[FoxNews] Gerald Eddie Brown Jr allegedly violated Arms Export Control Act after 24-year Air Force career training American pilots on advanced combat aircraft
A former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot who once trained American servicemembers on advanced combat aircraft, including the F-35, has been arrested and accused of illegally training Chinese military pilots, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) said Gerald Eddie Brown Jr., whose call sign is "Runner," was taken into custody in Jeffersonville, Ind., and charged with providing and conspiring to provide defense services to Chinese military pilots without authorization.
Prosecutors allege Brown violated the Arms Export Control Act, a federal law that regulates the export of U.S. defense articles, services and military technology and requires government approval before they can be shared with foreign governments or nationals.
"The United States Air Force trained Major Brown to be an elite fighter pilot and entrusted him with the defense of our Nation. He now stands charged with training Chinese military pilots," Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg said. "When U.S. persons – whether military or civilian – provide training to a foreign military, that activity is illegal unless they have a license from the State Department."
The DOJ alleges that since "at least in or around August 2023," Brown "willfully conspired" with foreign nationals and other U.S. persons to provide combat aircraft training to pilots in the Chinese Air Force, known as the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF).
Prosecutors say the training required State Department approval under federal export regulations, and Brown did not have a license to provide it to a foreign military.
Brown served more than 24 years in the U.S. Air Force, according to the DOJ, leaving active duty in 1996 with the rank of major.
During his career, he commanded units responsible for nuclear weapons delivery systems, led combat missions and worked as a fighter pilot and simulator instructor on aircraft including the F-4, F-15, F-16 and A-10. After leaving the military, Brown worked as a commercial cargo pilot and later as a contract simulator instructor training U.S. pilots to fly the A-10 and the F-35 Lightning II.
According to the complaint, Brown began negotiating a contract "in or around" August 2023 to train Chinese military pilots, working through a co-conspirator who dealt with Stephen Su Bin, a Chinese national previously convicted in the U.S. of conspiring to hack into the computer networks of major American defense contractors and steal sensitive military data.
Prosecutors say Brown made clear in those discussions that he intended to train Chinese pilots in combat aircraft operations. In a résumé, he listed his objective as "Instructor Fighter Pilot" and later wrote that, upon arriving in China, "Now…. I have the chance to fly and instruct fighter pilots again!"
According to the complaint, Brown traveled to China in December 2023 to begin training Chinese military pilots and remained there until returning to the United States earlier this month.
Prosecutors allege that after arriving in China, Brown spent hours answering questions about the U.S. Air Force and later delivered a presentation about himself to members of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force.
"As an Air Force Officer, Brown took an oath to defend our Nation against all enemies foreign and domestic, he broke that oath, and betrayed the country, jeopardizing the safety of our servicemembers and allies," U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Ferris Pirro said. "We will hold Brown, and anyone conspiring against our Nation, accountable for their actions."
Brown’s case follows similar charges against former U.S. Marine Corps pilot Daniel Edmund Duggan, who is accused of providing defense services to Chinese military pilots without authorization and is currently pending extradition to the U.S.
Prosecutors allege Duggan trained Chinese military pilots on aircraft carrier takeoff and landing procedures, skills considered highly sensitive to U.S. national defense. He is currently in Australia.
Brown, if convicted, faces significant federal prison time under export control laws designed to prevent U.S. military expertise from being transferred to foreign adversaries.
[Daily Mail, where America gets its news] Larry Summers will resign from his teaching roles at Harvard University at the end of this academic year, it was announced on Wednesday.
Summers, who had a personal friendship with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, will give up his University Professorship title, which is the highest distinction an academic can receive at the Ivy League college.
The economist said the decision to leave the institution was 'difficult,' according to the Harvard Crimson.
He did not give a reason for his departure, but he has been under intense scrutiny after a litany of documents concerning him and Epstein were released in the DOJ files.
They spoke about politics and women in the cache of emails - and Summers corresponded with Epstein up until his final arrest in 2019, years after his conviction for soliciting minors.
