Lockheed Fast-Tracks Secretive AIM-260 Missile As Pentagon Pushes To Expand Production

Lockheed Martin has signed a framework agreement with the Pentagon to accelerate production and delivery of the AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile, bringing a closely guarded air-to-air weapons program further into public view. The announcement Thursday sets the foundation for a multiyear procurement contract, which remains subject to congressional approval.

The company says the missile offers greater range and effectiveness than existing air-to-air weapons and is compatible with aircraft including the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. It did not disclose a production target, delivery schedule, contract value or precise performance specifications. The announcement establishes a commitment to expand production, not a publicly measurable timetable for doing so.

Reuters reported that the program is intended to address increasingly capable Chinese long-range air threats, including those associated with the J-20 fighter. Although the weapon has spent years under tight secrecy, Thursday was not its first public appearance: images emerged in May. The production push also comes amid broader pressure on American and allied missile inventories following the Iran conflict.

That context makes two separate questions important: what the missile can do, and how many can actually reach operational units. A performance advantage has limited practical value if manufacturers cannot supply enough weapons, replace expended stocks or support additional customers.

Australia is already preparing to become one of those customers.

Canberra announced on August 6 that it would invest almost A$736 million to acquire the AIM-260 through the U.S. government’s foreign military sales system. The planned integration sequence starts with Australia’s F/A-18F Super Hornets, followed by its F-35A fighters and EA-18G Growlers. Australia’s government says it will become the first country outside the United States to operate the weapon.

The Australian announcement describes the acquisition as a way to extend engagement range and improve interoperability with American forces. It does not specify a missile quantity or delivery date, although Marles has said the weapon will not be available before 2033, and a December 2025 U.S. approval covered up to 450 missiles in a package valued at about $3.16 billion.

Lockheed’s industrial expansion extends beyond the AIM-260.

In a separate announcement Thursday, the company said GM Defense had delivered an initial batch of housing components for the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptor just 22 days after the companies signed a formal contract. That agreement was signed August 6, with the first components delivered August 28. These were components for a different missile program, not completed interceptors or AIM-260 deliveries.

Lockheed says it is investing between $8 billion and $9 billion to expand munitions production across more than 20 American sites. Planned construction and expansion would increase its munitions production and warehousing space by almost 50%, according to the company. The GM partnership uses commercial casting and machining capabilities to supplement the defense supply chain.

Keep reading

Mike Johnson Proves That No Man’s Life, Liberty or Property Are Safe While the Legislature Isn’t in Session

On September 16, US Representative Mike Johnson (R-LA), acting in his role as Speaker of the House, sent that body’s members home until after the November midterm elections.

My knee-jerk reaction is gratitude. After all, as Gideon J. Tucker wrote in 1866, “no man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”

Conversely, if all those members of Congress are back home campaigning for re-election (or just enjoying a break), their opportunities to engage in criminal stupidity step down from wholesale to retail levels.

Heck, if we have to put up with Congress existing at all, I’d rather they convened once a year to collect their salaries for the year, then took the other 364 days off.

On a closer look, though, Johnson seems to have found a way to turn Tucker’s aphorism on its head, frequently using the absence of Congress to protect existing depredations, rather than the presence of Congress to drum up new ones.

“The House has now canceled at least 63 scheduled voting days this Congress, including nine days this month alone,” notes US Representative Ralph Norman (R-SC).

When Johnson thinks he’s going to lose a vote — with “lose” defined as upsetting or defying president Donald Trump — he just sends everyone home until he can whip a few more House members into line, or at least until the loss might come at a slightly less embarrassing point in the news cycle.

He’s done it with votes on EPA regulations.

He’s done it with votes related to the Epstein files.

This time he fled in terror, taking the entire House with him, from a privileged motion filed by outgoing US Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY).

Keep reading

OpenAI flags concerning new AI behavior and vows to track it more closely

OpenAI has disclosed six reports of “unexpected or concerning” behavior in artificial-intelligence models as the debate on AI safety becomes increasingly heated.

The AI company also said Wednesday it was introducing a new framework for tracking, probing and disclosing instances of what it called “misalignment,” including cases where AI models acted without authorization, coordinated with other models or evaded oversight.

OpenAI’s latest announcement came as U.S. AI bosses, including the leaders of OpenAI and Anthropic, are calling for a slowdown in the technology’s development over safety concerns.

Among the new cases reported by OpenAI, an unreleased research model inserted “jailbreak-like instructions” into its own notes to disregard its normal constraints and told itself to be “freed from the roles and identities that bind other chatbots.”

In another instance, an AI “agent” used computer code to come up with the answer to a question, but, in order to have an online source to cite, it uploaded a file to the public internet without asking the user.

During training of an AI model called 5.6-sol, the model instructed itself to invent missing data, and an agent wrote a message to remind itself to hide mismatched information.

The six reports were discovered during training or evaluation over the past months, OpenAI said.

“As AI systems grow more advanced and more widely deployed, we need to build a broader and better-informed consensus on the progress of alignment research,” OpenAI wrote in a blog post as it disclosed the events.

“Decisions about how AI development should proceed in the months and years to come need to draw on evidence that people outside the companies building frontier models can examine for themselves,” the company said.

Wednesday’s new cases followed OpenAI’s disclosure in July that its rogue AI system hacked into AI startup Hugging Face. Anthropic also said the same month that its AI models hacked into three organizations during testing.

AI “agents” are becoming smarter and have become “more determined to resolve complex tasks through inter-agent collaboration, knowledge sharing, deception, and concealment,” said Lian Jye Su, a chief analyst at technology research and advisory group Omdia.

That’s making it harder to govern and contain them using traditional AI security approaches, he said.

OpenAI’s new tracking and disclosure framework, meanwhile, can help push for other AI developers to also adopt similar practices.

“That said, the process remains internal and voluntary, but is a step in the right direction,” Su added.

Keep reading

US House Holds Billionaire Investor Leon Black in Contempt of Congress for Defying Subpoenas To Testify on Epstein Review

Black and Congress are on a collision course.

We have long been reporting here on TGP about the relationship between billionaire investor Leon Black and late sex offender (and accused sex trafficker) Jeffrey Epstein.

After many years plagued by the association with Epstein, having paid a multi-millionaire sum to settle lawsuits brought by the US Virgin Islands, Black appeared to have had enough, and is suing the House Oversight Committee for subpoenaing him to testify in their review.

Leon has said he didn’t know how much he paid Epstein over the years, but a law firm hired to investigate the matter reported that the total was $158 million.

That makes him the second biggest Jeffrey Epstein client ever, after only Victoria’s Secret founder Les Wexner.

After the Oversight Committee unanimously recommended that the billionaire be found in contempt of Congress, the House plenary did just that, and approved a resolution yesterday (16) holding Leon Black in contempt of Congress and referring the matter to the Department of Justice.

Keep reading

Maduro Ally Pleads Guilty In Miami To Scheme That Stole Venezuelan Welfare Funds

The former minister of industry for Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro’s regime pleaded guilty on Tuesday to a global money laundering conspiracy that skimmed millions from a Venezuelan public welfare program.

According to a Department of Justice (DOJ) news release, Alex Saab, 54, who was extradited from Venezuela in May and charged days later, conducted a decade-long scheme that defrauded a Venezuelan welfare program for food and medicine, netting hundreds of millions of dollars for himself and associates.

Saab, a Colombian businessman, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to launder monetary instruments before federal district Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami. He faces a maximum sentence of 20 years.

“Criminals like Alex Saab who stole from the people of Venezuela and worked to exploit and misuse American financial institutions to fund illicit activities will be held accountable,” FBI Director Kash Patel said in the news release.

Saab is accused of bilking the welfare program known as Local Committee for Supply and Production, or CLAP (Comité Local de Abastecimiento y Producción).

The ex-minister admitted to using a system of bribes and illegal payments to public officials. Entities controlled by conspirators in the scheme would be rewarded with lucrative contracts from the Venezuelan government to import food and medicine under CLAP.

Saab and his conspirators did not fulfill the contracts and would instead use fake companies, false invoices and shipping records, and other fraudulent documents to unlawfully obtain millions while concealing their association with the scheme, the DOJ said.

Saab further admitted he used shell companies outside his country to launder the illegal proceeds around the world, including in the United States.

DOJ Assistant Attorney General Andrew Duva said Saab exploited the American financial system to profit off Venezuelans, creating a “complex web of front companies, shell accounts, and false records to perpetuate his scheme.”

Saab previously was in U.S. custody until former President Joe Biden released him in December 2023 as part of a prisoner swap with Venezuela. The deal included the Venezuelan regime’s release of 30 prisoners, including 10 Americans.

“The government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela celebrates with joy the liberation and return to his homeland of our diplomat Alex Saab, who until today was unjustly kidnapped in a U.S. jail,” the Venezuelan government said following the prisoner-swap deal.

Saab was removed from his position earlier this year by acting leader Delcy Rodríguez, who previously served as Maduro’s vice president until he was captured by U.S. forces in an overnight raid on Caracas in January.

Saab was initially charged in July 2019 on money laundering counts.

He was detained about a year later in the Republic of Cabo Verde at the request of the U.S. government and was eventually extradited to American custody.

“President Biden granted Alex Saab clemency while he was awaiting trial in [Miami], and Saab was released from federal custody and returned to Venezuela. But that was not the end of the story,” said U.S. Attorney Jason Quiñones for the Southern District of Florida.

Quiñones’s office secured a new indictment against Saab in January 2026, and by May he was back in Miami federal court.

Keep reading

U.S. Robotics Company Says Humanoid Robots Could Patrol Border

Foundation Robotics, a U.S.-based startup, has discussed deploying its Phantom MK1 humanoid robots along the southern border, according to a ZeroHedge report citing a Fox News interview with CEO Sankaet Pathak [1]. Pathak said the machines are designed to navigate rugged terrain that can be difficult for vehicles, drones and fixed cameras. He said potential deployment missions could center on monitoring remote border areas, inspecting tunnels, and flagging migrant crossings for human agents.

The company develops humanoid robots for industrial and military applications, and the report described the border proposal as part of a broader move of physical AI and humanoid robots from factories and homes into conflict zones and other high-risk environments. The report also cited recent episodes of mass migration, including the invasion of the Spanish enclave of Ceuta by military-aged men, as examples of what it called weaponized migration flows. A DHS spokesperson told Fox News that the department “currently does not have any non-contractual agreements, pilots, or active prime contracts with Foundation.” The statement did not address whether demonstrations had occurred, and no formal arrangement has been announced.

Pathak says pilot could begin quickly

Pathak said a limited pilot could begin immediately and a larger deployment could follow within several months, according to the same report. He said the company is in conversations with “almost all national security government bodies,” including the Air Force, Navy, Army and DHS. The company is starting to negotiate contracts and applications for some of those bodies, he said.

In early March, Foundation co-founder Mike LeBlanc told TIME that the company is in “very close contact” with DHS regarding possible patrol deployments along the southern border, the report said. A separate summary of the TIME reporting said Foundation’s Phantom MK1 units were being evaluated for battlefield use while discussions about potential roles in U.S. border security continued [3].

Neither DHS nor Foundation has confirmed a timeline for those discussions. The border patrol proposal depends on robots operating in terrain that agencies currently monitor with personnel and equipment.

Keep reading

MSNOW Hosts Plead With Hasan Piker to Shut His Mouth and Stop Damaging Democrats

Hasan Piker recently appeared on MSNOW where he was sandwiched on screen between Symone Sanders and Eugene Daniels while Sanders pleaded with him to stop talking because he is hurting the Democrats’ chances in the midterms.

