The Cold War never fully thawed in this single-stoplight town, nestled in a county of fewer than 4,000 people that seems built for a populace twice its size. Empty storefronts tell that story of six decades ago, when the nuclear missiles moved in.

The weapons lie scattered beneath the high plains here – some a few miles from a school. Up to 400 of these intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, remain on alert in rural parts of the American West, ready to launch at the president’s call.

Some outsiders may see Kimball as a sacrifice. Rich Flores calls his community “patriotic.”

“The people here, in my opinion, believe that we have ‘peace through strength,’” says Mr. Flores, a county commissioner, echoing a line popularized by President Ronald Reagan. As he chats over coffee, an American flag pin glints from his chest. 

“Who wants to attack a country that’s strong?”

This is the logic of deterrence in a nutshell. Though the staggering cost of an upcoming missile upgrade in this region has ignited discussion about the necessity of America’s vast nuclear arsenal, the fact that the nation hasn’t used these weapons since World War II seems to deepen, for many, trust in their necessity.

But as global conflicts involving nuclear powers escalate, this trust is being tested. In Kimball and beyond, questions about America’s nuclear strategy – and how people feel about it – are taking on more urgency as concern about the likelihood of a nuclear attack is on the rise. 

Senior U.S. military officials describe the world’s nuclear landscape as “breathtaking” in its potential for escalation. The United States, they warn, is now on the verge of having not one but two nuclear “peer” adversaries, as the Department of Defense calls them. China’s rapid buildup of its nuclear forces means it could have at least as many ICBMs as either the U.S. or Russia by the decade’s end, analysts say. Russian President Vladimir Putin is expanding his nuclear arsenal and rattling these sabers toward the West in his war against Ukraine.

As a result, the U.S. now faces threats that it “did not anticipate and for which it is not prepared,” a bipartisan commission appointed by Congress concluded last autumn. 

While risk of a “major nuclear conflict remains low,” the nation needs to “urgently” prepare to take on adversaries who want to impose undemocratic values on the free world, according to the report. 

United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Federation of American Scientists | Jacob Turcotte/Staff

Part of that preparation will occur around Kimball, which is set to see nearby missile fields upgraded over the next decade with a new weapon system called Sentinel.

Advocates for nonproliferation say America has more than enough nuclear weapons to deter opponents. Their imperative, rather, is reopening communication lines – laying the groundwork for lapsing or nonexistent arms control agreements – to restore a sense of safety and trust in what can seem like a precarious time. And some see promising developments along these lines.

“One of the most important things that we can do is to head off unconstrained nuclear competition between the U.S., Russia, and China,” says Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. 

“Taboos against nuclear weapons still exist,” he adds, “and each generation needs to ensure they’re not broken.”

Mark Schiefelbein/AP/File

Chinese military vehicles carrying DF-41 ballistic missiles roll during a parade to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the founding of communist China in Beijing, Oct. 1, 2019.

American trust in nuclear weapons 

In the nearly 80 years since the U.S. dropped the only two nuclear weapons ever used in war, movements to abolish or champion nukes have ebbed and flowed. 

Currently, Americans grapple with mixed views about the country’s nuclear weapons. A Chicago Council-Carnegie Corporation survey last year showed that 47% of U.S. adults believe the nuclear arsenal makes the U.S. safer. (Older adults are more likely than younger adults to say this.)

Moreover, China and Russia aren’t the only countries that worry Americans, who rank the development of nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea as two of the top three “critical threats” to the U.S., according to Gallup. 

As U.S. leaders face a public that’s conflicted about trusting in deterrence, better communicating the country’s nuclear capabilities, some say, could help. 

Nuclear nonchalance or confidence?

Retired Gen. John Hyten, who had been serving as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since 2019, recalls receiving a July 2021 phone call “so important that I went running to” the chairman and the secretary of defense after hanging up.

Nati Harnik/AP/File

Air Force Gen. John Hyten speaks during a change of command ceremony at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, Nov. 18, 2019. Now retired, he is a former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command.

