The First Amendment Worked. Did the Acquisition System?
There is a very direct and profound leadership lesson taught at the United States Naval Academy: bad news does not get better with age. Critical information must be passed on early and accurately. No one should be the last person holding information that would enable leadership to make informed decisions and take timely action.
That was the issue at the heart of The New York Times report that the new Air Force One was vulnerable to modern threats that could have put the aircraft, and the President of the United States, in mortal danger. This is neither a partisan point nor a press-bashing one. Information this important is the responsibility of government officials to keep securely contained and equally, to act on through classified channels.
New Air Force One Lacks Defensive Countermeasures of Previous Model, Officials Say
Experts said the lack of such capabilities poses a potential risk when the president travels overseas. The White House defended the aircraft’s safety.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/us/politics/new-air-force-one-defensive-countermeasures.html
When volatile information like this leaks, two factors come into play: the morality and responsibility of our First Amendment–protected free press to publish, and, concurrently, the need to hold accountable those with security clearances who leaked classified information.
Both things happened. The Times ran the story, which pushed the President to fly in a safer aircraft with far better classified defenses against state-of-the-art threats in the hands of those who wish us harm. And a leak investigation was opened immediately.
Investigators Seek Information From Government Officials as Part of Air Force One Leak Investigation
After The New York Times reported on security concerns related to the Qatari-donated jet, the F.B.I. sought to speak with several people who flew aboard the plane with President Trump last week and asked for their phones.
The fact that The New York Times reporting forced the President into a safer aircraft was, in effect, validated by the Administration itself. In this sense, the Times was channeling the same leadership lesson taught at the Naval Academy. That the aircraft did in fact have validated safety-of-flight vulnerabilities is confirmed by the President’s own announcement that it is being grounded for safety upgrades.
As Kate Woodsome, a Pulitzer-winning journalist, pointed out to me: if something tragic had happened and The New York Times had been able to report on it in time to stop it but held the story instead, the paper would have been held in eternal contempt for a horrific journalistic failure. This is exactly why the First Amendment protects all of us.
As events moved forward, two important questions were ultimately resolved. First, the reporting was accurate:
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday that the Qatari-donated jet that serves as an Air Force One plane will soon be sent away for upgrades, following questions about the plane’s security features.
Trump started flying aboard the jumbo jet on July 1 after accepting the plane as a gift last year, when an accelerated effort to renovate the Boeing 747 for presidential use began.
Second, the First Amendment was once again validated, and the leak investigation is now, appropriately, focused on the leakers themselves:
U.S. Withdraws Subpoenas Issued to New York Times Journalists
A federal judge raised questions about the government’s handling of the subpoenas, which The New York Times called an attempt to intimidate the free press.
But a much more important and hugely significant accountability issue must not be overlooked: who was responsible for signing off on a plane that put the President in danger, and who will be held accountable for it. That question still needs to be resolved.
This entire ugly episode is a glaring failure of the Pentagon acquisition process.
When an acquisition program suffers a significant failure, someone is ultimately accountable. Credible evidence is now in the public domain of a strategic failure that allowed a presidential aircraft to enter service with known, unacceptable deficiencies against known threat requirements. This demands that an investigation be opened.
Questions should first be asked of the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment, who oversees major acquisition programs. If mistakes were made at any point in the process of certifying this aircraft to carry the President, those failures must be identified and significant corrections must be initiated immediately so that a dangerous, history-altering possibility like this one never happens again.
Ed Timperlake was Director, Technology Assessment, International Technology Security, in OSD, during the President Bush (43) Administration.