Connect with us

Politics

California firefighting aircraft stymied by U.S. Forest Service policy, local chiefs say

Published

on

California firefighting aircraft stymied by U.S. Forest Service policy, local chiefs say

An aerial firefighting task force has been thwarted — and sometimes grounded — by a new interpretation of a U.S. Forest Service policy that prohibits contractors from providing flight supervision over federal lands, according to Southern California fire chiefs.

“I don’t understand why they’ve chosen this time to reinterpret this longstanding procedure,” said Los Angeles County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone. “Why are they moving the goalposts now, during fire season? The timing couldn’t be worse.”

The dispute is the latest to have local fire authorities at odds with the Forest Service amid a punishing season that’s seen more than a million acres of land burn across the state. Some county chiefs have also spoken out about Forest Service staffing shortages they say resulted in delayed federal responses to recent fires, including the Airport fire that destroyed homes in Orange and Riverside counties.

Orange County Fire Authority Chief Brian Fennessy has written to Congress requesting an investigation into the issue.

Advertisement

“This policy application defies common sense at a time when we all know wildfire is, if not the worst threat to public safety in the state of California and throughout the West, pretty close to the top,” he said.

The Forest Service said the policy is a longstanding business rule that applies to aviation operations nationwide. “We had a lack of clarity on the policy, so some people were using it inappropriately,” said Adrienne Freeman, an agency spokesperson.

At the heart of the dispute is the Quick Reaction Force, a 24/7 aerial task force staffed by the fire departments of Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties. Its fleet consists of three night-flying helitankers, a mobile base that can mix 18,000 gallons of retardant per hour and an intelligence helicopter that is typically staffed by pilots under contract with the Orange County Fire Authority who manage the airspace and tell the other helicopters where to make drops.

The task force has been operating for several years without issue. But in July, the local agencies received word from the Forest Service that contractors could no longer provide aerial supervision over fires burning on federal land. When the QRF is deployed to these fires, it generally must be overseen by an aerial supervisor who is an agency employee.

The Forest Service has 11 aircraft capable of performing this supervision in California, but only one — an airplane — can do so at night, Freeman said. That plane is at times unavailable because it’s already deployed, has logged too many flight hours, needs to refuel or requires repairs or maintenance.

Advertisement

“As a result of that, we’ve had to pull off of some fires that were threatening communities,” Fennessy said.

For instance, as the task force fought the Bridge fire the afternoon of Sept. 11, the Forest Service airplane supervising the effort, AA-52, had to return to base, according to Fennessy and a written statement provided by Ken Craw, an aerial supervisor who was flying Copter-76 under contract with the Orange County Fire Authority.

Rather than call in Copter-76 to relieve the plane as supervisor, all air operations — six helicopters and two water scoping air tankers — were shut down until another Forest Service plane could arrive a short time later, Craw wrote.

“In my opinion the choice of AA-52 to shut down the aerial firefighting operations instead of using Copter-76 put the public and firefighters at risk, and reduced the efficiency of the efforts to contain the Bridge Fire,” he wrote.

A similar situation resulted in a two-hour delay in QRF helicopters dropping retardant on the Fork fire in the Angeles National Forest on July 19, Fennessy said. Helicopters also were released from the Borel fire in the Sequoia National Forest the night of July 28, even though they had hours of flight time left, he said.

Advertisement

Fennessy and other Southern California fire chiefs have met and exchanged letters with Region 5 Director Jaimie Gamboa, sharing their concerns.

The requirement that an agency employee supervise night operations is impractical when that employee is flying a plane, which circles thousands of feet above helicopters and has limited visibility into what’s going on below, some of the county chiefs said.

“The helicopter coordinator position is more beneficial during nighttime helicopter operations than a fixed-wing aerial supervision platform that’s way too high above the fire,” said Marrone, who was previously in charge of the county’s air operations.

Robert Garcia, fire chief of the Angeles National Forest, has called on the QRF many times, as he has just one night-flying helicopter — the Forest Service’s only night-flying helicopter in the nation, he said.

Garcia said the Forest Service plane can provide adequate nighttime supervision to helicopters because it has technology on board to monitor the effectiveness of drops.

Advertisement

Still, he said, he’s expressed concerns about the policy interpretation to others in the Forest Service because of his forest’s reliance on the QRF intelligence helicopter to provide relief when the Forest Service plane is unavailable.

“I think it’s worth taking a hard look at this policy, because the QRF is really, to my knowledge, a singular example of this particular scenario,” he said. “But the consequences are high.”

The Forest Service may deviate from the policy when it’s in a unified command, or if there’s imminent threat to life or property, he said. Garcia has done so at least two or three times since July, enabling him to use the QRF helicopter for aerial supervision. Such supervision is needed only if more than two aircraft are flying over a fire, he added.

Garcia acknowledged that confusion over the new policy interpretation has at times resulted in some delays in decision-making, but said that hasn’t affected the outcome of any fires in Angeles National Forest. The probability of success in keeping the Bridge fire small was low from the start because of hot, dry conditions and steep, rugged terrain that hadn’t burned in more than 100 years, and the Fork fire was contained relatively quickly at 301 acres, he said.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection also prohibits the use of contractors as aerial supervisors, a policy that was formalized this year but was in practice for a couple years before that, said Nick Schuler, deputy director of communications for Cal Fire.

Advertisement

But that hasn’t posed as much of an issue to the QRF because Cal Fire has agreements with Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties for them to provide initial attack fire suppression in many areas where the task force does its night flying work, Fennessy said. As a result, the counties dictate operations within those areas, he said.

The timing of the Forest Service’s change in policy interpretation has left him scratching his head. The contract pilots are “the best of the best,” with all the appropriate training and qualifications, and no one has raised safety concerns about them, Fennessy said.

He wonders whether the shift was retaliation for a 2022 60 Minutes episode in which he said the Forest Service was slow to use the QRF to fight the Caldor fire in Northern California and only greenlighted its use when he threatened to take the helicopters back home.

“It caused a lot of tension between the agencies — L.A., Ventura, Orange — and the Forest Service,” Fennessy said. “That’s the only thing I can think of because why now, years into this?”

Freeman of the Forest Service vigorously disputed that allegation. “No one gave that a thought, and we continue not to,” she said.

Advertisement

The Forest Service has been working to beef up its night flying operations, including by changing policy in Region 5 so that its employees can fly in contract aircraft to gain experience in nighttime aerial supervision, she said.

“We have worked incredibly hard to try to get to a place where we can utilize the QRF as well as all the resources in these counties,” she said. “This shouldn’t be about who has what. This is about trying to figure out ways to work together.”

Politics

Video: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

Published

on

Video: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

transcript

transcript

Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.

“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”

Advertisement
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.

By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff

June 4, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Democrats split over Tlaib’s Lebanon measure as Republicans seize on Hezbollah omission

Published

on

Democrats split over Tlaib’s Lebanon measure as Republicans seize on Hezbollah omission

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday. 

The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.

A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country. 

Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.

Advertisement

The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)

REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.

House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”

Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure. 

Advertisement

Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”

“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.

Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah. 

“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)

Advertisement

RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH

The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.

“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.

A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.

The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.

Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.

Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects an initial attempt to ban Trump’s $1.8-billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

Published

on

Senate rejects an initial attempt to ban Trump’s .8-billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.

Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.

It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.

The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.

The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.

Advertisement

The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.

The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.

Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.

On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.

“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.

Advertisement

The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.

In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.

The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.

But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”

After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.

Advertisement

The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.

“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.

The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.

Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.

Advertisement

Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.

“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”

Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”

Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”

Advertisement

“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending