cottage with a thatched roof, caught fire on a soundstage. The 2023 actors’ strike forced Disney to halt reshoots. Gal Gadot, cast as the Evil Queen, suffered health complications from a pregnancy, delaying reshoots and visual-effects work.
Other problems were self-inflicted. Disney flubbed its response to leaked on-set photos of new characters (a troop of seven woodland inhabitants known as bandits) that appear in the new film alongside the seven dwarfs, but that led fans to worry the dwarfs had been expunged entirely for political correctness. And Ms. Zegler went rogue in interviews and on social media, sparking one controversy after another.
Perhaps the biggest challenge to the movie was the cultural shift that has taken place over the past several years.
In 2021, online trolls attacked Disney for casting Ms. Zegler, a Latina actress, as Snow White. “Snow Woke” briefly trended. But the pushback dissipated, and Disney shrugged it off. Inside the studio, executives were proud of the casting. They had been wowed by Ms. Zegler’s voice and screen presence. They saw her ethnicity as a bonus. The killing of George Floyd a year earlier by a police officer had roiled every sphere of American life, prompting institutions and individuals around the country to confront racism and inequity. In Hollywood in general and Disney in particular, “We must do better” rang in every hallway.
As “Snow White” finally comes to market, however, Disney finds itself in a very different climate. Companies, including Disney, have raced to distance themselves from diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives amid a broader backlash toward D.E.I. policies by President Trump. What had been a positive — a Latina in a role associated with whiteness (it’s in the title) — became a potential liability, with right-wing agitators (many of them adult men unlikely to see the film to begin with) hammering Disney and Ms. Zegler.
Some news outlets followed suit. The New York Post alone has published 20 articles about “Snow White” over the last week. “Grumpy, Dopey and Woke — Disney’s ‘Snow White’ Disaster” was the headline on one.
The tumult around “Snow White” had grown so intense by the movie’s premiere in Los Angeles last weekend that Disney heightened security and curtailed red carpet interviews. The entrance to the theater was hidden from public view by tall hedges on movable platforms. (The eagerness to see “Snow White” fall on its face was such that some online haters began insisting, incorrectly, that the premiere had been canceled.)
After the screening, a few Disney executives and people who worked on the film stood in the lobby searching people’s faces for responses and hoping for a last-minute plot twist — that reviews would be positive and their work to keep “Snow White” on track would pay off with strong ticket sales. Maybe, in the end, the movie would not go down in the Hollywood history books as a cautionary tale. Maybe I.P. really can be reimagined for every generation, just as every studio executive loves to dream.
“Our job is to delight,” Marc Platt, the film’s lead producer, said to The New York Times after the premiere. “I’m hopeful that once audiences actually experience the film, all the noise around it will fade away and people will discover a family entertainment that is joyful, aspirational and delightful.”
A naïve princess no longer
As the first feature-length, fully narrative animated film, “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” defined a new art form. It contributed “Heigh-Ho,” “Whistle While You Work” and “Someday My Prince Will Come” to the Great American Songbook.
The movie cost about $1.5 million to make (about $34 million today) and collected $184 million (roughly $4 billion) in the United States and Canada. Walt Disney bought the land for Disney headquarters with part of the profit. To this day, Disney leaders work in a building adorned with monumental statues of the seven dwarfs. Disney Animation offices sit nearby, along Dopey Drive.
Any effort to remake the movie would carry extra weight.
Knowing this, Disney movie executives lined up an A-plus creative team. In the producer’s chair would be Mr. Platt, now a four-time Oscar nominee for “Wicked,” “La La Land,” “Bridge of Spies” and “The Trial of the Chicago 7.” Marc Webb, who had experience with big-budget blockbusters, including two “Spider-Man” movies, came aboard as director. Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, the EGOT-winning songwriting partners (“Dear Evan Hansen,” “The Greatest Showman”), would contribute new tunes.
