The Flight and the Confusion
During the closing hours of the NATO Leaders' Summit in Ankara in July, US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that he would not fly home aboard the new presidential plane that had brought him to the Turkish capital. Instead, he sent the aircraft ahead to Mildenhall Air Force Base in England so service members could tour it, planning to fly there on an older Air Force One. The press pool, including a Times of Israel journalist, was along for the ride, but the itinerary change was confusing and Trump's explanation seemed implausible.
As reporters speculated among themselves whether Iran had hatched a concrete plot to assassinate the president, their precise itinerary remained a mystery. They assumed they were still heading back to Washington after the stop in the United Kingdom. The Qatari-provided plane, which is known to lack certain safety features, might not be up to snuff if there was a security concern. This could explain why the White House wanted to switch planes, and it meant a potentially more dangerous flight than usual.
Trump had inadvertently stoked speculation about potential threats during the final day of the summit on July 8. As he met with various world leaders, including Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, he repeatedly brought up Iran's longstanding attempts to kill him in comments to reporters.
The Secret Service's Request and Trump's Response
During the flight, the press pool was told to close the window shades, a request from the Secret Service. When asked about the shaded windows, Trump denied any security concerns but said, "If I go, you go. Right?" The White House provided journalists with a printout of Trump's Truth Social post about the plane being sent to England for tours.
The Revelation Weeks Later
Weeks later, the journalist learned that Trump had actually left the aircraft via a catering truck and boarded another jet. He had switched planes at RAF Mildenhall, walking on foot to the Qatari-provided plane with Secret Service agents flanking him. The White House had arranged for the older plane to take him to Washington, while the newer plane stayed in England for tours.
Defending Security Protocols
In response to recent letters criticizing the security protocols and operations used during Trump's departure from Turkey, the Los Angeles Times published a letter to the editor arguing that such criticism demonstrates a "troubling amount of Monday morning quarterbacking." The letter emphasized that operational security in high-threat environments is determined by seasoned military, intelligence and Secret Service professionals who must assess and prioritize credible, real-time risks to the president and others in the presidential entourage.
The letter noted that the public will likely never know the details of how the risk to Air Force One was deemed acceptable. It criticized "unqualified commentators" who "casually dismiss these assessments or twist legitimate safety precautions into a character attack," highlighting how "reflexively partisan" public discourse has become, leading to a "continuing lack of legislative progress on a wide variety of critical issues."
The letter concluded that the safety of a commander in chief is not a partisan issue, nor is it a game. When credible threats arise, the priority must always be protecting the office of the president and ensuring the stability of the US government, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office. It urged respect for the security apparatus tasked with defending the nation's leadership as fundamental to national security.