U.S. Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bombers departed from RAF Fairford in the U.K. today, marking the end of a deployment to support the war against Iran. The flights come as the U.S. and Iran are still working toward a peace deal amid a shaky ceasefire occasionally marred by flare-ups of tit-for-tat attacks. However, there has been no mass bombardment of Iran since the April 8 ceasefire. The departure was captured in video and still images by local aviation photographers, two of whom shared their work with us. Andy Riddle told us that six B-52s left RAF Fairford today in two waves of three. The first left at 10:15 a.m. local time and the second at about 2:20 p.m., noted Riddle, whose work can be found on his @Andyyyyrrrr X account. As we noted at the time, at least three of the bombers arrived at Fairford on March 8. It’s unclear when the others arrived. Both U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) declined comment.

In our previous reporting, we pointed out that during their time at Fairford, the B-52s operated at a high tempo, striking targets inside Iran. All told, the U.S. claims it struck 13,000 targets, though there is no way for us to know how many involved B-52s from Fairford. You can see one of those jets leaded with stealthy JASSM cruise missiles in a photo shared with us by another local aviation photographer, who uses the @Saint1Mil X account. Meanwhile, a dozen B-1 Lancer bombers remain at the base, according to @Saint1Mil. Since the military won’t comment, we can’t say for sure why the BUFFs left Fairford, but the move comes after both the U.S. and Iran promised to hold off on further tit-for-tat strikes after the latest round that threatened the fragile ceasefire. The flights also took place on a day when the U.S. and Iran concluded a round of indirect talks. However, there were no signs that the parties made headway toward a lasting peace. Instead, they focused “on issues that they had supposedly resolved two weeks ago,” Reuters reported. “Sources said negotiators for the two countries spent two days in Doha discussing maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and financial incentives for Iran, two pillars of the initial agreement ​they signed in June, rather than more difficult topics that framework was supposed to tee up.” The most difficult of these are the future of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its stockpile of enriched uranium.

Despite the ongoing talks, President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to resume bombing Iran. He also has “weighed a return to all-out war with Iran, holding multiple conversations in recent days with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine on more strikes, but has decided to stick with diplomatic talks for now,” The Wall Street Journal reported, citing U.S. officials familiar with the discussion. The departure of the B-52s won’t preclude Trump from ordering a new round of strategic aviation attacks. Aside from the remaining B-1s, the Air Force can launch B-52s, as well as B-2 and B-1 bombers from the U.S. to strike Iran as it did during Epic Fury. However, having the B-52s stationed at a base like Fairford much closer to the action helps to cut down on flight times, wear and tear on the aircraft and crews, and increases the generation of sorties. As we have frequently reported, given that the U.S. began building up forces in the region in January, many of the ships, aircraft and troops will have to ‘retrograde’ out of the CENTCOM area of responsibility in the coming weeks and months. We’ve already seen aircraft like A-10 Thunderbolt II close attack jets, F-22s, F-15Es and other assets return from the region. As a result, the future of the American footprint there remains a question mark even as negotiations continue. Reinstating a large force once it has been even partially drawn down, assuming there is the will to do so, would take time and would put extreme stress on a force structure that has seen constant surges of deployments over the last year.

US troops could receive new weapons and tech with “undocumented shortfalls” after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reshaped a key Pentagon testing office last year by cutting nearly 100 civilian posts and leaving more work those who remain, according to a new government watchdog report. “The staff reductions since May 2025 constrain the depth and breadth of oversight that DOT&E [Director, Operational Test and Evaluation] can provide for DOD’s weapon systems,” said a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today. This includes oversight of major defense acquisition programs and others, such as middle tier of acquisition programs—a growing area within DOD,” the GAO said, referencing the Pentagon’s streamlined framework to rapidly develop and field new capabilities by bypassing traditional acquisition processes. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to Breaking Defense’s questions about today’s report.

GAO’s findings come just over a year after Hegseth inked a memo that reshaped the entire DOT&E office. At the time, he estimated that the changes would save $300 million per year, cut “bureaucratic overhead” and drive “greater efficiency.” The DOT&E office reorganization was intended to “support of an America First defense strategy,” Hegseth wrote at the time. “A comprehensive internal review has identified redundant, non-essential, non-statutory functions within [the office] that do not support operational agility or resource efficiency, affecting our ability to rapidly and effectively deploy the best systems to the warfighter.” GAO said that memo set off a cascade of second- and third-order consequences. Some DOT&E leaders were dual-hatted and given two jobs. The civilian workforce shrunk from 126 positions — of which 106 were filled at the time — down to 30. And the cuts reduced the number of “action officers” tasked with assessing weapons programs for flaws. “According to DOT&E Action Officers, the significant workforce reductions resulted in them being assigned more programs, programs in warfare areas for which they lack subject matter expertise, or both,” the government watchdog said. “They also said the workforce reductions and resulting loss of subject matter expertise increase the risk of weapon systems being delivered to the warfighters with undocumented operational shortfalls,” the GAO added, noting that expertise gaps in key fields like electronic warfare emerged.

As the DOT&E staff shrunk, so did the list of weapons programs the office was charged with overseeing. In May 2025, for example, 173 weapons were on the office’s oversight list, but 90 programs were removed after Hegseth’s order, according to the GAO. Reasons given for removal ranged from program cancellations, to program mergers, to an internal decision that oversight was no longer needed, the GAO said, citing information from employees. The GAO report does not include comments from the Pentagon but notes that DOT&E is conducting an analysis of its workforce and workload in response to a congressional inquiry. Established by Congress in 1983, DOT&E’s job, in part, is to produce an annual report updating lawmakers about the progress and challenges facing multi-million and multi-billion dollar weapon development programs. It also serves as an advisor to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

Poland won’t transfer additional MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters to Ukraine because Kyiv won’t provide drone production technology information, the country’s defense minister and deputy prime minister said. The move represents a pivot from policies of the previous Polish government and comes amid worsening relations between Kyiv and Warsaw. As we have previously reported, under former President Andrzej Duda, Poland donated 14 of its MiG-29s to Ukraine, becoming the first country to commit to supplying combat jets to Kyiv. However, under new Polish President Karol Nawrocki, who was elected last August, the country is now seeking something tangible in return for the Fulcrums. “I proposed what I believe was a very partnership-based approach. MiGs in exchange for drones,” Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, who serves as defense minister and deputy prime minister, told the Polish Polsat News outlet. “The Ukrainians initially agreed, but they did not honor this arrangement, so there will be no MiGs for Ukraine because Poland does not have drones or the capability to use them.” TWZ cannot independently confirm the Polish defense minister’s claims.

The Polish defense minister lauded Ukraine’s defense technology. “Ukraine has such significant capabilities in the field of drones that, in return for the military equipment it has received, it could have shared its know-how with Poland and provided partial access to its technologies,” he said. Kosiniak-Kamysz added that he was not criticizing the previous administration’s policies toward Ukraine. “I’m not going to bash them over this issue; that’s far from my intention,” he told Polsat. “They did the right thing—in fact, I’d go further: I would have done the same. They acted correctly, and Ukraine was in a much more difficult situation back then.” The Polish move echoes U.S. President Donald Trump’s stance on Ukraine and the NATO alliance writ large. The American leader has frequently criticized the Biden administration for giving Ukraine military aid with no compensation and NATO for not doing enough to pay for its own defense.

Kosiniak-Kamysz’s pronouncement about halting the Fulcrum transfer follows Nawrocki’s confirmation last December that Poland would transfer the additional MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine in exchange for counter-drone systems. “After the unnecessary and unclear public uproar surrounding this issue—unfortunately, public opinion has been somewhat misinformed about this matter—we are seeking a symmetrical strategic partnership,” Nawrocki said during a press conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. “This exchange of MiGs for anti-drone systems does not contradict our policy.” It is unclear exactly what drone technology Poland was seeking or what Ukraine refused to provide. Ukraine has yet to comment on the matter. However, Kosiniak-Kamysz’s comments come as Polish-Ukrainian relations are spiraling downward. Earlier this month, Nawrocki stripped Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle, Warsaw’s top award, escalating a row between the allies over the memory of WWII. “Zelensky had infuriated Warsaw this month by naming a military unit after an insurgent army that took part in massacres against Poles in WWII,” AFP reported.

For much of this conflict, Poland has been one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies, serving as a logistics hub and providing military assistance. As we noted earlier in this story, Poland’s initial donation of MiG-29s opened the door for the transfer of dozens of others from several NATO nations. That was followed by the eventual provision of F-16 Vipers and later French Mirage 2000 fighters. Despite receiving more modern fighters: “Zelensky has noted that Ukraine requires MiG-29 aircraft because its pilots are already trained to operate them,” according to the Ukrainian United24 media outlet. “He added that transitioning to F-16 fighters requires lengthy retraining, temporarily reducing combat readiness, whereas MiG-29s would allow Ukraine to maintain operational air capabilities more immediately.” Regardless of the type, Ukraine has a great need for more combat jets. Its air force has lost at least 88 of various kinds since the start of the war, according to the Oryx open-source tracking group. Those figures are likely higher because Oryx only tabulates losses for which it has visual proof. The list includes at least 38 MiG-29s, 20 Su-27 Flankers, four F-16s and a Mirage. Ukraine lost two more aircraft in recent days. A MiG-29 Fulcrum went down during a nighttime combat mission in the central Poltava region on June 27, the Ukrainian Air Force reported, according to the Kyiv Post. Earlier this month, a Su-24M bomber crashed, resulting in the deaths of both crew members, the newspaper noted.

Meanwhile, as the Ukraine-Poland spat simmers, Kyiv has inked a number of deals to share defense technology with Arab states in the wake of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Tehran has struck several Arab nations with missiles and drones in response to Operation Epic Fury, and they in turn reached out to Ukraine, which has gained air defense expertise after battling waves of Russian attacks for more than four years. Earlier this week, Ukraine and Kuwait signed a bilateral defense cooperation agreement paving the way for joint defense projects, military-technical cooperation, and collaboration between the two countries’ defense industries. As we noted in a prior story, during a tour of the Middle East earlier this year, Zelensky said he inked defense cooperation agreements with Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar, and had discussions with Jordan. It is unclear how much these deals affected Poland’s MiG-29 decision, if at all. Nor is it known if there will be a cascading fallout on other drone deals Zelensky is trying to engineer with the U.S. and other nations. Regardless, while an additional 14 Fulcrums won’t change the course of the war for Ukraine, Poland’s refusal to provide them is another sign that a once-close relationship is now troubled.

A point of particular focus will be the aerial display, which is scheduled to include a full 98 fixed-wing aircraft this year, up from 65 in 2025. Front and center - quite literally - will be France’s most important partners on the European continent. According to the latest plans, the aerial parade will begin with nine French Alphajet jet trainers of the Patrouille de France flanked by two Ukrainian Mirage 2000B fighter jets. Immediately after will be a formation of two French Rafale jets - one of them from the nuclear forces, or Forces Aériennes Stratégiques - flanked by four key European partners’ air forces: German, Greek, British and Swedish fighter jets. An earlier version of the government’s envisioned lineup indicated that Berlin would send a Eurofighter, Sweden a Gripen, the UK an F-35 and Greece an F-4 to the parade. The most recent version does not specify the aircraft types. The symbolism is particularly significant for this formation, since all four countries have signed up to some variation of France’s promised forward nuclear deterrence scheme, which Macron launched in theatrical fashion while standing in front of a French nuclear submarine in March.

The initiative promises to extend France’s atomic umbrella over the European continent and has widely been read as a direct consequence of the United States’ disengagement from the old continent. It may also be read as a challenge or at least an alternative to the American domination of European nuclear deterrence. The U.K., which has its own nuclear weapons, has followed a separate track from the forward deterrence policy, but London, too, has significantly deepened its nuclear cooperation with France. The two countries’ deterrents remain independent but are coordinated under the Northwood Declaration framework signed in 2025. Notably absent from this year’s flyover is any contingent from the United States. During Trump’s first presidency, in 2017, the Air Force flew in the Thunderbirds’ F-16s, flanked by F-22 Raptors, while Trump and Macron looked on from below. This year, the focus is wholly European. In addition to the assertive motto, all guest nations will be European. In addition to the fighter jets, there will also be two German C-130 Hercules, as well as one British and one German A-400M Atlas cargo aircraft toward the end of the parade.

An earlier version of the agenda, since taken offline by the French Ministry of Defense, also indicated there would be a Danish F-35, Polish F-16 Fighting Falcon and Spanish F-18 Hornet participating alongside the French Rafale jets near the start of the procession. These were later removed from the program with no further explanation. European participation in the event in and of itself is nothing new. Last year’s festivities saw fighter jets from Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK fly alongside French jets. Last year, however, they were flying mostly behind two French Mirage jets, in a formation called “air defense.” This year’s positioning alongside an explicitly nuclear-capable jet in a formation named “Entrée En Premier: Intervention” - which can be roughly translated to “First-Entry Strike Operations” - paints a more forward-positioned picture.

