The Brief

In 2018, a company began quietly buying up some $900 million worth of land from farmers in Solano County, California, an area just north of the Bay Area. As the parcel ballooned to more than 60,000 acres, their motivations remained a mystery — stoking unease and speculation. Then, last year, the news broke: The land was to become a brand-new eco-friendly city, backed by a roster of Silicon Valley billionaires, and built from the top-down by a company called California Forever.

The plan was launched by Jan Sramek, a former Goldman Sachs trader and California Forever’s CEO. He said the project has three main goals: “Help solve the California housing crisis”; create a walkable metropolitan area with a high quality of life and low carbon footprint; and build a new “economic engine” for Solano County. “There’s no playbook here,” Sramek said. “What we are trying to do is really, really different.”

Before California Forever could break ground, their proposal, the East Solano Plan, needed approval from the people who already live in Solano County. Where Sramek envisioned growth, however, others warned of irreversible ecological damage. Despite launching a multimillion-dollar campaign to persuade the public to vote for the proposal in the upcoming November election, concerns continued to grow as elected officials began speaking out in opposition, and a coalition against the project formed. Local mistrust was further deepened by the company’s ongoing lawsuit against landowners who resisted their offers. In April, a poll showed that 70 percent of Solano’s voters would likely reject the measure.

On July 22, the day before the Solano County Board of Supervisors was set to decide whether to put the initiative on the November ballot, Sramek and the board agreed to retract the proposal. According to a joint statement announcing the decision, Sramek said that California Forever will try to get it on the ballot again in two years, after a report assessing the environmental impacts of the project is finished.

Other similarly minded and deep-pocketed projects have been springing up around the world. Masdar, a $20 billion planned zero-carbon city in the United Arab Emirates, has been delayed for decades and scaled back beyond recognition. Neom, the futuristic $500 billion renewable energy dream of Saudi Arabian royals, now anticipates less than a fifth of the 1.5 million residents they originally planned on. Malaysia’s Forest City, which won design awards for sustainability, has been called a ghost town. And the billionaire behind Diapers.com has big plans for Telosa somewhere in the deserts of the American West, a sprawling green energy metropolis.

These projects all seek to fulfill urban dreams of a better, environmentally friendly life by building a city from scratch. But even when the buildings exist, they fail to draw residents and, despite plans that emphasize sustainability, projects struggle to win the support of environmentalists. California Forever hopes to eventually house 400,000 people — goals comparable to those of Masdar or Neom.

“I have not seen one of this size which has been successful so far,” said Alain Bertaud, an urban planning researcher at the Marron Institute, part of New York University. “But that doesn’t mean that they will not be — there are so many in the pipeline now.”

Though Bertaud said he’s normally skeptical of proposals for these new cities, he thought California Forever’s plans looked well designed. One aspect that could help the project find success is its proximity to other Bay Area cities, he said, as the lure of the region’s job market might encourage people to move there.

But when it comes to the project’s environmental promises, he’s unconvinced — if only because it’s difficult to measure benchmarks, like carbon emissions, until a project is up and running. “I don’t doubt the dedication of people who are fighting for sustainability,” he said, “but unless you define it in a very clear way, I’m afraid that ‘sustainability’ is a self-satisfying slogan to put on whatever idea you have.”

The question of sustainability is at the heart of California Forever’s ambition and problems alike. Both backers and skeptics want to tackle the area’s housing crisis. Eye-popping rents and home prices far exceed national averages, with single-family homes going for a median price of $1.4 million. It’s one reason why the region has the third-highest homeless population behind New York City and Los Angeles.

Instead of solving these problems with a new city, California Forever’s critics would like to see more housing built in the seven cities that already exist in Solano County. “Building housing in existing communities is one of our best climate solutions, and paving over 17,000 acres of non-irrigated farmland is not,” said Sadie Wilson, director of planning and research at the Greenbelt Alliance. The nonprofit, along with the Center for Biological Diversity and the California Sierra Club, is one of the 16 groups in Solano Together, the coalition that opposes the project.

Wilson says that the development threatens both the area’s potential for storing carbon in the soil and local biodiversity, and also risks leading to more pollution from people driving to work in nearby cities. And although California Forever holds water rights that could support the first 40,000 residents, Solano Together says that these don’t accurately reflect water availability. Securing a reliable supply, they argue, would be challenging in a region so prone to drought.

By starting from scratch, however, California Forever says their plans could avoid the baggage of urban problems like car-centric design and gas utilities, making it easier to support dense housing and run on renewable power. “Our plan will be the lowest per capita carbon emissions anywhere on the planet. It’s going to be pretty transformational,” said Bronson Johnson, the company’s head of infrastructure and sustainability, who added that he’s spent years grappling with barriers to retrofit existing cities. “I think when we look at the greater good of this project, that far outweighs local impacts,” Johnson said.

But the voters need convincing. After The New York Times named many of the investors behind the project — including Reid Hoffman, a LinkedIn cofounder, and Michael Moritz, a prominent venture capitalist — in August 2023, California Forever began working to bring residents over to their side in time for the 2024 election. By May, the company had spent some $2 million on its campaign and gathered enough signatures to qualify their initiative for the ballot.

Cows graze on a parcel of land near Rio Vista located in Solano County.

(

Justin Sullivan

/

Getty Images

)

In weeks leading up to the Solano County board meeting in July, an economic report by the business-backed Bay Area Council touted the potential jobs and housing benefits, saying that the county could increase employment in high-earning sectors by 53 percent. Meanwhile, the company proposed putting a lagoon right in the middle of the new town, “open to everyone from Solano County.”

Five days before the meeting, the county released its own assessment that said the initiative lacked details on key issues, such as infrastructure funding, traffic impacts, and water supply. Many of these unknowns would be clarified by an environmental impact report required under California law, which the company had said it planned to conduct after residents voted. According to county officials, it was this omission, and the lack of a binding development agreement, that ultimately tanked the proposal.

“This politicized the entire project, made it difficult for us and our staff to work with them, and forced everyone in our community to take sides,” said Mitch Mashburn, chair of the Solano County Board of Supervisors, in the statement announcing that the plan would be put on hold. According to the statement, Sramek and Mashburn came to the decision together after agreeing that the timing of the proposal had become unrealistic.

“I want to acknowledge that many Solano residents are excited about Mr. Sramek’s optimism about a California that builds again. He is also right that we cannot solve our jobs, housing, and energy challenges if every project takes a decade or more to break ground,” Mashburn said in the statement.

Solano Together heralded the news as a win. Wilson said that even though an environmental impact report would clear up many of the coalition’s questions, especially around water supply, the location of the development still poses what she considers an intractable environmental problem. “It is a vibrant landscape that supports our food systems, our environment, our water systems,” she said.
Sarah Moser, an urban geography researcher at the University of McGill in Montreal, said it makes sense that sparsely populated agricultural lands and deserts are appealing for mega developments like the proposed East Solano Plan because they’ll encounter less opposition. But by building on undeveloped land, “by definition, you’re going to incur a carbon debt that you may never be able to pay off,” she said.

Although Moser thinks it’s logistically possible to build a city from scratch, she says that such projects are increasingly high risk, with unattainable goals. “You can make affordable housing, or you can make money, but you can’t do both,” Moser said, adding that California Forever’s for-profit model fits into a broader pattern of “rich people getting richer” in the urban mega developments she has studied.

And perhaps the most important ingredient necessary to successfully build a new city is the very thing that stands in the way: people.

The promise of a city built on ideals isn’t enough to fill it with people, Bertaud said. There has to be an existing community of people, culture, entertainment, and jobs that draw people there. It’s a chicken-or-egg problem unique to starting from scratch. “Why would you go to a city where there is nobody?” he said.

The Huntington Botanical Gardens in San Marino is gearing up for its annual Bonsai Celebration this weekend, which will include expert talks, a bonsai marketplace, live auction and more.

The Huntington’s bonsai collection is about 500 plants strong, with some of the tiny trees believed to be more than 1,000 years old.

