What it would take to convert a jet from Qatar into Air Force One to safely fly Trump
WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump really wants to fly on an upgraded Air Force One — but making that happen could depend on whether he's willing to cut corners with security.
As government lawyers sort out the legal arrangement for accepting a luxury jet from the Qatari royal family, another crucial conversation is unfolding about modifying the plane so it's safe for the American president.
Installing capabilities equivalent to the decades-old 747s now used as Air Force One would almost certainly consign the project to a similar fate as Boeing's replacement initiative, which has been plagued by delays and cost overruns.
Air Force Secretary Troy Meink told lawmakers Thursday that those security modifications would cost less than US$400 million but provided no details.
Satisfying Trump's desire to use the new plane before the end of his term could require leaving out some of those precautions, however.
A White House official said Trump wants the Qatari jet ready as soon as possible while adhering to security standards. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, did not provide details on equipment issues or the timeline.
Trump has survived two assassination attempts, and Iran allegedly also plotted to kill him, so he's well aware of the danger he faces. However, he seems willing to take some chances with security, particularly when it comes to communications. For example, he likes to keep his personal phone handy despite the threat of hacks.
He boasted this week that the government got the jet 'for free,' saying, 'We need it as Air Force One until the other ones are done.'
Here's a look at what it would take to make the Qatari plane into a presidential transport:
What makes a plane worthy of being Air Force One?
Air Force One is the call sign for any plane that's carrying the president. The first aircraft to get the designation was a propeller-powered C-54 Skymaster, which ferried Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Yalta Conference in 1945. It featured a conference room with a bulletproof window.
Things are a lot more complicated these days. Boeing has spent years stripping down and rebuilding two 747s to replace the versions that have carried presidents for more than three decades. The project is slated to cost more than $5.3 billion and may not be finished before Trump leaves office.
A 2021 report made public through the Freedom of Information Act outlines the unclassified requirements for the replacement 747s under construction. At the top of the list — survivability and communications.
The government decided more than a decade ago that the new planes had to have four engines so they could remain airborne if one or two fail, said Deborah Lee James, who was Air Force secretary at the time. That creates a challenge because 747s are no longer manufactured, which could make spare parts harder to come by.
Air Force One also has to have the highest level of classified communications, anti-jamming capabilities and external protections against foreign surveillance, so the president can securely command military forces and nuclear weapons during a national emergency. It's an extremely sensitive and complex system, including video, voice and data transmissions.
James said there are anti-missile measures and shielding against radiation or an electromagnetic pulse that could be caused by a nuclear blast.
'The point is, it remains in flight no matter what,' she said.
Will Trump want all the security bells and whistles?
If the Qatari plane is retrofitted to presidential standards, it could cost $1.5 billion and take years, according to a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details that aren't publicly available.
Testifying before Congress this week, Meink discounted such estimates, arguing that some of the costs associated with retrofitting the Qatari plane would have been spent anyway as the Air Force moves to build the long-delayed new presidential planes, including buying aircraft for training and to have spares available if needed.
In response, Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., said that based on the contract costs for the planes that the Air Force is building, it would cost about $1 billion to strip down the Qatar plane, install encrypted communications, harden its defenses and make other required upgrades.
James said simply redoing the wiring means 'you'd have to break that whole thing wide open and almost start from scratch.'
Trump, as commander in chief, could waive some of these requirements. He could decide to skip shielding systems from an electromagnetic pulse, leaving his communications more vulnerable in case of a disaster but shaving time off the project.
After all, Boeing has already scaled back its original plans for the new 747s. Their range was trimmed by 1,200 nautical miles, and the ability to refuel while airborne was scrapped.
Paul Eckloff, a former leader of protection details at the Secret Service, expects the president would get the final say.
'The Secret Service's job is to plan for and mitigate risk,' he said. 'It can never eliminate it.'
If Trump does waive some requirements, James said that should be kept under wraps because 'you don't want to advertise to your potential adversaries what the vulnerabilities of this new aircraft might be.'
It's unlikely that Trump will want to skimp on the plane's appearance. He keeps a model of a new Air Force One in the Oval Office, complete with a darker color scheme that echoes his personal jet instead of the light blue design that's been used for decades.
What happens next?
Trump toured the Qatari plane in February when it was parked at an airport near Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort. Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Allvin was there, too.
The U.S. official said the jet needs maintenance but not more than what would be expected of a four-engine plane of its complexity.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said it would be irresponsible to put the president and national security equipment aboard the Qatari plane 'without knowing that the aircraft is fully capable of withstanding a nuclear attack.'