On Monday, the Department of Defense announced a new slate of appointees to the Defense Policy Board, a committee tasked with providing strategic advice and making recommendations to the Pentagon. Media outlets were quick to highlight the Pentagon’s selection of Marc Andreessen, co-founder of a16z, as further evidence of Silicon Valley’s growing power in Washington. A16z, which claims to have raised 18% of all venture capital dollars invested in the U.S. in 2025, backs military technology startups like Anduril, Saronic, Skydio and Shield AI. All of these companies have contracts with the Pentagon. But Andreessen is far from the only defense industry-linked member of the advisory board, which helps advise Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Deputy Secretary of Defense Stephen Feinberg, and the Under Secretary of Policy Elbridge Colby. At least eight of the 15 members of the committee have close ties to the defense industry and foreign governments.

The vice-chair of the new committee is former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), a lobbyist for the government of Saudi Arabia. Coleman played a central role in rehabilitating Saudi Arabia after the assassination of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen. Coleman, who also serves as chair for the Republican Jewish Coalition, was pivotal during Hegseth’s approval process, shepherding the controversial nominee around Capitol Hill and whipping votes among his former colleagues. Now, Hegseth appears to be returning the favor, appointing Coleman to the prestigious committee, where he can help direct defense policy at the highest level. “Lobbyists for abusive foreign governments don’t belong on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board,” Raed Jarrar, Advocacy Director for Democracy for the Arab World Now, told RS. “You cannot take a foreign government’s money and give Americans honest advice on their own security,” added Jarrar, whose organization was founded by Khashoggi. Theo Wold, senior counselor at Palantir, was also appointed to the committee. Palantir sells data analytics software to government agencies like the Department of Defense and CIA, and to Washington-friendly governments like Israel and Ukraine. In the first week of the war on Iran, the U.S. military used Palantir’s Maven system to help it identify and strike more than 3,000 targets. Blake Masters, a former executive at Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel’s private investment organization, was also appointed to the committee. According to Masters’ website, he now “invest(s) in and advise(s) technology startups” and maintains a role on the board of the Thiel Foundation. Thiel largely bankrolled Masters’ unsuccessful 2022 and 2024 congressional campaigns.

Taken together, these Silicon Valley-centric choices represent a significant victory for the techno-optimists that want to slash regulation for artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons. Andreessen, in his article “Why AI Will Save the World,” argued against regulation in order to beat China. “Rather than allowing ungrounded panics around killer AI, ‘harmful’ AI, job-destroying AI, and inequality-generating AI to put us on our back feet, we in the United States and the West should lean into AI as hard as we possibly can,” he wrote. Andreessen, Thiel, and their acolytes now have another seat at the table. Other appointees include Tom Feddo, founder of national security consulting firm Rubicon Advisors, and Michael Pillsbury, who joined defense and artificial intelligence-focused consulting firm American Global Strategies as a senior fellow a week ago. Mike Garcia, a former California congressman and Raytheon executive, is also part of the new committee.

To be sure, previous iterations of the Defense Policy Board have similarly included members with potential conflicts of interest. A Center for Public Integrity analysis of the Bush administration’s board in 2003 found that nine of the 30 members had ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002, in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Hegseth even called on one of the same members of that Iraq War-era board, Christopher A. Williams. Williams now oversees a national security consulting firm that represents a range of clients from “the ‘Top Five’ aerospace & defense prime contractors to mid-tier companies to venture capital-backed technology startups.” Williams’ firm picked up contracts with Boeing and Northrop Grumman while he advised Bush’s Pentagon.

The board is not entirely dominated by defense contractor-linked executives and lobbyists. Hegseth also appointed Daniel McCarthy, the editor of conservative intellectual magazine Modern Age who has said there was “no reason” for the U.S. to be involved in the 12-day war with Iran last year. Rachel Bovard, vice president of the Conservative Partnership Institute and a former staffer for Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), was also appointed to the committee. Two of the picks come from the America First Policy Institute, including the chair of the new board, former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Hegseth also selected four fellows and alumni of the Claremont Institute, the California-based incubator for the intellectual right that disavows neoconservatism and liberal internationalism. If and when the interests of defense contractors and America First compete with one another, the question then becomes which version of the board will win out when advising the Trump Pentagon on the challenges of the day.