It was top-secret news of “the most significant launch that had happened during my lifetime”: a Chinese hypersonic missile designed to elude U.S. detection systems and potentially be used as a first-strike weapon in a nuclear war. 

It threatened the land-based leg of the U.S. nuclear triad, which is composed of ICBMs, like those kept around Kimball, as well as stealth bombers and nuclear-armed submarines.

General Hyten spent the last three months of his tenure working to get news of China’s hypersonic missile declassified, he said in a February discussion at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.

In November 2021, he got the Pentagon green light to air his concerns on CBS News. The sense after the broadcast was that it was going to “create a ruckus in this country like nobody’s seen before,” he recalled. “And like three days later, it had disappeared from the news.” 

He grapples with nuclear nonchalance in America, but admires the general trust that citizens seem to have in the government’s ability to keep them safe. 

“You know, I actually want to be the citizen of a country where people ... don’t worry about this stuff. They go to bed at night, and they sleep like babies,” he said. “But somebody’s got to think about it.” 

Feeling like a target 

As a high school social studies teacher in Kimball, Jeri Ferguson is one of those people who thinks about the question of trust in nuclear arms. She recalls safety-in-numbers logic that could evoke either confidence or unease during the Cold War. 

“I was in my car, driving in college, and with the radio on: ‘Russia has enough nuclear weapons to kill us four times over. But we have enough to kill them 10 times over,’” she recalls. “I remember thinking, ‘Once is probably enough for me!’”

On a recent afternoon, Ms. Ferguson began a unit on that history with a class of seven juniors.

“What do you think the Cold War was about?” she asks the group. “Global warming?” 

Sarah Matusek/The Christian Science Monitor

Jeri Ferguson, a high school social studies teacher, starts a unit on the Cold War with her class of juniors in Kimball, Nebraska, April 19, 2024.

No, the class groans, and volleys back more jokes. It was about “power,” says a boy. “During the winter!”

The teacher turns the focus closer to home – the Sentinel upgrade that could swell the local population with workers. The class seems vaguely aware of the missile silos scattered across the county.

“If there’s a nuclear war, guess where the first bombs are coming?” 

“Us,” a student says. The jokes hit pause.

Restoring transparency – and talking to each other  

The renewed conversation about nuclear arms in America points to a tension between the fear these devastating weapons inspire and the belief that the country wouldn’t be safe without them. 

These are concerns that hint at the importance of bolstering transparency and communication to build trust not just in the weapons but among humans, too.

The global nuclear stockpile has declined significantly since the Cold War, from roughly 70,300 warheads in 1986 to some 12,100 in 2024, the Federation of American Scientists estimates. But most of these reductions happened in the 1990s. Since then, the pace has slowed.

Transparency is also on the decline. While the U.S. used to make its stockpile size public, this stopped under the Trump presidency. The Biden administration restored these disclosures at first, but then suspended them again. 

While it’s difficult to know precise reasons the government is now refusing declassification requests, it may be that the transparency is politically difficult to justify given Russian and Chinese opacity, says Matt Korda, senior research fellow in the Nuclear Information Project at the federation. 

The State Department, in a written response to the Monitor, said that declassification “does not occur on a planned calendar” and that the “value of transparency and its contributions to stability is increased when OTHER states take parallel steps.”

That said, a State Department official added on background that the U.S. “continues to view transparency among nuclear weapon states as extremely valuable for purposes of building confidence, avoiding misperception, and encouraging dialogue that can help mitigate the risk of costly arms competitions.”

Transparency, in other words, can be diplomatically productive. Exposing Chinese officials to complex internal U.S. policy debates could help catalyze China’s internal discussions, says Tong Zhao, senior fellow with the Nuclear Policy Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Charlie Riedel/AP/File

An ICBM launch site is located among fields in the countryside outside Minot, North Dakota.

There are movements on this front. At a summit last November, U.S. and Chinese diplomats discussed whether states are at risk of ceding too much nuclear oversight to artificial intelligence systems. Though no agreements came of it, China’s willingness to discuss high-level principles of conduct could potentially be a productive wedge issue into other discussions, Dr. Zhao adds.