Ms. Zegler was winning raves for playing Maria in Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story.” Ms. Gadot was literally “Wonder Woman.”
The production would be colossal, sprawling across 10 soundstages in suburban London. Eight visual-effects companies in three countries would digitally create the dwarfs, the magic mirror and a multitude of cutesy animals (owls, bunnies, birds, turtles, squirrels). For the deer, puppeteers would be employed.
Most important, the screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson (“The Girl on the Train”) had collaborated with Mr. Pasek and Mr. Paul to modernize the story. Snow White, now named after a wintry storm, was no longer a naïve princess defined by her looks; she was a leader in training, someone the Evil Queen despised because she was beautiful, yes, but also because she prized fairness as a leadership quality. The prince was dropped; that love interest became a Robin Hood-esque scofflaw. And the dwarfs, especially Dopey, were given character arcs of their own — more emotional depth, less bumbling physical comedy.
Greta Gerwig (“Barbie”) and five other writers did polishes. Satisfied by their work, Alan F. Horn, then chairman of Walt Disney Studios, pushed the project forward with a budget of $210 million.
‘I was born to play Dopey’
From the beginning, Disney knew the seven dwarfs could become a public-relations nightmare. Disney fans delight in them. The dwarfism community, however, tends to view the characters as infantilizing, dehumanizing and hurtful.
The studio hired three dwarfs as consultants to help navigate potential pitfalls.
The first real blowback came in January 2022 when the actor Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) criticized Disney for remaking “Snow White” during an appearance on Marc Maron’s “WTF” podcast. “I was a little taken aback when they were proud to cast a Latina actress as Snow White,” Mr. Dinklage said. “You’re progressive in one way, and you’re still making that backwards story about seven dwarfs living in a cave? Have I done nothing to advance the cause from my soapbox?”
Disney swiftly put out a statement: “To avoid reinforcing stereotypes from the original animated film, we are taking a different approach with these seven characters and have been consulting with members of the dwarfism community.”
Because Disney did not explain its “different approach,” however, damaging theories began to wash across the internet. Had the studio decided to do away with the dwarfs? After all, they had disappeared from the title of the film.
Then an on-set photo leak turned what had been an online brush fire into an inferno. In July 2023, The Daily Mail published images that appeared to show the seven dwarfs being played by actors and actresses of various races and ethnicities; only one of them was a dwarf. The headline was “Snow White and the Seven … Politically-Correct Companions?”
At first, a Disney publicist said the photo was fake. The company then reversed itself. But Disney, worried about spoilers, did not provide a crucial piece of information: Those weren’t the dwarfs. This movie would feature two groups of seven — a troop of bandits (depicted in the photo) and a separate troop of C.G.I. dwarfs, to be added in postproduction.
As the initial March 2024 release date moved back — Disney was underwhelmed by the first cut and ordered reshoots — the studio found itself playing Whac-a-Mole with one dwarf controversy after another. When it finally emerged that Disney had opted to use C.G.I. to render Doc, Sleepy, Bashful and the gang, the company came under attack for the “erasure” of people with dwarfism.
Others criticized Disney for denying them jobs. “I was born to play Dopey,” Matt McCarthy, an actor with dwarfism, told reporters on Monday as he and his wife, an actress with dwarfism, planned a protest outside Disney headquarters in Burbank, Calif. “When you’re a little person, opportunities are few and far between,” he said.
The star goes rogue
On Aug. 9, 2024, Disney’s marketing campaign for “Snow White” kicked into a higher gear with the release of a teaser trailer. It did not go well.
Some people criticized the dwarves. Others mocked Ms. Zegler’s wig, likening her helmet hair look to Lord Farquaad from “Shrek.” Many simply questioned the wisdom of remaking the 1937 original. (As of Wednesday, roughly 102,000 people had clicked “like” on the trailer on YouTube, while 1.5 million had clicked “dislike.”)