'It's a waste of taxpayer dollars,' she said.
Meanwhile, Boeing's project has been hampered by stress corrosion cracks on the planes and excessive noise in the cabins from the decompression system, among other issues that have delayed delivery, according to a Government Accountability Office report released last year.
Boeing referred questions to the U.S. Air Force, which said in a statement that it's working with the aircraft manufacturer to find ways to accelerate the delivery of at least one of the 747s.
Even so, the aircraft will have to be tested and flown in real-world conditions to ensure no other issues.
James said it remains to be seen how Trump would handle any of those challenges.
'The normal course of business would say there could be delays in certifications,' she said. 'But things seem to get waived these days when the president wants it.'
AP writer Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.
Tara Copp And Chris Megerian, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Post
35 minutes ago
- National Post
In Alberta, separatism is on the ballot in a rural byelection on Monday
OTTAWA — Cameron Davies, the leader of the separatist Republican Party of Alberta and the party's candidate for Monday's Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills byelection, admits that his party's name and MAGA red branding are causing some confusion at the doors. Article content 'It certainly has come up in conversation,' Davies told the National Post on Thursday. Article content 'People want to know more about it, what it means and that's just an opportunity to explain why the word 'republican' and why a constitutional republic is something we want to look at.' Article content Davies' Republican party isn't formally aligned with the more well-known one south of the border — notably swapping out the latter's elephant for a more local buffalo as its logo — but it does aspire to make Alberta an independent republic governed similarly in principle to the U.S. Article content 'The form of government Canada has doesn't work for Alberta, and the form of government we have here in Alberta doesn't work for Alberta,' said Davies. Article content Davies, an ex-UCP organizer, is one of two separatist candidates who'll be on the ballot in Monday's byelection in the south-central Alberta riding, where the governing United Conservative Party won more votes than anywhere else in the province in 2023's provincial election. Article content The other is employee benefits specialist Bill Tufts, running under the banner of the Wildrose Loyalty Coalition. Article content Under normal circumstances, the byelection would be a tap-in for first-time UCP candidate Tara Sawyer. But these are anything but normal circumstances, with support for Alberta separatism spiking on the heels of the federal Liberals fourth straight election win. Article content Article content What's more, Davies and Tufts have a fortuitous piece of Alberta election lore to point to. Article content Western Concept candidate Gordon Kesler notched a surprise 1982 byelection win in predecessor riding Olds-Didsbury, briefly becoming the first and only separatist to hold a seat in Alberta's legislature. Article content Kesler is still active in the area's politics and is backing Davis in the byelection. Article content Ex-Alberta MLA Derek Fildebrandt, whose now-defunct riding of Strathmore-Brooks crossed into the riding's east end, says he expects the Republicans to place a strong second, possibly even pushing the UCP below a majority vote share. Article content 'Based on my gut, nothing hard,' said Fildebrandt.
CBC
38 minutes ago
- CBC
The U.S. is cutting billions from science. Canadian researchers say it's time to step up
Social Sharing Scientists in Canada are scrambling. Over the past few months, the U.S. government has cut billions of dollars in funding from scientific research as part of sweeping cost-cutting measures. "It's really shocking. It's really like this big cloud over science," Kate Moran, CEO of Ocean Networks Canada, told Quirks & Quarks. Ocean Networks Canada participates in a project called the Argo system, an international program that collects information from on and under the ocean using a fleet of robotic instruments that drift with the ocean currents. But that program, which is led by researchers in the U.S., could be at risk. Many Canadian research groups rely heavily on U.S. partners for support and data. But since Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, that support has taken a massive hit. The New York Times reported in March that the administration plans to reduce the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) workforce by up to 20 per cent, which Moran says could have a direct impact on their work. Some of those staffing cuts at the NOAA have already happened. "Because the U.S. is such a big player, I'm not sure we could step up and be like the U.S.," said Moran. And cuts are happening across the board. The administration terminated $1 billion US in cuts to the National Institutes of Health, a move ruled "void and illegal" and blocked by a district judge earlier this month. The government has also been in a battle with Harvard University, putting billions of dollars of potential funding in jeopardy. Layoffs across a number of government agencies have been put on hold by a federal judge in California. In an executive order issued by the White House in May, Trump said that "over the last 5 years, confidence that scientists act in the best interests of the public has fallen significantly." "My Administration is committed to restoring a gold standard for science to ensure that federally funded research is transparent, rigorous, and impactful, and that Federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available." Environment