President Trump is reportedly fuming about the fact that the public has caught on to the (obvious) safety issues with his new $400 million “flying palace” Air Force One gifted by Qatar, and it’s leading to journalists getting subpoenaed.
While I can appreciate the desire to protect government secrets, the reporting seems about as shocking as finding out that water is wet, or that the sun is bright…
In this post:
Air Force One safety issues lead to journalist subpoenas
In mid-June 2026, the Air Force took delivery of the new Boeing 747-8 that was gifted by Qatar, which will act as the primary new aircraft for carrying the president, which carries the designator “Air Force One” (though when Trump leaves office he gets to keep it, as it’ll go into his presidential library).
The converted Boeing 747-200s that acted as the primary Air Force One aircraft up until this point were definitely getting a bit old, and for years, there has been a contract in place for two replacement Boeing 747-8s. However, the delivery of those has been delayed massively, given the amount of special equipment that needs to be installed, to keep the president safe.
So when Trump recently flew to Turkey for a NATO summit, he flew the outbound on his new Boeing 747-8. However, for the return flight out of Turkey, shortly after the ceasefire with Iran was called off, he once again flew the old Boeing 747-200. While he claimed that he was doing this to “honor the military,” the reason was obvious — there were safety concerns with the plane.
The new Air Force One is clearly about vanity and prestige, rather than about flying in the safest way possible. Following this, The New York Times reported that security precautions caused Trump to use the old Air Force One to fly out of Turkey, quoting people familiar with the matter.
Well, Trump isn’t happy with that reporting, and four reporters have now been subpoenaed by the US Justice Department, to testify before a grand jury in Manhattan next Wednesday. In a statement, the US Justice Department shared the following:
“To the extent that we have to investigate breaches of national security, that’s something that we will continue to do. To be clear, reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are. We recognize there may always be natural tension there. But we are not going to ignore the law and stop investigating the people who work in the administration and think it’s okay to leak classified information impacting national security.”
I understand wanting to prevent national security breaches, but…
On the surface, I understand the need to look out for national security interests, and to prevent leaks. However, the report in question by The New York Times really didn’t state anything that I wouldn’t consider to be obvious to someone of average intelligence. The report suggested that:
- Officials were worried that the new aircraft didn’t yet have all the defensive systems and countermeasures carried by the previous Air Force One, including some missile defense capabilities
- The report suggested that those concerns became more serious because of increased tensions with Iran
The Trump administration has insisted that’s not the case, and that the plane has met the high security standards.
But seriously, let’s look at this semi-objectively. The two purpose-built Boeing 747-8s that will act as Air Force One in the future have now been delayed by a minimum of four years. The delay isn’t with building the 747-8 as such, but instead, with installing all the sophisticated equipment needed to protect the president.
Meanwhile Trump’s Qatar-gifted 747-8 was in service in less than a year. I mean, isn’t it obvious that it doesn’t have all the same safety equipment? If all the necessary safety equipment could actually be installed that fast, then why aren’t the two existing 747-8s in production just fast tracked? Anyone? Bueller?
Bottom line
The US Justice Department has subpoenaed reporters from The New York Times for breaking the news that the new Air Force One clearly doesn’t have the same security equipment as the previous Air Force One. That seems exceedingly obvious, given that the jet was prepared for service in a matter of months, while the two replacement Air Force Ones are four years behind schedule (best case scenario) due to the complexity of installing this equipment.
I understand the need to protect national security interests and prevent leaks, but if the government really thinks it’s a “secret” that this plane doesn’t have all the typical Air Force One equipment, then, well… we have bigger issues.
You can book a ride on the new AF1 using points. I hear from a reliable source that a ride can be booked with an approval rating of only 33 points.
If "... the New York Times really didn’t state anything that I wouldn’t consider to be obvious to someone of average intelligence" then why did the NYT need to grant anonymity to their source(s), and why did they think it was worth publishing? The answer is that there is a difference between "obvious" and "confirmed" to readers and likely also to foreign intelligence services. The source(s) of the information knew that and violated a professional...
If "... the New York Times really didn’t state anything that I wouldn’t consider to be obvious to someone of average intelligence" then why did the NYT need to grant anonymity to their source(s), and why did they think it was worth publishing? The answer is that there is a difference between "obvious" and "confirmed" to readers and likely also to foreign intelligence services. The source(s) of the information knew that and violated a professional responsibility and perhaps a legal boundry. It's reasonable to pursue the identity of the leaker(s), IMO.
Irrational fear of being harmed is a classic indicator of dementia.
Wake up, America. Your President is loopy.