But the real headache came a few days later when Ms. Zegler shared the trailer on X and added, “And always remember, free Palestine.” In an instant, “Snow White” became part of a highly divisive global political conversation — the opposite of what Disney wanted. Ms. Zegler’s comment also caused a severe rift with Ms. Gadot, who is Israeli. (Both actresses declined to comment for this article.)
Hollywood’s studio system days are long gone. Stars are free to express themselves as they wish. All studios can do is beg: Please, pretty please, stay on message. (Ms. Zegler had already angered fans of the original movie. “People are making these jokes about ours being the PC Snow White,” she said in 2022. “Yeah, it is — because it needed that.”)
The best containment strategy, Disney decided, was silence. Asking Ms. Zegler to take her post down could generate more attention — especially if she told her followers that she had been pressured to do so. But Mr. Platt flew to New York from Los Angeles to have a heart-to-heart with Ms. Zegler. He explained how much was at stake, both for Disney and for her career, and asked her to post heedfully.
She seemed to understand.
In November, however, Ms. Zegler took to Instagram to sound off about the presidential election. In a post salted with expletives, she harshly criticized Mr. Trump and those who had voted for him.
It had only been a short time since Disney had tried to turn a corner with MAGA followers by ending a spat with the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, over Disney World. A new skirmish could threaten the détente.
Within seconds of Ms. Zegler’s Instagram post, screenshots of the screed pinged between phones at Disney headquarters. How could the studio possibly trust her to participate in the coming “Snow White” publicity tour?
This time, members of Ms. Zegler’s management team, including agents at Creative Artists Agency, sprang into action. Her post was quickly replaced with an apology. “I let my emotions get the best of me,” she said. “I’m sorry I contributed to the negative discourse.”
But it was too late. Ms. Zegler, “Snow White” and Disney had already been in the cross hairs of right-wing pundits. Now, it was open season.
Megyn Kelly called for Ms. Zegler’s replacement in the film. An anti-D.E.I. agitator, Robbie Starbuck, went on the attack. Elon Musk weighed in with a post that skewered Disney for race-swapping iconic characters.
Ms. Zegler’s fans rallied around her. “So overjoyed knowing that little Latinas will be able to see themselves as such an iconic Disney princess,” one commented on Ms. Zegler’s Instagram page.
Disney hoped that prominent voices on the left would step up to deliver a pushback to the pushback. But it didn’t happen.
“Really never, but especially right now, no studio wants its movie branded as a D.E.I. lesson,” said Martin Kaplan, who runs the Norman Lear Center for entertainment, media and society at the University of Southern California.
Disney largely managed to avoid this critique as recently as 2023, when it remade “The Little Mermaid” with a Black actress in the title role; defenders were plentiful. But last month, when Disney released “Captain America: Brave New World,” with a Black actor in the title role for the first time, the company had a harder time.
It’s not an entirely new phenomenon: Think of the male-Internet uproar over the all-female “Ghostbusters” from 2016, or the ongoing fan vitriol around Disney’s efforts to bring diversity to the “Star Wars” franchise. But the “anti-woke right” has grown more powerful, Mr. Kaplan noted, while defenders on the left have grown quieter, either because they feel cowed or frustrated or because even they have come to see Hollywood’s aggressive diversity efforts as clumsy.
“I’m not sure anyone could have predicted that a reactionary force could so quickly and dramatically reverse the cultural winds, but that is certainly what has happened,” Mr. Kaplan said. “What once were uncontroversial or proud decisions are suddenly somehow un-American.”
Digital wig fixes
As “Snow White” bounced from one controversy to the next, the Hollywood gossip mill kicked into high gear: Surely, Disney would cut its losses and send this beast straight to streaming.
But sweeping “Snow White” under the rug (as the company had done with other problem movies, including the critically reviled “Artemis Fowl” in 2020) was never something that Disney considered. The budget for “Snow White” had risen to $270 million, not including marketing. Disney+ would need to absorb that cost (minus tax incentives) if it took the film. And that would undercut one of Disney’s key promises to Wall Street: greater streaming profitability.
Disney also knew something the outside world did not: After the reshoots (“additional photography” in studio parlance) and extensive visual-effects work, the movie was starting to jell.
A second-act song called “Hidden in My Heart,” a tear-jerker sung by one of the dwarfs, had been cut to speed the story along. A new scene near the finale involving the Evil Queen and magic mirror had added spectacle. That troublesome wig had undergone digital fixes.
Was it possible that “Snow White” was becoming … a decent movie? At least one that would entertain the Disney faithful?
In October, executives from across the company had been scheduled to fly to Disney World in Florida for a corporate retreat. When the summit was called off at the last minute because of Hurricane Milton, the studio team used the time to focus on “Snow White.” Disney’s new live-action film chief, David Greenbaum, who had inherited the troubled project, gathered a dozen studio leaders in a screening room on the Disney lot and spent two days scrutinizing the movie — stopping it, starting it — to see what could be improved, according to three people with direct knowledge of the session, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private process.
The C.G.I. dwarfs looked “waxy,” Mr. Greenbaum worried. They could also be better integrated with live-action woodland footage shot on location. What trims could be made? The bandit story line, it seemed, could be tightened by a lot.
Mr. Webb, the director, kept tinkering with sound and color until February.
A fairy tale ending?
On Tuesday, Mr. Webb was in an upbeat mood. Reactions from people invited to the premiere had been positive. He positioned his “Snow White” as a throwback to a simpler time.
“Now that people are seeing the movie, I think they’re surprised and warmed by how nostalgic it is,” he said in a phone interview. “This movie is nostalgic not just in its aesthetic but in its worldview. It’s wholesome and kind, and that’s what I’ve held sort of dear through this whole process.”
Reviews arrived on Wednesday. Critics praised Ms. Zegler’s performance, but were underwhelmed by the film as a whole. “It’s just, well, fair,” Nell Minow wrote on RogerEbert.com.
Based on ticket presales and surveys of moviegoer interest, “Snow White” is expected to collect $45 million to $50 million at domestic theaters over the weekend, according to box-office analysts. That start would be slow for a Disney live-action remake: In the 15 years that the company has been producing them, none of the big-budget entries have exclusively arrived in theaters to less than $58 million, after adjusting for inflation. (That was “Dumbo” in 2019.)
David A. Gross, a box office analyst, noted that some of the thrill of seeing an animated classic reimagined as a live-action spectacle has worn off in the years since “Snow White” went into production. The film’s ultimate box office tally will probably come down to what he called “the babysitter effect.”
“Never underestimate the need for a 6-year-old to be entertained,” Mr. Gross said.

Business
OpenAI teams up with former Apple design chief Jony Ive as AI race heats up
Jony Ive, a former Apple executive known for designing the iPhone, is joining forces with OpenAI, the San Francisco startup behind popular chatbot ChatGPT.
On Wednesday, OpenAI said it’s buying io, an AI devices startup that Ive founded a year ago, for nearly $6.5 billion in an all-stock deal, the largest acquisition in OpenAI’s history.
“We have the opportunity here to kind of completely reimagine what it means to use a computer,” OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman said in a video with Ive about the partnership.
The pair don’t specify what AI devices they’re working on, but Altman called it “the coolest piece of technology that the world will have ever seen.”
The partnership shows how OpenAI is taking on some of the world’s most powerful tech companies including Google, Apple and Meta that are also working on AI-powered devices to shape the future of computing.
Chirag Dekate, a VP analyst at Gartner, said the announcement reflected an “inflection point” in the tech industry, where future products and services will offer users more personalized and proactive assistance.
“This shift suggests a future where technology is less about the tools themselves and more about the intelligently orchestrated experiences they enable,” he said in an email.