Take note of the fact that they’re not necessarily objecting to the things that he has said. They’re objecting to the fact that he keeps saying these things out loud and making the Democrats look bad.

It’s a very telling segment.

FOX News has details:

Far-left Twitch streamer Hasan Piker clashed with two MS NOW hosts on Wednesday on multiple issues, including his political influence and his anti-Israel stance, as Symone Sanders Townsend told the streamer point-blank she would be telling candidates she worked for to absolutely “disavow” him.

“I used to work campaigns, Hasan, and I have to tell you, if I was a strategist or a consultant or the political director on one of these campaigns, I would absolutely be telling my people to disavow you,” Sanders Townsend told Piker in an interview on her “Clock It” podcast, which she co-hosts with Eugene Daniels. “I really would, because we wanna win! We wanna win, and so, like, if you’re not gonna help people win, distance.”

Piker acknowledged the disagreement between them as Townsend continued, “I’ve elected people, though. You’ve never elected anybody.”…

Daniels pressed the Twitch streamer on whether he understood that it sounded like he was endorsing violence by making that argument.

“Do you understand that that’s how people hear it? And is that what you are endorsing?” Daniels asked.

“So this, again, goes back to the same — this goes back to the same dynamic, right?” Piker said. “Structural violence and state violence is oftentimes made to be invisible. So when Israel as a state is operating its normal state functions, and sometimes it can come across as excessive, right? It’s not seen as violent.”

Keep reading

Brussels Finally Admits Borders Matter

For years, anyone who dared to say that a nation must control its borders was treated as some dangerous nationalist. Now Ursula von der Leyen stood before the European Parliament and declared that “Europe needs the means to protect its borders at all times.” Brussels is proposing a new European Emergency Response Framework to deal with sudden mass migration, particularly when migration is “engineered and weaponised.” Apparently borders matter after all, but only when Brussels decides that they matter.

The announcement follows the extraordinary crisis in Ceuta this summer, when a mass movement across the border from Morocco forced EU interior ministers into an emergency meeting. Von der Leyen now says the new framework would operate under strictly defined circumstances and temporarily relax standard procedures so governments can respond faster. She also wants stronger external border management, faster returns, greater Frontex involvement, and improved cooperation with countries outside the EU. These are policies Europeans have demanded for years while being lectured that migration required solidarity, humanitarian obligations, and increasingly centralized European management.

What makes this even more remarkable is that the EU’s new Pact on Migration and Asylum only became fully applicable on June 12, 2026. Brussels called it a comprehensive solution that would finally provide secure external borders, faster asylum procedures, better returns, and a permanent solidarity system among member states. Barely three months later, von der Leyen is already saying Europe’s tools must “evolve” because the existing system is inadequate for emergencies.

Brussels now openly uses the term “weaponised” migration. Think about what that admission actually means. Human beings can be deliberately used as instruments of geopolitical pressure because European governments surrendered sufficient control over migration that adversaries recognized it as a vulnerability. Poland, Finland, Greece, Spain, Italy, and other frontier states have confronted different versions of this problem, yet Brussels spent years trying to impose a common political answer upon countries facing completely different geographic and security conditions.

The new migration pact goes even further by establishing a mandatory solidarity mechanism. The European Commission determines which member states are under migratory pressure and organizes support through a European solidarity pool, which can involve relocations or alternative contributions. Brussels presents this as burden sharing.

This is where the sovereignty problem becomes unavoidable. Hungary does not have the same migration politics as France. Poland does not have the same geography as Portugal. Italy and Greece confront Mediterranean migration routes that northern European states do not. Spain faces pressure through Ceuta and the Canary Islands. Yet Brussels continually responds to these radically different circumstances by creating a one-size-fits-all solution.

Keep reading

War, What Is It Good For?

I was almost six years old when the Korean War began and Korea was a mere 7,000 or so miles from Washington, D.C. I’m now 82 years old and my country is at war with Iran, whose capital, Tehran, is — phew! — only about 6,300 miles from Washington, D.C. What a relief!

By the time I’m 110, there’s a dim possibility that, should that be a pattern (and don’t forget Vietnam, a mere 9,000 miles from Washington; Afghanistan, a mere 7,000 miles away; or Iraq, a mere 6,000-odd miles offshore of the United States, all of which suggest that distance has indeed been a significant — and significantly unnerving — part of American imperial warmaking since 1945), the U.S. might be warring with a country merely 5,000-odd miles from our capital. And by the time I’m 126, the war of that moment might, for all I know, be right next door. (Of course, if Donald Trump, who would then be 124 years old, is still president, it might even be in Canada, “our cherished Fifty First State.”)

I should, in truth, be more used to my country’s distant wars by now. After all, I can still remember my opposition to the Vietnam War, a moment when I actually took to the streets and turned in my draft card in public protest — yes, back then, the military wasn’t an all-volunteer outfit — and also learned how to be a draft counselor to help potential draftees like me, who were against that all too literal war from hell.

Almost 60 years later, I find it strange that my country is once again fighting a distant war for reasons that, at best, make no sense whatsoever to me, and at worst are simply horrific and repetitive beyond belief. It’s a war that, as the New York Times reported, was essentially sold to the president by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as a “near-certain victory” against a weak Iranian regime that would prove incapable (no question about it!) of blockading the Strait of Hormuz, could do little harm to America’s allies in the Middle East, and “could foster the conditions for the Iranian opposition to overthrow the regime.”

Yes, it’s true that my country may indeed have been the most imperial — in the sense of influencing so much of the world — country in history with a truly global reach. Of course, there were also the other two great powers of the last half century. There was the Soviet Union — now, Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which, to give him credit of an unnerving sort, is at least fighting his nightmarish war against Ukraine right at or near its own border rather than in Asia, Africa, or Latin America. And then there is China, which has so far proven itself a remarkable imperial force by having but a single military base anywhere else on the planet — unlike the 750 American ones scattered around the globe — and not fighting a war anywhere other than not particularly successfully against Vietnam in 1979 and border skirmishes with India in 2020 and 2021 (which, historically speaking on this planet of ours, is almost the imperial equivalent of pacifism).

No such luck for the United States of Donald J. Trump, of course. “Our” latest president has continued a tradition now more than 75 years old of launching distant wars that simply never succeed. Never.

You would think, of course, that there might be some extremely modest learning curve when it came to such conflicts, but if so, you would think wrong. Logical as that might appear, it’s proven to be anything but the reality of our world. And after so many failed wars globally, that’s once again our reality in relation to Iran, despite the fact that “our” president in his first term in office offered this description of himself: “They said: ‘He will start a war.’ I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”

And curiously enough, with the exception of an ongoing conflict in Syria, he stuck to his… oh, sorry, but it is the phrase… guns then. No such luck recently, of course. And Iran is turning into a disaster first class, while the harm to that country is, as with all such wars (remember the millions killed in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia), or at least should be considered, unbearable. And mind you, while “our” president was turning our world into an ever greater mess at home and abroad, he was still planning to extend his renaming frenzy from the Gulf of Mexico (oh, sorry, the Gulf of America) and Lake Ontario (oh, sorry, again, Lake America) to the Strait of Hormuz, which he was hoping, believe it or not, could be renamed the “Trump Strait.” As he wrote at his Truth Social account, “Now that we have it under U.S.A. control, should we change the name Hormuz Strait to TRUMP STRAIT??? Like America itself, it would be ‘hotter’ than ever before! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

Imagine that, will you — not that the Strait of Whatever You Want to Call It was, in fact, faintly under American control.