Can you book a flight on Air Force One using points? No? Then please stick to points and travel topics on this blog!
Come on dude, he’s only had Trump in the headline in 12% of his last 25 articles. I think Trump should be in about 45-47% of points and miles blog articles.
@ Sel, D. -- Right, would you like to crunch the numbers on what percent of the previous 25 posts had Trump in the headline? Or the 25 before that? Or the 25 before that?
I reported on how Palm Beach Airport's name changed. You would agree that's a legitimate story, right? Just as I've reported on other airport name changes?
Then I posted about the initial Air Force One story, and then this follow-up....
@ Sel, D. -- Right, would you like to crunch the numbers on what percent of the previous 25 posts had Trump in the headline? Or the 25 before that? Or the 25 before that?
I reported on how Palm Beach Airport's name changed. You would agree that's a legitimate story, right? Just as I've reported on other airport name changes?
Then I posted about the initial Air Force One story, and then this follow-up. I get it might not align with your agenda, but let's be realistic about the amount of this content that there is.
Lucky's website, not yours. He decides on the topic, not you. Don't like it, shove off.
@ Ryu2 -- I hear you, and I understand not everything will be for everyone. I've been writing this blog for 18+ years, and I cover the things that interest me, as long as they involve aviation or travel. For that entire time, that has included plenty of topics that don't involve miles or points. I've covered developments with Air Force One for years, because it interests me, regardless of who is in office.
Lucky, did you charge them for any subscription or what? There’s absolutely no need to reply and explain yourself.
LLM, again! LOL. Come on Ben, keep your writing authentic! :)
@ Jacques Portgieter -- You've now commented this same thing on three posts in three days, and in exactly zero of those posts was that accurate. So I'm not sure if you're trolling, just confused, or...?
You may well have written it, but your posts have 101% been polished with an LLM recently. That's not a criticism of using AI, but things like your repeated "and then" style always gave your posts some personality. I still enjoy reading it all, just a little disappointed to see some of that uniqueness fade. Thanks for the banter, and try the steak on your next trip review(s) ;)
To be fair, I ran the text through HumaLingo, and it came back as 92% AI, 8% human:
"Your text shows several issues, an AI-like tone, repetitive phrasing, uneven rhythm, potential plagiarism, and low readability. These inconsistencies affect its style, flow, and credibility."
Ben?
@ Simon -- That's bizarre, I'm not sure what to tell you. Seriously, read the text... does it sound inconsistent with my writing style? I mean, repetitive phrasing, uneven rhythm, and low readability sounds on brand for me, no? ;-)
Just searching on Google about HumaLingo, I see mention of how "in independent tests, the detection tool proves highly consistent at flagging unedited AI text, but it can be overly sensitive—sometimes falsely flagging completely human-authored...
@ Simon -- That's bizarre, I'm not sure what to tell you. Seriously, read the text... does it sound inconsistent with my writing style? I mean, repetitive phrasing, uneven rhythm, and low readability sounds on brand for me, no? ;-)
Just searching on Google about HumaLingo, I see mention of how "in independent tests, the detection tool proves highly consistent at flagging unedited AI text, but it can be overly sensitive—sometimes falsely flagging completely human-authored text as AI." This post was 100% written by me, and that's all I can say on the topic.
@ Simon -- So interesting follow-up here. Jacques Portgieter had also posted on my Eden Rock St. Barths review suggesting it was AI. I wasn't aware of HumaLingo, but I decided to run my review through that, since I figure now that maybe this is the reason he's making these accusations?
HumaLingo suggests there's a 94% chance that post was AI. Lol. That's exactly the same format I've been using for all my trip reports...
@ Simon -- So interesting follow-up here. Jacques Portgieter had also posted on my Eden Rock St. Barths review suggesting it was AI. I wasn't aware of HumaLingo, but I decided to run my review through that, since I figure now that maybe this is the reason he's making these accusations?
HumaLingo suggests there's a 94% chance that post was AI. Lol. That's exactly the same format I've been using for all my trip reports for years. I'll let you read that, and decide if you think that was AI.
At least now this helps my understand why he keeps commenting this, as I haven't been able to make sense of it.
@Ben - Okay, fair enough. To me, your writing style has been consistent since I've started following your blog daily - at least 8 years ago... unless you secretly had access to an LLM in the 2010s.
@ Simon -- I'd like to think that I'm consistent if nothing else, heh. And I'm usually a very late adapter of technology, rather than an early one, sadly.
republican voters are very passionate about the principle of "free speech" you see, it's not at all a stalking horse for saying bigoted things!