Globally, spending on generative AI is expected to total $644 billion in 2025, an increase of 76.4% from 2024, according to a forecast by Gartner, a research and advisory firm based in Connecticut that focuses on technology.
The race to build AI-powered wearable gadgets and roll out more AI tools that can generate video, text and code and help people shop also means that major tech companies are recruiting top-tier talent. Earlier in May, OpenAI hired Fidji Simo, a former top Meta executive and the chief executive of grocery delivery startup Instacart, to lead the startup’s applications team.
Ive, a British American designer, is a well-known figure in the tech industry because he designed some of Apple’s iconic products such as the Macbook, iPhone, iPad and iPod. Joining Apple in the 1990s, Ive became Apple’s chief design officer in 2015.
He left the company in 2019 and started LoveFrom, a creative collective and design firm that worked with brands including OpenAI.
Silicon Valley tech companies have been working on gadgets, including headsets and glasses, for years but they’re still not as ubiquitous as the smartphone.
There have also been major flops such as Humane’s AI pin, a wearable virtual voice-operated assistant that was criticized for various issues such as providing inaccurate information and overheating. In February, San Francisco-based Humane shut down the AI pin after it was acquired by Hewlett-Packard.
But the fumbles haven’t stopped tech companies from barreling forward with building glasses, brain-computer interfaces and humanoid robots as they look to a future beyond the smartphone.
When Google released smart glasses in 2013 that could shoot photos and videos, the company faced concerns about people using the device to surreptitiously record other people or read text while ignoring others.
But the gadget resurfaced years later. This week, Google unveiled a prototype of its AI smart glasses at its annual I/O developer conference in Mountain View, demonstrating how people can use the device to search for information about a painting, travel and other topics without having to type on their smartphone. The search giant is partnering with eyewear brands Warby Parker and Gentle Monster on smart glasses.
Last year, Santa Monica-based Snap unveiled the fifth generation of Spectacles, its augmented reality glasses that overlay digital objects on the physical world. The device, which was only available for developers, allowed people to play with virtual pets, conjure up images with a voice command or swing a virtual golf club.
Meta teamed up with Ray-Ban on smart glasses that include an AI assistant that can answer questions, translate and help take a photo. It’s also working on a more powerful pair of AR glasses that lets people take video calls, get recipe recommendations and multitask in other ways.
And Apple, which unveiled a pricey mixed-reality headset known as the Vision Pro in 2023, is also reportedly working on smart glasses.
In the video with Altman, Ive said the products that people use to connect to technology are decades old, so it’s “just common sense to at least think surely there’s something beyond these legacy products.”
“I have a growing sense that everything I’ve learned over the last 30 years has led me to this place and to this moment,” Ive said in the video.
Business
Darren Aronofsky joins AI Hollywood push with Google deal

Director Darren Aronofsky has pushed artistic boundaries with movies including “Requiem for a Dream” and “Mother!”
Now his production company is working with Google to explore the edge of artificial intelligence technology in filmmaking.
Google on Tuesday said it is working with several filmmakers to use new AI tools as part of a larger push to popularize the fast-moving tech. That effort includes a partnership with Aronofsky’s venture, Primordial Soup.
Google’s AI-focused subsidiary DeepMind and Aronofsky’s firm will work with three filmmakers, giving them access to the Mountain View, Calif.-based giant’s text-to-video tool Veo, which they will use to make short films. The first project, “Ancestra,” is directed by Eliza McNitt. Aronofsky is an executive producer on the film. “Ancestra,” which premieres at the Tribeca Festival next month, combines live-action filmmaking with imagery generated with AI, such as cosmic events and microscopic worlds.
“Filmmaking has always been driven by technology,” Aronofsky said in a statement that referenced film tech pioneers the Lumiere brothers and Thomas Edison. “Today is no different. Now is the moment to explore these new tools and shape them for the future of storytelling.”
The push comes as Google and other companies are making deals with Hollywood talent and production companies to use their AI tools. For example, Facebook parent company Meta is partnering with “Titanic” director James Cameron’s venture, Lightstorm Vision, to co-produce content for its virtual reality headset Meta Quest. New York-based AI startup Runway has a deal with “Hunger Games” studio Lionsgate to create a new AI model to help with behind-the-scenes processes such as storyboarding.
Many people in Hollywood have been critical of AI tools, raising concerns about the automation of jobs. Writers worry about AI models being trained on their scripts without their permission or compensation. Tech industry executives have said that they should be able to train AI models with content available online under the “fair use” doctrine, which allows for the limited reproduction of material without permission from the copyright holder.
Proponents of the technology say that it can provide more opportunities for filmmakers to test out ideas and show a variety of visuals at a lower cost.
New York-based Primordial Soup said in a press release that Google’s AI tools helped solve “practical challenges such as filming with infants and visualizing the birth of the universe” in “Ancestra.”
“With ‘Ancestra,’ I was able to visualize the unseen, transforming family archives, emotions, and science into a cinematic experience that feels both intimate and expansive,” McNitt said in a statement.
The two additional filmmakers and films participating in the Google DeepMind-Primordial Soup deal are not yet named.
Google made the announcement as part of its annual I/O developer conference in Mountain View.
During the event’s keynote address on Tuesday, Google shared updates on its AI tools for filmmakers, including Veo 3, which allows creators to type in how they want dialogue to sound and add sound effects. The company also unveiled a new AI filmmaking tool called Flow that helps users create cinematic shots and stitch together scenes into longer films and short stories.
“This opens up a whole new world of possibilities,” said Demis Hassabis, chief executive of Google DeepMind, in a news briefing on Monday. “We’re excited for how our models are helping power new tools for creativity.”
Flow is available through Google’s new $249.99 monthly subscription plan Google AI Ultra, which includes early access to Veo 3, as well as other benefits including YouTube Premium, Google’s AI models Gemini and other tools. Flow is also available with a $19.99-a-month Google AI Pro subscription.
Google is making other investments related to AI. On Tuesday, L.A.-based generative AI studio Promise announced Google AI Futures Fund as one of its new strategic investors. Through the partnership, Promise will integrate some of Google’s AI technologies into its production pipeline and workflow software and collaborate with Google’s AI teams.
Business
Commentary: Who's responsible for the aviation mess? Transportation Secretary Duffy says it's everyone but him
Picking out the worst performer among Donald Trump’s Cabinet appointees is a tough job — it’s a competitive race, after al l— but one member who deserves to be in the running by almost any measure of incompetence is Sean Duffy, the secretary of Transportation.
Duffy is a classic example of someone who knows who’s responsible for the screwups on his watch, and it’s never him.
He has spent the last weeks and months blaming the Biden administration for numerous operational failures in our air traffic system since he took over. Those include the Jan. 29 midair collision over Washington, D.C., that cost 67 air passengers their lives, as well as several near-misses on the ground.
I think we need to be a little bit more precise in downsizing a department with a mission as critical as DOT’s.
— Rep Steve Womack (R-Ark.)
Some Trump Cabinet members have more important portfolios than Duffy —Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, neither of whom has displayed anything approaching basic competence at their job, come immediately to mind.
But the American public is bound to be particularly sensitive to the functioning of our transportation infrastructure. That’s especially true when it comes to the safety and reliability of air travel; every flight delay and safety-related mishap hits American travelers in the gut.
The highest-profile failure (so far) is the disaster named Newark Liberty International Airport, where flight delays can last for the better part of a day and questions about safety are rife.
Duffy, a former reality show contestant and four-term congressman, comes to the blame game with dirty hands. Let’s take a look.
First, here’s what he’s said about the condition of FAA operations and staffing.
“I think it is clear that the blame belongs with the last administration,” he said Monday during a news conference at DOT headquarters. “Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden did nothing to fix the system that they knew was broken.” He said, “During COVID, when people weren’t flying? That was a perfect time to fix these problems.”
A couple of points are pertinent here. First, in 2019, when Duffy was a Republican member of Congress from Wisconsin, the bill to fund the Department of Transportation among other agencies came before the House. Duffy voted against it. So did 179 other members of the GOP caucus; 12 Republicans joined the Democrats to pass the measure.
Second, the pandemic year in which “people weren’t flying” was 2020. That year, the domestic passenger count plummeted to 369.4 million from 926.7 million the previous year. It was the lowest figure since 1984.
Who was president in 2020? Not Biden, but Donald Trump.
After 2020, passenger loads crept back up, reaching 666.2 million in 2021 and continuing higher to the record of 982.7 million last year. If there was an opportunity to upgrade the air traffic system at the least inconvenience to passengers, it was 2020. But nothing was done then, on Trump’s watch.
I asked the Department of Transportation last week if Duffy could reconcile these evidently misleading and inconsistent statements. I’m still waiting for a reply.
Duffy has maintained that it’s still safe to fly in and out of Newark, despite outages during which air traffic controllers’ screens went black and radios went silent — for 30 seconds on April 28 and 90 seconds on May 9. A backup system failed at the airport May 11 for 45 minutes, causing delays and cancellations for hundreds of flights.
Duffy admitted to the right-wing radio host David Webb on May 12 that he had switched his wife’s flight reservation for the next day from Newark to LaGuardia airport. He subsequently explained that he didn’t say to do so because he thought Newark was unsafe, but to spare her a long delay. In other words, he had found a solution for his family, but not for the overall traveling public, which didn’t speak well for his management of the mess at Newark.
It’s proper to note that the Federal Aviation Administration has been in an operational funk for years. Duffy can try to blame Biden, but that’s a smokescreen. During Trump’s first term, when the FAA’s problems were well known, hiring and deployment of air traffic controllers actually shrank from the level during the Obama administration according to the DOT’s inspector general, to the point where staffing “could not keep pace with attrition.”
In the first budget he submitted after taking office in 2017, Trump proposed slashing the DOT budget by 13%. The budget plan called for cutting 30,000 workers from the FAA staff.
The problems date back even further — at least to 1981, when Ronald Reagan fired 11,000 air traffic controllers at a single blow to break their union. A frenzy of hiring and training followed, but the replacement cohort has passed its retirement age. The FAA is currently about 3,000 controllers shy of its target staffing, so the people on the job are stretched to their breaking point.
It isn’t as if Trump and Duffy pulled out all the stops to fix the FAA’s chronic problems upon taking office. Some 3,000 “probationary” employees at the agency were fired during a DOGE rampage, according to a count by the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists, the union representing safety and technical workers at the FAA, and a statement by Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), chair of the subcommittee overseeing the Transportation Department budget. The probationary firings and two subsequent rounds of buyouts will bring staffing at the DOT down by 12% since Trump took office.
During appearances last week before the House and Senate appropriations committees, Duffy boasted about saving taxpayers nearly $10 billion during the first 100 days of the Trump administration. That provoked Womack to riposte, “I think we need to be a little bit more precise in downsizing a department with a mission as critical as DOT’s. … The question is pretty simple: How many departures can you handle without eroding the ability to carry out a safe and effective mission?”
“We can do more with less, Mr. Chairman,” Duffy replied. When staff accept buyout offers to retire or resign, he said, “we should take them up on that. … If I have people who don’t want to be there, let’s get some people in who are hungry to do the work.” Indeed, after the first round of firings at the FAA, DOGE boss Elon Musk issued a public appeal that air traffic controllers who had “retired, but are open to returning to work, please consider doing so.”
Furthermore, Trump’s freeze on disbursement of funds from Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act encompassed modernization projects at airports nationwide.