Summers and his wife Lisa New visited Epstein's Little Saint James island in December 2005 - just ten days after their wedding.
The honeymoon trip happened while Summers was still Harvard president, according to publicly available flight logs.
Summers' visit was six months after Palm Beach police began investigating Epstein over the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl.
#1
He did not give a reason for his departure, but he has been under intense scrutiny after a litany of documents concerning him and Epstein were released in the DOJ files.
His resignation was likely strongly encouraged by Harvard. The reputation of the institution and hundreds of millions of dollars in endowments could have been placed at risk.
#3
I feel like this has been announced at least three times. I know that there have really only been varying stages of him stepping away, but the whole thing is like acid reflux for Harvard. It’s probably not even over for them.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
02/26/2026 5:48 Comments ||
Top||
[FOX] A DHS official told state election officials that federal immigration agents will not be stationed at polling places during the midterm elections, addressing concerns that ICE could intimidate voters. On a coordination call with state election officials, Heather Honey reiterated that claim, while other federal agencies discussed election security and noncitizen voting concerns. Democrats have warned about potential intimidation and racial profiling, citing ongoing investigations and previous advocacy by Trump allies. The debate underscores tensions between federal coordination and states’ control over elections, with the White House noting there was no disruption in prior elections. Looking ahead, officials seek assurances that enforcement actions won’t undermine voter participation while maintaining security and integrity of the process. Squeal little piggies! Why are you so afraid of ICE at polling stations? I'm always told illegals don't vote, right?
[AFRICANEWS] Zimbabwe has abruptly pulled out of talks with the United States over a new health aid deal meant to replace a program dismantled under President Donald Trump.
The agreement would have provided $367 million over five years, supporting 1.2 million Zimbabweans receiving HIV treatment.
Officials say the negotiations were halted because the terms threatened national autonomy, with concerns that the pact could shift control of disease response and grant Washington broad access to health data.
The US has been pursuing similar agreements across Africa under its "America First" strategy, partly to counter China's influence on the continent, with Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, Lesotho, and Eswatini among the countries that have signed deals.
With Zimbabwe stepping back, the US now faces the task of winding down its health assistance in the country, leaving the future of HIV and broader health support uncertain.
#3
There's no one to blame for what happened in Rhodesia but the UK's leftest politicians. Sadly however, they did not act alone. The cost of learning the truth 'in print' appears to have risen dramatically. Smith's historic book is available on Amazon for $1682.
We have a prospective plan to strengthen our national nuclear force, and will focus on projects to increase the number of nuclear weapons and expand nuclear operational means and space for use.
We've got the advantage. Iran doesn't, North Korea doesn't, China will catch up if we don't strike soon.
The sooner we can automate carriers and take sailors out of the loop...no more mutiny and sabotage
They’ll need humans on hand to respond when the unthought occurs. And to force the AIs back to reality when they hallucinate.
[NewScientist] Advanced AI models appear willing to deploy nuclear weapons without the same reservations humans have when put into simulated geopolitical crises.
OpenAI, on Wednesday reported that it had disrupted attempts in mid-October by a Chinese law enforcement official to help plan a multi-stage information attack on Takaichi.
#6
#3IIRC, it’s already happened twice. The world was saved once by an American and once by a Russian. Each was confronted with data showing they were under attack due to malfunctions. Each decided to not follow standing orders to launch.
Posted by: Difar Dave ||
02/26/2026 13:57 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Leading AIs ... opted to use nuclear weapons in simulated war games in 95 per cent of cases
Of course they did. It is our old friend, The Prisoner's Dilemma. Nuking the other guy is a good move. There is also a First Mover Advantage to nuking the other guy first.
One solution is to build a sort of doomsday device capable of destroying all life on earth that would be triggered automatically at the first sign of a nuclear attack. In order to eliminate human error, the system must be totally automated. This would give everyone a large negative payoff, making nuclear attack a poor choice.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited
[ChicagoFed] Combating Wage Inequality between Women and Men Leads to a Decline in Birthrates.