Russia for now appears to be stiff-arming the idea of nonproliferation talks with Washington, citing U.S. support for Ukraine, even as the sole remaining arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia – the New START Treaty – will expire in February 2026.

The prospects for treaty renewal look remote for now, but surprising breakthroughs have emerged before. Even after President Reagan called the USSR an “evil empire,” for example, the two nations in 1985 agreed that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” notes Dan Smith, director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Though straightforward, this sentence was considered a landmark declaration, and Russia, China, the U.S., France, and the United Kingdom reaffirmed it in 2022. Beyond being a hopeful signal, these sorts of statements “actually inform the thinking” of governments, Mr. Smith adds.  

“Keep engagement alive” 

At the same time, these governments are wrestling with the prospect of increasing U.S. isolationism, which many analysts point to as one of the most troubling deterrence trends. 

The possibility of a Trump presidency, for example, is prompting European allies, who benefit from America’s nuclear umbrella, to question whether it will hold – or whether they should pursue their own nuclear programs. 

It doesn’t help that Ukraine, which voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is now bearing the brunt of as yet unsated Russian aggression.

Countering isolationist inclinations will mean renewed civic education, cultural dialogue of the sort that emerged in wake of the recent “Oppenheimer” film, and more, says William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. 

In places like Kimball, there’s less opportunity for disengagement. 

Student Jessica Terrill says she’s used to seeing missile silos, like one near her aunt’s house. 

“That’s definitely kind of scary sometimes,” says the high school senior. “It’s like, oh man. If those go off, we’re going to know.”

When asked what issues are top of mind as they prepare to vote in their first presidential election this November, Cassidy Mazyck and Alexia McNamara, students at Virginia Commonwealth University, list several. 

“Probably guns and women’s rights. Abortion is a huge one,” says Ms. Mazyck, who is studying clinical radiation science.

“I would say jobs or women’s rights,” says Ms. McNamara, an information systems major.

“Oh, and student loans for sure,” adds Ms. Mazyck. 

Neither mentions the Middle East.

The omission seems striking – given that they are sitting on yellow Adirondack chairs less than 40 feet away from the university’s “liberation zone,” where a group of their peers is loudly pounding on bucket drums and chanting slogans like “Israel is a racist state!” and “Biden, Biden you will see, Palestine will be free!” Later that evening, the protest would turn violent, with police using tear gas to clear the encampment and protesters throwing objects at officers. Several arrests were made.

As colleges and universities across the United States continue to grapple with student protests over Israel’s controversial military campaign in Gaza, it is raising new questions about whether President Joe Biden will pay a price at the ballot box among young people, a key voting bloc for Democrats. In remarks from the White House Thursday morning, Mr. Biden said he supported peaceful protest but not violence, intimidation, or “chaos.” Asked if the demonstrations on campuses had caused him to reconsider U.S. policy in the region, he responded, “No.” 

Story Hinckley/The Christian Science Monitor

Cassidy Mazyck (left) and Alexia McNamara, both students at Virginia Commonwealth University, cite the economy and women's rights as some of the issues that will drive their vote this November. But not the conflict in the Middle East.

Certainly, some students upset about Israel and Gaza might decide to stay home or cast a protest vote against Mr. Biden – and in a close election, even a small loss of support can hurt. 

Yet for all the passions currently on display, polling suggests the Middle East is not the determining issue for most young people that headlines make it out to be. Indeed, when it comes to political priorities, the younger generation isn’t all that different from older ones: They’re mostly focused on the economy.

Nearly one-third of voters between the ages of 18 and 29 rank the economy as their primary concern, according to a Harvard Institute of Politics poll released last month. That’s compared with only 2% who rank the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first. A majority of young voters also say they don’t follow national politics closely, and nearly three-quarters don’t consider themselves politically engaged or politically active. 