Musk’s fingerprints were also on the resignation of FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker, a former airline executive and former FAA deputy administrator who had been unanimously confirmed to a five-year term in October 2023. Whitaker resigned as of Jan. 20 after clashing with Musk over the FAA’s oversight of SpaceX, which Musk owns.
Trump has nominated Republic Airways Chief Executive Bryan Bedford as his replacement, but Bedford hasn’t been confirmed.
During his Senate appropriations committee testimony on Thursday, Duffy maintained that his budget cuts and firings hadn’t compromised safety at all. He specifically denied that any air traffic controllers had been fired or offered buyouts.
Unfortunately for Duffy, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a lawmaker whose mild demeanor masks her habit of coming to a debate with hard information in hand, was in the room. She listed for Duffy all the steps he had taken that had caused “unacceptable chaos” in the air transport system.
Since Jan. 20, she said, “virtually every dollar and transportation project has been held up at some point. You are causing a traffic jam, from freezing funding for projects to creating new hurdles by reevaluating grants that had already been approved, adding red tape by forcing unacceptable political demands on state and local transportation agencies, and outright canceling and cutting grants. … No prior Transportation secretary has cut funding for previously awarded grants in this manner.”
As for Duffy’s blaming the Biden administration “for absolutely everything,” Murray continued, “the last administration did not make the decision to hold up thousands of grants, had nothing to do with the new red tape that you have created, and certainly did not let go of hundreds of staff to help get those grants out the door.”
Turning to Duffy’s assertion that no air traffic controllers had been fired or bought out, Murray told him, “While you talk about modernizing the air traffic control system, you have forced out more than 2,000 FAA employees who support those air traffic controllers — the technicians, the mechanics, the engineers, the IT specialists at the FAA who were working on modernization.”
Duffy, indeed, stepped on his own arguments. He complained that the Biden administration had saddled him with some 3,200 contracts that had been awarded but needed to be signed. But he acknowledged that he had to go through those contracts to eliminate provisions he thought smacked of “wasteful DEI and climate requirements.” These are ideological shibboleths and by no means “wasteful,” since DOT projects have manifest effects on the welfare of residents in the communities where they’re built or planned and on climate change itself.
As it happens, on April 24, Duffy sent a letter to all recipients of DOT funds —effectively virtually every state and thousands of local jurisdictions, warning them that pursuing “DEI goals … violates federal law.” He threatened explicitly to withhold DOT funding from jurisdictions that fail to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. This is the “red tape” that Murray referenced.
Whether DEI programs and failures to cooperate with federal immigration roundups really violate federal law, as Duffy asserted, is not remotely a settled legal question, but the matter is before federal judges across the land. The fact that Duffy is wasting his time by making these threats and combing through awarded contracts to ferret out such putative violations is, however, a settled question: Of course he is.
It may not be long now before Duffy’s ideological vetting of transportation contracts and his decimation of the working staff at the FAA cause even greater disruptions in the air and on land, potentially with fatal consequences. His efforts to blame everyone else for his own failures are sure to have a very short half-life. Raise your tray tables and your reclining seats, and fasten your seat belts. We may be coming in for a hard landing.
-
Technology1 week ago
Mexico is suing Google over how it’s labeling the Gulf of Mexico
-
Education1 week ago
A Professor’s Final Gift to Her Students: Her Life Savings
-
Education1 week ago
Video: Tufts Student Speaks Publicly After Release From Immigration Detention
-
Politics1 week ago
President Trump takes on 'Big Pharma' by signing executive order to lower drug prices
-
Culture1 week ago
Test Yourself on Memorable Lines From Popular Novels
-
News1 week ago
As Harvard Battles Trump, Its President Will Take a 25% Pay Cut
-
News1 week ago
Why Trump Suddenly Declared Victory Over the Houthi Militia
-
Culture1 week ago
Book Review: ‘Original Sin,’ by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson