Connect with us

International

Pentagon Salivates Over ‘Expensive’ Weapons While China Races Into Future With Iron Grip Over Cheap Drone Tech

Published

6 minute read

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Wallace White

China is running away with critical drone technology while the U.S. struggles to even get into the race, with experts warning that the technological gap spells a “nightmare” scenario for America’s military on the battlefield.

Chinese company Da Jiang Industries (DJI) currently controls 70% of the worldwide commercial drone market alone, and American drone companies specializing in defense applications still rely heavily on Chinese parts to make their products, according to Forbes. The U.S.’ inability to match China’s drone production poses a major threat to national security, according to defense experts, with one source of the problem being the military’s insistence on developing “exquisite” weapons systems that have big price tags.

“China has captured 90% of the global market for small civilian drones by directly subsidizing drone manufacturers,” Bret Boyd, CEO of defense-oriented logistics firm Sustainment, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “This has allowed them to be extremely competitive on price, undercutting most of their competitors and receiving huge benefits from economies of scale. This has been happening for decades.”

The 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) included a review of the effect of using Chinese-made parts for domestic drone manufacturing, with DJI saying in a press release that the law was based on “xenophobic fear.” New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik attempted to add formal restrictions on Chinese parts into the NDAA, but the law only passed the house before stalling in the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

DJI sued the Pentagon in October over its inclusion on the department’s Chinese military company list. The case is ongoing.

The U.S. currently utilizes mostly high-cost, plane-like drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper, which specializes in air-to-ground attacks with missiles. An MQ-9 costs around $56.5 million to build per unit, according to the Air Force.

Since October 2023, Houthi rebels in Yemen have brought down at least six Reaper drones, according to ABC News in April. Meanwhile, Houthis have found great success with small, cheaply-made drones, with some having the range to fly nearly 16 hours to targets in Israel, according to Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ALCED).

Moreover, the Houthis have killed an estimated 470 people with suicide drones since 2016, according to ALCED. By contrast, the drones can cost as little as $2,000, experts told Politico in 2023.

The enormous gap in the cost to wage war presents a unique national security risk that the Pentagon must urgently tackle, Boyd told the DCNF.

“Our military has become far too reliant on exquisite, expensive weapon systems that can only be built by a very small percentage of the American industrial base,” Boyd told the DCNF. “While this was appropriate for the Cold War, we need to adapt to the realities of combat in 2025. Ukraine is showing us that the modern battlefield is going to be dominated by ‘good enough’ technology deployed at scale.”

Cheap drones have fundamentally changed the battlefield, most exemplified by their extensive use in the Russia-Ukraine war beginning in 2022. The drones allowed Ukrainian and Russian soldiers alike to deal with tanks and other armored vehicles without exposing themselves with traditional anti-tank weapons systems like rocket launchers, according to The New York Times.

“These drones allow these service members to destroy a tank from 20 kilometers away,” William Thibeau, director of the American Military Project at the Claremont Institute and Army Ranger veteran, told the DCNF. “When you’re used to being threatened at only two and a half kilometers away, it changes the whole dynamic of how you move around and how you find cover and concealment.”

In the Bakhmut region alone in Ukraine, drones killed nearly 210 Russian Wagner Group mercenaries and wounded 360 more over the course of months in mid-2023, the NYT reported.

“The question is, are we ready for drone on drone warfare, or are we still putting humans in the loop?,” a former defense engineer granted anonymity to freely discuss U.S. military policy, told the DCNF. “Because as far as I know, we’re still putting humans out there, and human against drone is a nightmare.”

The U.S. armed forces have already made some headway into adopting small drones for combat, with the Army creating “hunter-killer” platoons equipped with drones used for mainly reconnaissance. Most recently, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the Army to investigate the use of “low-cost” drones in strike applications as part of a $36 billion overhaul of the service branch.

“Ukraine set up this infrastructure from basically nothing, and it happened in garages, and they set it up in less than two years,” Thibeau told the DCNF. “We don’t want to figure this out after the shooting starts.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

International

Trump says he won’t back down on Antifa terrorism designation

Published on

From The Center Square

By

President Donald Trump is moving quickly against an organization that he blames for destruction, looting and protests, another indication the president is acting faster during his second term.

Trump has long wanted to take action against the decentralized, leaderless  collection of groups, networks and people who claim to be anti-fadcist. But it didn’t get done during his first term in office. 

Trump proposed taking action against Antifa amid violence in Portland in 2019. During the George Floyd protests in May 2020, Trump made a similar announcement, but nothing followed.