A rise in wages for men leads to an increase in the number of children, while a rise in wages for women leads to a decrease in the number of births, according to a study sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
For women, a rise in wages significantly reduces future fertility. This is the conclusion reached by researchers who processed the Danish demographic and tax register; the study was conducted under the auspices of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
A one-time and permanent 5% wage increase for highly qualified women led to a decrease in the number of children they had relative to the baseline trajectory at all ages. This had a particularly strong impact on Danish women aged 26-32. In certain age cohorts, the decline reached -4.1%. Among young men, the effect was reversed: a 5% wage increase resulted in a 0.5% increase in the number of children. Among low-skilled men and women, the patterns are similar, with the increase in the number of children among such men being even more pronounced, reaching +1.2% for those aged 27-34.
Among 30-year-old low-skilled women, a 5% increase in wages led to a 3.8% decrease in the number of offspring. Because childcare falls more heavily on women's shoulders, the competition between work and family is much greater for them than for men. However, it turns out that policies aimed at combating wage inequality between men and women may unintentionally lead to a decrease in the birth rate. [Link to the study] Link is a PDF file
#1
I believe that it's a bit more than just 'wage inequality'.
Our systems have been teaching man-hate for a couple of generations now and guys are finding out that dating and marrying carries a huge dose of 'presumed guilt' that many can do without.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
02/26/2026 6:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Let's see working women seek to earn money, need to work to earn it.
Having pregnancy would reduce income.
According to other authoritative data sources.
Working women commonly increase the use of protective sex methods, and regularly take birth control.
Recent data shows a notable increase in Plan B pills, and over 1 Million 2025 US abortions, for the unplanned for "accidents".
#3
Comparing apples to oranges you get a disparity. Comparing apples to apples not much of a difference.
Same job, same time in work, same years of experience, same general geographical area. The numbers converge.
As for the women's professional soccer and basketball, they fail to even come near the amount of revenue generation that the men's leagues do. That is customer preference.
#5
A rise in wages for men leads to an increase in the number of children, while a rise in wages for women leads to a decrease in the number of births, according to a study sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
I'd say symptom, not a cause, but that dog is on the scent.
#6
The economics of modern feminism is based on the ability of women to kill their unborn children without penalty. Give the unborn legal personhood (link) and thus the equal protection of the law, then try the study again.
[PJMedia] After Donald Trump’s 2026 State of the Union address, CNN political director David Chalian broke down the network’s instant poll — and it didn’t exactly produce the outrage or “failing Trump” narrative that the left likes to see. It was the kind of segment that left-wing pundits will be scrambling to spin before breakfast.
You could tell the numbers would be bad for the left when Chalian immediately began qualifying the findings.
“I just want to take a moment here to explain. This is a poll of speech watchers,” he began. “So it is not a poll that is reflective of the population overall.”
Yeah, that’s kind of how polls of speeches work. Thanks for reminding us.
But seriously, the fact that he made sure to emphasize that point twice, you just knew. It was like he was really about to say, “Hey, don’t get too happy, MAGA world.”
Oh yeah, and there was another caveat before he began.
“What we know about people who tune in to State of the Union addresses,” Chalian added, “they tend to be fans of the president, whichever president is giving the speech.” He explained that the “polling universe here is about 13 points more Republican than the overall population usually is.”
You ready?
“So just keep all that in mind as we go to the results,” Chalian continued, doing damage control in real time. “Get this reaction from those that watch the speech tonight. 38% said they had a very positive reaction to the speech, 25% somewhat positive, 36% negative.” He paused just long enough for the math to sink in. “So roughly two-thirds in the positive territory, one-third negative among speech watchers.”
Chalian also noted that among speech watchers, 64% “say his policies will move the U.S. in the right direction.”
But here’s a metric I think is really important: the change from pre-speech to post-speech. According to the poll, before the speech, 54% of speech watchers said Trump’s policies would move the United States in the right direction — a 10-point jump.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