and Climate Change Canada told CBC in a statement it "has a long-standing relationship with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on operational and research activities related to weather, climate, satellites, and water monitoring," and that the "department has not been formally informed of any changes to its collaboration with NOAA." The trickle-down effect of cuts has left Canadian researchers trying to figure out how to adapt to these uncertain times, while others say it's now Canada's responsibility to step up. Targeting climate science Environmental science and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts seem to be a direct target of the Trump administration's cuts. More than 1,000 scientists and other employees are set to be laid-off from the Environmental Protection Agency's research office. The effects have been felt in Canada. Researchers here filling out forms for U.S. government grants have had to answer questions such as "Can you confirm this is not a climate or 'environmental justice' project or include such elements?" and "Can you confirm that this is no DEI project or DEI elements of the project?" The political climate has Deborah Wench on edge. She relies heavily on information from long-term monitoring projects to fuel her research into the carbon cycle. Wench studies how carbon flows between different climates. To do that, she needs long-term data sets collected from satellites. Wench says the U.S. operates a lot of the satellites used in her research. "I'm not really sure how to express this. It's mostly, for me, a sense of impending doom," said Wench, an associate professor at the University of Toronto. "It's taken decades and the careers of thousands of people to build up these measurement records, and it looks like it will take months to destroy them." Though she didn't want to specify which specific instruments she uses, she says she's concerned it's on the chopping block in the U.S., which would mean a loss of long-term monitoring. Then there's HAWC, a project that will use three Canadian-built instruments to measure the amount of aerosols, water vapour and thin ice clouds in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. The information could be used to improve future climate projects, assuming it continues to receive NASA support. Trump's 2026 budget, released in May, proposed a $6 billion US funding cut to the space agency, amounting to 24 per cent of NASA's current budget. WATCH | Canadian scientists trying to keep world's ocean sensors afloat: Canadian scientists trying to keep world's ocean sensors afloat 12 minutes ago Duration 1:32 These robot scientists dive deep into the ocean to measure the vital signs of planet Earth. But proposed funding cuts in the U.S. could mean critical climate data is on the chopping block. "Much of it is just so speculative, right?" said Chris Fletcher, an associate professor at the University of Waterloo. "We're still kind of on the descent.... So it's unclear yet exactly how all of this will shake out, and it's quite unsettling." One of the HAWC instruments was supposed to be attached to a NASA satellite. But Fletcher says that's now in question. "I'm confident from the Canadian side that because of this tremendous investment that Canada has made, that our instruments will fly. The question is about which components of the proposed NASA mission will fly," said Fletcher. CBC reached out to the Canadian Space Agency, but did not recieve a comment before publication. What happens next Canada's Department of Innovation, Science and Industry did not provide an interview or comment to CBC about how Canada plans to respond to funding cuts in the U.S. Frédéric Bouchard says the turmoil in the U.S. means a greater responsibility for Canada to assert its scientific sovereignty. He was part of the federally funded Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System, which, in 2023, took a deep dive into how Canada could better support scientific research. "It's our own responsibility to make sure that we have a strong and generous science capacity so we have access to the experts we need, when we need them," said Bouchard, a philosopher of science and dean of the faculty of arts and sciences at the Université de Montréal. "We shouldn't wait for other countries to do all the hard work and hope that we can benefit from it." He says that as American scientists leave the United States, Canada could welcome some of those researchers. He also said it will be important to invest in the future, including support for graduate students both in Canada and abroad in the United States, to make sure they're able to continue work in their field. Even so, Bouchard says, what's happening in the U.S. is going to have an impact — there's no stopping that. "What's happening is destabilizing science across the world," said Bouchard. "We need to make sure we play a larger role and that we build our own muscle mass, if you will, to be able to withstand more of the disruption." Moran says Ocean Networks Canada, and other organizations like it, are ready to do so. She says they are prepared to do simple things, such as download data to protect the long-term data sets. And if there are more cuts in the U.S., she says she's prepared to make the case to the Canadian government and request more funding. "We're talking about what we could do to fill those gaps," said Moran. "Canada has all the skills and knowledge and scientists." Politically-driven chaos is disrupting U.S. scientific institutions and creating challenges for science in Canada. Science is a global endeavour and collaborations with the U.S. are routine. In this special episode of Quirks & Quarks, we explore what Canadian scientists are doing to preserve