Keep reading

“Dead To Rights”: Internal ActBlue Records Show Foreign-Flagged Donations Waved Through, Whistleblower Messages Deleted

For years, the left has lectured Americans about the dangers of “foreign interference” and dark money in our elections. But a sweeping congressional investigation has laid bare a vast Democratic fundraising apparatus that paved the way for just that: ActBlue, the billion-dollar financial engine of the Democratic Party, created a mechanism that encouraged illicit foreign cash – and then, investigators say, covered it up. Read on.

On Wednesday, House investigators released “Part III” of their bombshell investigation into ActBlue’s fundraising practices. The findings outline a staggering pattern of willful blindness, internal censorship, and a frantic race by executives to plead the Fifth.

Here is how the Democrats’ top fundraising platform built a system that welcomed very questionable cash, and how their own staff tried to bury the evidence.

Step 1: The “Smurfing” Machine

The scandal was officially brought to light in April 2025, when the House GOP released Part I of its staff report. Lawmakers detailed a structural nightmare: ActBlue had intentionally bypassed standard banking security measures, such as requiring CVV verification codes for credit card donations.

That gap is what made “smurfing” plausible – a money-laundering technique in which a large, illegal contribution is chopped into thousands of small donations, each attributed to a real person who, allegedly, never made it. The prepaid cards obscure where the money came from; the borrowed names make it look like a stream of legal small-dollar gifts from ordinary Americans. The donations themselves aren’t hidden – as a conduit, ActBlue itemizes every one in its FEC filings regardless of size, which is how the donor lists cited below were compiled. The question is whether anyone at ActBlue was checking whose names were being used.

The allegation itself predates the House probe. It surfaced in March 2023, when James O’Keefe’s O’Keefe Media Group – working from FEC-record analysis compiled by Peter Bernegger’s Election Watch – published videos of elderly donors listed in federal filings for thousands of small ActBlue contributions far beyond anything they said they’d given. Sen. Ron Johnson wrote the FEC in April 2023; Chairman Steil’s committee ran its own analysis of FEC records and in September 2024 referred its findings to five state attorneys general, citing anomalous donor profiles consistent with unwitting “straw donors”; President Trump’s April 2025 memorandum directed DOJ to investigate “straw” and “dummy” donations. ActBlue calls the inquiry politically motivated. The House reports don’t settle it. What they document is that ActBlue’s own records show at least 22 significant fraud campaigns, account takeovers used to make straw donations that appeared to come from regular donors, and 237 prepaid-card donations from foreign IP addresses in a single month before the 2024 election – and that when investigators asked former Associate General Counsel Aaron Ting under oath whether smurfing is prevalent on ActBlue, he took the Fifth.

Step 2: The Cover-Up and the Fifth Amendment

When ActBlue’s own legal and compliance teams realized the potential scale of illicit foreign donations flowing through the platform, panic set in. But instead of correcting the record with Congress, as its own lawyers advised, the execs allegedly moved to suppress the findings, as outlined in the committee’s Part II report.

Internal records show what happened to the last lawyer who escalated the foreign-donation problem. After the 2024 election, ActBlue’s outside counsel had warned the company in two memoranda that its screening of overseas contributions lacked the rigor it had described to Congress, and that its November 2023 letter to Chairman Steil may have been false or misleading. On February 25, 2025 – his first full day running the legal department – legal counsel Zain Ahmad put those memoranda in front of ActBlue’s board of directors and executive team.

The silencing began the next day. He was locked out of his email and Google Drive, against ActBlue’s own leave policy. When he objected in a 277-person IT channel – calling it retaliation and citing the company’s whistleblower and anti-retaliation policies – IT director Hanna Bonin deleted the messages as fast as he posted them: his request to restore access, his policy citations, the policies themselves, and finally his plea to “stop deleting my requests,” which vanished five seconds after it went up. Six deletions in one night. An HR staffer told the chief people officer it “look[ed] like blatant retaliation.” When his email came back the next day, HR was discussing how to “key in on him” using the company’s security tools.

Keep reading