“The loudest voices aren’t usually representative of where the majority of folks are, even within one generation,” says Stefan Hankin, a Democratic pollster. With Election Day still six months away, he adds, there’s plenty of time for any number of issues to rise to the surface or fall away. “What exactly is going to be driving people come November is a big question mark.”

Overall, Americans’ interest in the Middle East has actually been declining, according to data from Mr. Hankin’s Trendency Research. And no generation has seen a greater drop-off than Generation Z, 64% of whose members reported paying attention to the Israeli-Palestinian issue in October, but only 38% of whom were paying attention come March.

Among those who are closely following it, however, most have grown increasingly critical of Israel’s actions.   

In the shadow of Virginia Commonwealth University’s library on Monday, about 50 young people, several wearing keffiyehs, march in a circle while a young woman leads call-and-response chants over a megaphone. Organizers pass out sunscreen and Gatorade beneath signs that read “Freedom by any means” and “From the river to the sea.” Like many protesters on other campuses across the country, these VCU students are demanding their school divest from companies with ties to Israel. 

Story Hinckley/The Christian Science Monitor

Isabelle Cofield, a student at Virginia Commonwealth University, says the Middle East is her primary political concern ahead of November's election.

“There’s just so much funding for Israel, and that goes to the bomb strikes,” says Isabelle Cofield, a medical science student who has joined the demonstration and credits social media for “helping spread the issue” among her generation. When asked whom she plans to vote for in November, Ms. Cofield groans and says she’s unsure who will be the “lesser of two evils.”

This uncertainty was shared by many protesters and bystanders alike on VCU’s campus – regardless of their opinions on the situation in the Middle East. Almost a dozen students tell the Monitor they plan to vote in the presidential election this fall, but they’re not sure for whom.

Niya Shorts, for example, a criminal justice student who’s studying in the spring sunshine a few blocks from the protest, says she’s most concerned about affordable schooling, housing, and gun control. But she says she plans to “look again” at both Mr. Biden and former President Donald Trump before making a decision.

Many young people just aren’t focused on politics right now, says Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, director of Tufts University’s CIRCLE, which studies youth civic engagement. “The peak of registration and mobilization for young people is much later, more towards the end of the summer.” 

Still, some students say the situation in Gaza will absolutely influence their vote. Sareen Haddad, a Palestinian psychology student leading VCU’s protest, says that she and many of her peers plan either to not vote or to cast ballots for third-party candidates like the Green Party’s Jill Stein, who was arrested this week at a pro-Palestinian protest on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis.  

“For anybody who currently is in a position of power that is not calling for an immediate cease-fire, supporting humanitarian aid into Gaza, and also defunding the Israeli military, the support from my generation, at least, plummets completely,” says Ms. Haddad. “I can tell you for sure that anybody who supports the Palestinian cause is not for Biden – and anybody who supports the Palestinian cause and has a heart is not for Trump, either.”

Liesa Johannssen/Reuters

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (at right) and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Mr. Sunak has pledged to spend 2.5% of Britain’s GDP on defense, above the NATO target.

Two words – stark, sober words – sum up a dramatic mood swing in Europe that could redefine, and ultimately loosen, the Continent’s decades-old alliance with the United States.

War footing.

That phrase, voiced most recently by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in a speech last week, is especially significant because it is such a jarring departure from Europe’s long-settled economic credo.

For years, the refrain heard in European capitals has been the post-Cold War “peace dividend” – the leeway governments found they had to slash defense spending and invest more money in domestic economic and social priorities instead.

Today, Mr. Sunak is only one of a growing number of European leaders to have concluded that the days of the “peace dividend” are over, and that Europe needs to spend more – much more – on its defense.

And while they’re aware of how politically and practically daunting that goal is, they clearly feel a growing sense of urgency.

That’s because of two increasingly unsettling security concerns, one to the east, the other to the west.

The more immediate threat is Russia’s full-scale war of subjugation against Ukraine.

But there is another, longer-range worry: that, whoever wins this November’s U.S. presidential election, Europe cannot necessarily keep relying on America to be the superpower guarantor of the Continent’s security.

Both these fears have sharpened in recent weeks.