their work to assert scientific sovereignty in the face of this unprecedented destabilization. Canadian climate scientists brace for cuts to climate science infrastructure and data U.S. President Donald Trump's attacks on climate science are putting our Earth observing systems, in the oceans and in orbit, at risk. Canadian scientists who rely on U.S. led climate data infrastructure worry about losing long-term data that would affect our ability to understand our changing climate. With: Kate Moran, the president and CEO of Ocean Networks Canada and Emeritus Professor of Oceanography at the University of Victoria Debra Wunch, Physicist at the University of TorontoChris Fletcher, Department of Geography and Environmental Management at the University of Waterloo U.S. cuts to Great Lakes science and monitoring threaten our shared freshwater resourceU.S. budget and staffing cuts are jeopardizing the long-standing collaboration with our southern neighbour to maintain the health of the Great Lakes, our shared resource and the largest freshwater system in the world. With: Jérôme Marty, executive director of the International Association for Great Lakes Research and part-time professor at the University of OttawaGreg McClinchey, policy and legislative director with the Great Lakes Fishery CommissionMichael Wilkie, Biologist at Wilfred Laurier UniversityBrittney Borowiec, research associate in the Wilkie Lab at Wilfred Laurier UniversityAaron Fisk, Ecologist and Canada Research Chair at the University of Windsor Unexpected ways U.S. culture war policies are affecting Canadian scientists One of the first things President Trump did after taking office was to sign an executive order eliminating all DEI policies in the federal government. This is having far-reaching consequences for Canadian scientists as they navigate the new reality of our frequent research partner's hostility against so-called 'woke science.'With:Dr. Sofia Ahmed, Clinician scientist, and academic lead for the Women and Children's Health Research Institute at the University of Alberta Angela Kaida, professor of health sciences and Canada Research Chair at Simon Fraser University in VancouverDawn Bowdish, professor of immunology, the executive director of the Firestone Institute for Respiratory Health and Canada Research Chair at McMaster UniversityKevin Zhao, MD/PhD student in immunology in the Bowdish Lab at McMaster UniversityJérôme Marty, executive director of the International Association for Great Lakes Research Canada has a 'responsibility' to step up and assert scientific sovereigntyA 2023 report on how to strengthen our federal research support system could be our roadmap to more robust scientific sovereignty. The Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System made recommendations to the federal government for how we could reform our funding landscape. The intent was to allow us to quickly respond to national research priorities and to make Canada a more enticing research partner in world science. With: Frédéric Bouchard, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and professor of philosophy of science at the Université de Montreal. Chair of the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System.
Globe and Mail
42 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Are the Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite Going to Plunge? This Historically Accurate Forecasting Tool Offers a Crystal-Clear Answer.
Investors have no shortage of ways to grow their wealth over time. They can buy real estate, put their money to work in fixed-income assets like certificates of deposit or U.S. Treasury bonds, and can purchase commodities like oil, gold, and silver. However, no other asset class has come within a stone's throw of stocks over the last century on an annualized return basis. But just because stocks are the premier asset class to own over multiple decades, it doesn't mean Wall Street's major indexes move up in a straight line. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Learn More » The iconic Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJINDICES: ^DJI), broad-based S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC), and growth-propelled Nasdaq Composite (NASDAQINDEX: ^IXIC), have endured their fair share of corrections, bear markets, and even crashes since their respective inceptions. In just a one-week period in early April, we observed the fifth-largest two-day percentage drop for the S&P 500 dating back to 1950, as well as the largest single-day nominal point gain for the Dow Jones, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite since their respective inceptions. When the market gyrates, it's perfectly normal for investors to dig for clues as to which direction stocks will move next. Even though no metric or predictive tool can guarantee what's to come, it's hard to overlook the statistical correlations that some data points and events have offered over the years. One forecasting tool, which occurs infrequently but has a historically flawless track record of correlating with big moves on Wall Street, has a crystal-clear message for investors: Prepare for eventual downside. More than 150 years of history points to trouble ahead for the Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq To preface the following discussion, there's always a data point, correlative event, or X factor threatening to cause the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite to plunge. Despite this, these indexes have motored higher over longer periods. But based on one value-focused forecasting measure, the good times are, eventually, set to end for Wall Street's major stock indexes. When investors think of the word "value," the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio probably comes to mind. This quick-and-easy valuation measure can be arrived at by taking a company's share price and dividing it by its trailing-12-month earnings per share (EPS). The traditional P/E ratio works great for mature businesses, but it's not always a reliable valuation tool for growth stocks or during recessions. The valuation tool that offers a flawless forecasting track record when back-tested more than 150 years is the S&P 500's Shiller P/E Ratio. You'll occasionally see the Shiller P/E referred to as the cyclically adjusted P/E Ratio, or CAPE Ratio. Unlike the traditional P/E ratio, the Shiller P/E is based on average inflation-adjusted EPS over the trailing decade. Encompassing 10 years' worth of earnings history ensures that recessions don't adversely skew the results. S&P 500 Shiller CAPE Ratio data by YCharts. As of the closing bell on June 18, the S&P 500's Shiller P/E Ratio stood at a multiple of 36.55. To put this into perspective, it's 112% above the average multiple of 17.25, when back-tested to January 1871. However, this massive deviation from the historical mean isn't the telltale sign of trouble for Wall Street. What's far more concerning is how stocks have behaved following the rare instances where the Shiller P/E surpassed and held a multiple of 30 for a period of at least two months. Surpassing and sustaining 30 has occurred only six times in 154 years: August to September 1929 June 1997 to August 2001 September 2017 to November 2018 December 2019 to February 2020 August 2020 to May 2022 November 2023 to present Excluding the present, all five prior instances were eventually followed by declines ranging from 20% to 89% in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, and/or Nasdaq Composite. To be clear, the Shiller P/E isn't a timing tool and can't, in any way, pinpoint when stock market corrections, bear markets, or crashes will begin. But what it does have an exceptional track record of doing is foreshadowing an eventual plunge in Wall Street's three major stock indexes. Based solely on what history tells us, stocks won't be able to hold onto their current valuation premium, and the Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite will, at some point in the presumed not-too-distant future, plunge. History is a pendulum that swings (disproportionately) in both directions Considering that the S&P 500 has enjoyed one of its strongest two-month performances in 75 years, the prospect of the index once again plunging probably doesn't sit well with investors. There's simply no getting around the data that lofty valuation premiums aren't well tolerated on Wall Street over long periods. But there is a major silver lining to this forecast. Specifically, history is a pendulum that swings in both directions and has disproportionately favored investors who've taken a long-term, optimistic approach. As noted, the Dow Jones, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite tend to climb over long periods, but their directional movements over shorter timelines are anything but predictable. Corrections, bear markets, and even crashes are normal, healthy, and inevitable aspects of the investing cycle. No amount of well-wishing or fiscal/monetary policy maneuvering can prevent Wall Street's major stock indexes from occasionally declining by double-digit percentages. However, the one noteworthy characteristic about double-digit percentage declines on Wall Street is they tend to be short-lived. Two years ago, shortly after the benchmark S&P 500 established that it was in a new bull market, the analysts at Bespoke Investment Group published a data set on X (formerly Twitter) that compared the calendar-day length of every bull and bear market for the S&P 500 dating back to the start of the Great Depression in September 1929. It's official. A new bull market is confirmed. The S&P 500 is now up 20% from its 10/12/22 closing low. The prior bear market saw the index fall 25.4% over 282 days. Read more at -- Bespoke (@bespokeinvest) June 8, 2023 On one hand, the typical bear market swoon lasted just 286 calendar days, which isn't even an average of 10 months. Conversely, the average S&P 500 bull market endured for 1,011 calendar days, or approximately 3.5 times as long. Being patient and optimistic has allowed investors to take advantage of this simple numbers game. A separate analysis from Crestmont Research widened the lens even further. Its analysts calculated the rolling 20-year total returns, including dividends paid, of the S&P 500 dating back to the start of the 20th century. For those of you rightly recognizing that the S&P didn't exist prior to 1923, Crestmont tracked the performance of its components in other major indexes from 1900 to 1923 in order to back-test its total return data more than a century. What Crestmont Research discovered was that all 106 rolling 20-year periods it examined (1900-1919, 1901-1920, and so on, to 2005-2024) generated a positive annualized total return. Hypothetically, they would have all made investors money, as long as investors held their position for 20 years. Regardless of what any forecasting tool suggests will happen in the coming weeks, months, or couple of years, more than a century of total return data demonstrates the power of buying stocks and holding them over long periods. Should you invest $1,000 in S&P 500 Index right now? Before you buy stock in S&P 500 Index, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and S&P 500 Index wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $659,171!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $891,722!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is995% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to172%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025