“Major consideration is being given to naming ANTIFA an ‘ORGANIZATION OF TERROR,'” Trump wrote in a social media post in August 2019. “Portland is being watched very closely.”

This week, months into a fast-paced second term, Trump formally designated the organization after The Center Square asked him about it in an Oval Office news conference and said he could take it further with an international designation.

Trump’s second-term move came after a spate of political violence in the U.S., including the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

“I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION,” Trump posted on Monday. “I will also be strongly recommending that those funding ANTIFA be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices.” 

Trump designated Mexican drug cartels and violent foreign gangs as a foreign terror organization early in his second term. He has used those designations to go after drug traffickers and Tren de Aragua, among other cartels.

A foreign terror organization designation would pressure other countries to do the same. According to the U.S. Department of State, a foreign terror organization designation for Antifa would isolate the organization internationally and “deter donations or contributions to and economic transactions with named organizations.”

Some have been critical of the designation.

A Cato scholar said Trump’s move to designate Antifa a domestic terror organization was misguided.

“George Orwell, one of the most well-known anti-fascists of the last century, is undoubtedly rolling over in his grave right now,” Patrick Eddington, a senior fellow in homeland security and civil liberties at the Cato Institute, wrote. 

Eddington said, legal or not, Trump has shown he’s ready to take action.

“What matters is that the administration asserts the authority to do this, and it has thousands of armed and armored federal law enforcement agents ready and able to carry out Trump’s orders,” he wrote.

The White House cited “coordinated efforts” to “obstruct” federal law enforcement, specifically immigration enforcement operations through “organized riots” and “violent assaults,” including doxing.

The White House said the designation will allow law enforcement to use federal resources to investigate and “dismantle” the group or anyone “claiming to act on behalf” of the group. In addition, it will allow the federal government to investigate and prosecute those responsible for funding Antifa.

U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, said Trump is using the designation to target left-leaning groups he doesn’t like.

“Designating Antifa – which has no defined organizational structure or leadership – as a domestic terrorism organization is not only incorrect, it serves no purpose other than an excuse for the Trump administration to stifle dissent, investigate anyone – or any group – they don’t like, punish their enemies, and potentially label any American they want as a terrorist,” he said in a statement. “Never in our history has the U.S. government named a domestic terrorist organization.”

Thompson said domestic terrorism has been on the rise, but blamed right-wing groups for that violence, not left-wing groups.

“Domestic terrorism has been on the rise for years, but government officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations – along with all available data – are clear: the real threat is from right-wing violent extremism,” Thompson said. “Sadly, the Trump administration ignored this threat in its first term and has so far this year as it has diverted vast resources and personnel away from countering this very real threat towards its extreme mass deportation agenda.”

The Center Square contacted Thompson’s team for an interview and additional comment. A spokesperson referred The Center Square back to Thompson’s statement.

A June 2020 report from the Congressional Research Service noted that Antifa groups can differ widely.

“Contemporary U.S. antifa adherents likely do not share a list of enemies, as the movement lacks a unifying organizational structure or detailed ideology that might shape such a list,” the report noted. “Local groups do not necessarily listen to each other’s pronouncements and might aim their animus at enemies specific to their group. Further, ‘fascism’ is notoriously difficult to define. Thus, particular antifa groups may oppose different things based on how they identify who or what is fascist.”

That same report said not all antifa members were violent.

“Some members are willing to commit crimes, some violent, to promote their beliefs, although much antifa activity involves nonviolent protest such as hanging posters, delivering speeches, and marching,” according to the report. “As a core purpose, antifa groups track and react to the activities of individuals or groups they see as advocating fascist views, such as neoNazis, racist skinheads, white supremacists, and white nationalists.”

However, Antifa has not been afraid to use violence.

“Violence by U.S. antifa members is not new. For example, in 2012 Anti-Racist Action (ARA; an antiracist group now known as The Torch Network or Torch Antifa) attacked a meeting of the Illinois European Heritage Association, consisting of white supremacists from the National Socialist Movement and people from other groups. Brandishing items such as hammers, baseball bats, and police batons, the attackers entered a Chicago-area restaurant and assaulted meeting attendees,” the Congressional Research Service report noted.

Republicans have been trying to go after Antifa for years. 

U.S. Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced a resolution in the Senate in July 2019 to condemn the violent acts of Antifa and to designate the group a domestic terror organization.

“Looting, destroying personal property, and violence cannot be tolerated. Antifa seized upon a movement of legitimate grievances to promote violence and anarchy, working against justice for all,” Cassidy said in May 2020. “The President is right to recognize the destructive role of Antifa by designating them domestic terrorists.”

Earlier this summer, Cruz and others introduced the Stop Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots Act. The one-page bill would add rioting to the list of racketeering predicate offenses. Doing so would enable the Department of Justice to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which provides for extended criminal penalties for those involved in racketeering. 

“Every American has the right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest, but not to commit violence. Domestic NGOs and foreign adversaries fund and use riots in the United States to undermine the security and prosperity of Americans,” Cruz said.

U.S. Rep. Beth Van Duyn, R-Texas, filed companion legislation in the House.

“It is time we empower our law enforcement with a commonsense tool to treat these violent mobs, their funding sources, and their organizers as the criminal enterprises they are by passing the Stop FUNDERS Act,” she said in a statement at the time. “Since the days of the George Floyd riots, to the violence we see across American cities and college campuses today, it is obvious there are well funded, well outfitted, and highly coordinated efforts to plan and execute violent and potentially deadly missions of chaos and mayhem. This is organized crime, and we need to attack it as such.”

Van Duyn also filed a bill to prevent anyone convicted of rioting from getting a loan from the Small Business Administration.

The Center Square contacted Van Duyn for additional comment, but did not hear back before publication.

In a fact sheet released by the White House shortly after the designation, it listed several acts of violence attributed to Antifa, including a July ambush on an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas, resulting in one officer being shot in the neck.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Shale Execs Complain Of ‘Broken’ Prospects In New Survey

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

In his remarks at this week’s U.N. Climate Week conference, President Donald Trump reminded the U.N. general assembly that “we have an expression, ‘drill, baby, drill.’ You know, that’s what we’re doing.”

But according to almost 80% of the dozens of shale oil executives who responded to the third quarter survey of oil and gas companies by the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve, that’s all about to come to an end thanks in large part to the President’s focus on cutting oil prices as a means of controlling inflation.

“The uncertainty from the administration’s policies has put a damper on all investment in the oilpatch,” one executive said. Another warns that “drilling is going to disappear.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Executives at oilfield service companies aired similar concerns, pointing to recent layoff announcements as a symptom of the current market environment. “A vibrant oilfield services sector is critical if and when the U.S. needs to ramp up production,” one says, adding, “Right now we are bleeding.”

One upstream company executive was especially angry at the administration, writing that the business “has been gutted by political hostility and economic ignorance. The previous administration vilified the industry, buried it in regulation and cheered the flight of capital under the environmental, social and governance banner…Now the current administration is finishing the job.”

The confidential format of the Dallas Fed’s quarterly surveys encourages the executives to speak bluntly in their responses, and the airing of such grievances is often the result. Most would no doubt temper their language in a meeting with the President or his senior officials, and other respondents did just that, noting that their industry and companies have been buffeted this year by an array of factors, both domestically and internationally.

“There are a variety of issues affecting our business,” one respondent points out. “First, excess in the global oil market is restraining oil prices near term. Second, there is continued uncertainty from OPEC+ unwinding production cuts. Third, trade and tariff changes and the resulting geopolitical tensions.”

He or she isn’t wrong. While shale drillers and producers have no doubt been frustrated by the constantly shifting tariff situation as the White House works out trade deals with dozens of countries, there are other major market factors well beyond any U.S. president’s control. The uncertainty around tariffs has without question increased industry costs, especially as they relate to tubular goods and other steel and aluminum products that are integral to their operations. But at the same time, there can be little doubt that the monthly machinations of the OPEC+ cartel have created a much larger impact on driving down the price of crude oil and thus, driving down company profits.

As for the geopolitical tensions the responder mentions above, Joe Biden’s four years in office were chock-full of such issues, many of which were left behind for Mr. Trump to deal with and resolve. The simple truth is that there has never been a time during its 166-year history that the U.S. oil and gas industry didn’t have to deal with such complications.

The oil business is an infamously cyclical one, as anyone who has been in it for more than a year understands. I spent more than 40 years in the industry and would need to use fingers on more than one hand to total up the number of boom-and-bust cycles that took place during that span.

The fact is that drilling levels in the United States have been on a steady decline since late 2018 in response to prevailing market factors far more than to the policies of the Biden or Trump administrations. As I pointed out shortly after last November’s election, the maturity of every major shale play meant that there would be no revival of “drill, baby, drill” in a second Trump presidency regardless of the administration’s policy direction. It just was never going to be in the cards.

The grievances and frustrations aired by these executives are entirely understandable: It’s a tough business that is impacted for better or worse by public policies. But pointing the finger of blame at Trump is a simplistic reaction to a highly complex set of circumstances.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Trending

X