In Ukraine, Russian forces have been intensifying their attacks and begun making advances.

And in Washington, even as the Ukrainians found themselves running short of artillery shells, it took months for the Biden administration to overcome opposition from House Republicans and secure some $60 billion in desperately needed military aid for Kyiv.

Russian Defense Ministry Press Service /AP

Russian army soldiers ride their armored vehicle to take positions and fire toward Ukrainian forces at an undisclosed location in Ukraine.

European countries did try to fill the gap.

Indeed, in a letter to European Union leaders ahead of a summit six weeks ago, it was the president of the bloc’s ministerial council, Charles Michel, who first raised the call for “a paradigm shift” in Europe’s defense thinking.

“It is high time that we take radical and concrete steps,” he told them, “to be defense-ready, and put the EU’s economy on a war footing.”

The EU went on to approve more than $5 billion of additional military aid to Ukraine, and began trying to buy up all available artillery shells from other countries. But European leaders know that they simply do not have a big enough defense industry, nor large enough arms stockpiles, to come anywhere near taking over Washington’s critical role.

A more profound shift in economic priorities is clearly going to be necessary for that to become possible, especially among Europe’s main economic and military powers.

That is one reason Mr. Sunak’s comments were especially significant.

Countries on Europe’s eastern fringe, closest to Russia – such as Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states – have never needed convincing of the need to ratchet up defense investment.

Yet that message has taken considerably longer to resonate in countries further west, especially in Europe’s leading economic powerhouse, Germany, and in its main military powers, Britain and France.

Mr. Sunak, speaking in Poland with the secretary-general of the NATO alliance also in attendance, announced plans to increase Britain’s defense spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product – above the decade-old NATO target of 2%.

He urged Europe’s other NATO members to make that their new minimum, too.

Three days later, French President Emmanuel Macron also weighed in on the need for Europe to revitalize its defense industries. Emphasizing the importance of preventing Russia from prevailing in Ukraine, he said the EU should deploy its shared economic resources to ramp up arms production.

Paul Sancya/AP

Donald Trump has vowed to refuse to offer U.S. aid to a threatened NATO ally if that country does not spend 2% of its GDP on defense.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, in a social media post, responded: “France and Germany want Europe to be strong. Your speech contains good ideas on how we can achieve this.”

Still, while most European countries have begun spending more money on defense since the start of the Ukraine war, putting the Continent on a real “war footing” would be a huge and difficult undertaking.

One obvious challenge is the old economics textbook choice: guns or butter?

Europe’s economies are still stuttering from multiple jolts: the 2008 world financial crisis, the pandemic, and the Russia-Ukraine war. More funds for defense would inevitably mean fewer funds for already cash-strained domestic priorities.

The scale of spending needed is enormous. Most of NATO’s European members have met, or are getting close to meeting, the old 2% target. But, beyond the eastern countries nearest to Russia, very few are within reach of Mr. Sunak’s proposed higher benchmark.

His hope, Mr. Macron’s hope, and that of a growing number of other European leaders, is that voters will quickly learn the lessons of years of underinvestment in defense.

And that’s a message that would resonate with one of Mr. Sunak’s predecessors, the prime minister who first coined the idea of a “peace dividend,” along with then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush.

Speaking in 1991, shortly after losing office, Margaret Thatcher told a luncheon honoring her in Washington, “The only real peace dividend is, quite simply, peace.”

And how had her generation come to enjoy it? “Because of the investment of billions of dollars and pounds in defense.”

The 2.9 million airline passengers who take to the American skies every day are increasingly grumpy as they face delays, cancellations, and ever-higher fees for things that were once free. The reasons are complex, but when it comes to delays, a key issue is the growing strain on the air traffic control system responsible for preventing collisions among 45,000 daily flights.

Since President Ronald Reagan fired most of the controllers in the United States during a 1981 strike, understaffing has been a challenge. Today controllers are also handling a more complex airspace, including more drones and rocket launches. And they’re doing it without top technology. All but seven U.S. airports, for example, track flights with paper strips rather than with an electronic system – a system Canada has used for more than two decades.

A series of near misses last year – including a FedEx plane nearly landing on top of a Southwest plane taking off in Austin, Texas, after both were cleared by the same controller – has prompted a deeper look. A federal safety review team devoted more than a third of its November report to bolstering the strained air traffic control system. 

Officials insist that the skies are still safe overall. But maintaining safety can come at customers’ expense. For example, overburdened controllers may spread out planes further and extend the time between each landing on a given runway, resulting in delays.

The staffing and technology constraints are partly Congress’ fault. Missed budget deadlines and government shutdowns have made it tough for the Federal Aviation Administration to plan ahead. Now there’s a once-in-five-years opportunity to address air traffic control issues as Congress reviews FAA spending priorities for 2024-28. 

The House and Senate committees that oversee the agency both approved bipartisan FAA reauthorization bills that include measures to address the air traffic control shortages and technological hurdles. But neither fully addresses the chronic underfunding and its effects. After missing an Oct. 1, 2023, deadline, Congress must vote on both bills before the current temporary funding expires on May 10.

“Reauthorization is extremely important in providing a level of stability, so that’s a good thing,” says Michael Huerta, the former administrator of the FAA and chair of the safety review team behind last November’s report. “But more needs to be done, and we’re really encouraging the administration and the Congress to look more broadly at what the long-term needs of the agency are and how best to address them.” 

Struggle to recruit, retain controllers

When Jeffrey Thompson was 18 years old, an Air Force recruiter lent him a DVD of “Pushing Tin,” starring John Cusack as an air traffic controller, and convinced Mr. Thompson to be one himself. 

“ATC saved my life,” says Mr. Thompson. “It helped me create a life and destroy generational curses.”

After years with the military overseas, he was hired as an air traffic controller at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport just as all the controllers brought on after the Reagan-era purge were retiring. 

Cliff Owen/AP/File

FAA air traffic controllers work at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, Sept. 27, 2016. Overworking controllers can increase the stress of an already intensely stressful job.

“People weren’t certifying in air traffic control fast enough,” he says, adding that the FAA fast-tracked people who weren’t necessarily ready. He also saw inexperienced controllers not getting critical mentoring.

Confronted by such understaffing and a “good old boy” culture that didn’t feel welcoming to him as a Black man, Mr. Thompson left to pursue a different career in 2018.

The November report called for a review of the culture and training atmosphere at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma to determine whether they were deterring candidates who could succeed.

The FAA also faces a class action lawsuit alleging that during the Obama administration it sidelined more than 2,000 qualified applicants, who had already passed an assessment test, in an overhaul of the hiring process designed to increase racial diversity among air traffic controllers.

This year the agency plans to hire 1,800 controllers – 300 more than last year – and is filling every seat at the academy. It began allowing qualified graduates from collegiate air traffic control programs to skip the academy and go straight to a facility. It is also accelerating hiring of military controllers, and using modernized simulators to train new hires more efficiently. 

But only about 70% of candidates pass the academy certification tests. And many people are leaving the field. According to the safety review report, the FAA hiring plan will yield a net increase of fewer than 200 controllers by 2032.

The Department of Transportation’s inspector general found last summer that 3 in 4 critical airports are understaffed. At the bottom of the list was a New York facility (N90) that is staffed at only 54% and has only eight operational supervisors out of the 30 authorized.

Three-quarters of all delays in the U.S. occur because of delays around New York City, a particularly complex and congested airspace, according to the FAA. In the summer of 2022, Reuters reported, more than 40,000 flights were delayed due at least in part to air traffic control understaffing. As a result of such understaffing, last year airlines reduced by 10% the number of flights they were offering into New York – a cut that is still in effect.

Fewer controllers means more flights each controller has to track when others are on the required breaks. It also means more overtime shifts. While the additional pay is attractive, it can lead to mistakes – and burnout. “They’re wearing the controllers out,” says a recently retired controller and local union representative. “When you keep running the system at a bare minimum, something’s going to break.” 

Overworking controllers can increase the stress of an already intensely stressful job. And the controllers are acutely aware of the high stakes. “You can’t make mistakes,” says the retired controller.

Serious runway incursions or near misses remain rare. In the past fiscal year, there were only 23 out of 54.4 million flights, and only about a fifth of those were due to controllers’ actions or inaction. However, that marked a 44% increase over the previous year.

Aging technology

One way to minimize safety issues is improved technology that alerts controllers and gives them more situational awareness. But there’s a long way to go.

The switch from paper flight-tracking strips to electronic ones at 49 U.S. airports is scheduled to take another five years. A hazard-alert system known as NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) failed last year, causing the first nationwide shutdown of U.S. airspace since 9/11. And most instrument landing systems, which guide airplanes on their final approach to the runway, are more than 25 years old. Air traffic control towers are 40 years old on average.

“It’s not functioning the way a major utility ought to function,” says Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank, noting that other countries are far ahead of the U.S.

The Senate’s new FAA reauthorization bill proposes $18 billion to upgrade NOTAM and expand technology aimed at preventing runway collisions from 43 airports to all large and midsize airports. Another improvement under way is transitioning from radar to GPS so that air traffic controllers have a more precise picture of a plane’s whereabouts.

“It’s like going from an impressionist painting to HDTV,” says Mr. Huerta, the former FAA head.

Such technological investments have been hampered partly by the expense of maintaining legacy systems, many of which are too old for manufacturer support and replacement parts. That’s partly because the five-year funding cycle limits long-term planning and investments. 

“There is quite a lot of pressure on the FAA to do its mission with years of not funding it the proper way,” says Patricia Gilbert, a veteran air traffic controller who was the executive vice president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association from 2009 to 2021 and a co-author of the November 2023 safety review report. 

“And it’s not all Congress,” she adds, noting that administrations have limited needed investments at FAA in favor of other funding priorities.  

President Joe Biden’s 2025 proposed budget increases the FAA’s funding by 10% and includes $43 million for controller hiring and training. But first, Congress has to pass the 2024 FAA reauthorization – more than seven months late.

Reuters

Demonstrators hold a protest against a bill on "foreign agents" in Tbilisi, Georgia, May 2.

Since it invaded Ukraine more than two years ago, Russia has become more open about its goal to piece back together the states of the fallen Soviet empire. Reactions to this Humpty Dumpty project have brought arms to Ukraine and sanctions on Russia’s economy. It has also brought an offer of protection to several former Soviet states – a chance to join the European Union and enjoy the shield of a community abiding by democratic values.

On Wednesday, one such former Soviet state, Georgia, saw the largest street protests yet against a legislative bill that, if passed by the ruling party, could derail EU membership. The bill has vague provisions that would curtail the work of civil society and news outlets if such groups receive more than 20% of their funding from abroad.

A similar measure in Russia has been used since 2012 to silence political opposition. The former Soviet state Kyrgyzstan has followed Moscow’s example while Kazakhstan is weighing it. A similar measure in Hungary, an EU member, was nullified by the European Court of Justice.

It is unclear if Russia is behind the Georgia bill. But the de facto leader of the ruling Georgian Dream party, Bidzina Ivanishvili, is a billionaire who made his fortune in Russia. What is clear is that his party is worried about losing power in elections this October if journalists and civic activists keep exposing government corruption, interference in the courts, and other erosions of the rule of law.

This week’s harsh crackdown on protesters – whose numbers reached more than 100,000 – hints at the party’s attempt to hold on to power or, at the least, create social polarization. On Tuesday, President Salome Zourabichvili, whose post is largely ceremonial, said the police crackdown was “totally unwarranted, unprovoked and out of proportion.” She is a former member of Georgian Dream who left as the party drifted toward authoritarian ways.

Polls show that some 80% of Georgians support EU membership and the reforms required to achieve it. Aligning the country with European values is widely seen as a safeguard against Russia. The war in Ukraine is not the only front to uphold national sovereignty and personal liberties.