One piece in The Huntington’s collection, a California juniper in the semi-cascade-style, has original plant material estimated to be 1,500 to 1,800 years old.

Daniel Deephouse, assistant curator of bonsai at The Huntington, told LAist it's a good time to be into what he calls “magical” trees, with dozens of bonsai clubs active throughout California.

“Right now it’s on fire," Deephouse said. "I think since COVID a lot of people have gotten back into plants... which I think is coming at a really great time because we’re having less and less time, and less and less space.”

With its roots stretching back in Japan more than 1,000 years ago, the art form began to take off in California after World War II.

The journey of a bonsai curator 

Deephouse said it was his grandmother who got him into bonsai back in the 1980s. Living with ADHD and dyslexia, he said his passion for these ancient miniatures has gotten him through much of life.

Caring for bonsai is a quick way to disconnect from the noisy world around him, Deephouse said.

Bonsai collection at The Huntington, San Marino, California.

(

Max Tepper

)

“You can only do one thing at one time... so when you’re actually focusing on your tree, you get to go into a Zen focus,” he said.

The highlight of working with The Huntington's bonsai collection? Deephouse said that’s the 100 or so volunteers who regularly care for the trees.

This weekend’s celebration of everything bonsai will also include an exhibition from the California Bonsai Society, as well as a guided walk with Deephouse on Sunday.

Want to attend?

The Huntington Bonsai Celebration runs from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Feb. 28 through March 1. The festivities are free with general admission.

Adopted from Iran at age two, she takes great pride in her quintessential American upbringing.

The woman was raised on a small farm in the Midwest. She attended church every Sunday. And she loved listening to her late father's stories from when he was in the Air Force during World War II. 

But in the eyes of the U.S. government, the woman, who's now in her 50s and lives in California, is not American. Instead, she's an immigrant who overstayed her visa since she was a toddler and therefore, subject to deportation. She spoke to NPR on condition of anonymity because she fears speaking publicly will complicate her immigration case.

"How could this happen?" she said. "I'm American. I've never had any other identity besides that."

Most international adoptees receive automatic citizenship thanks to the 2000 Child Citizenship Act. But the law excludes those who were already adults when the legislation passed or adoptees who entered the U.S. on the wrong type of visa, which is what happened to the California woman.

Earlier this month, she received a letter from the Department of Homeland Security saying removal proceedings have begun. The woman, who has no criminal record, has no idea what prompted the letter. 

An adoptee brought to the United States by her American parents from Iran as a young child holds the immigration removal order she received recently, photographed in California on Feb. 21.

(

Stella Kalinina

/

NPR

)

She's terrified to be deported to Iran given her father's military service and her Christian faith. Open Doors, which tracks Christian persecution, ranks Iran among the top 10 most dangerous countries for Christians. The woman also has no family there nor does she speak Farsi. And the prospect of deportation comes amid great upheaval in Iran, from anti-government protests to looming threats of a U.S. military strike. 

"The sheer possibility of the daughter of an American WWII hero being sent overseas, through no fault of her own, epitomizes a broken system," her attorney Emily Howe said in a statement.

It's unclear exactly how many adoptees are in the same vulnerable position as the California woman. Many don't realize their situation until adulthood, when obtaining citizenship becomes far more difficult. Others live in limbo because of lost paperwork and the sheer difficulty locating it decades later — which is also a layer of the woman's case.

An adoptee brought to the United States by her American parents from Iran as a young child stands for a portrait in California on Feb. 21.

(

Stella Kalinina

/

NPR

)

Adoptees have been deported in the past, often because a crime triggered their removal. But with President Donald Trump's historic mass deportations, noncitizen adoptees are more fearful than ever of being sent to countries they barely remember.

A bill to close the gaps in the 2000 law has bipartisan support but failed several times in Congress, partly because of its tie to immigration, NPR reported last year.

The Department of Homeland Security would not respond to a request for comment unless provided the woman's name, which NPR declined to do. In a statement, DHS said immigrants facing deportation "receive full due process and asylum seekers have their fear claims heard."

'I don't understand this. How could this happen?'

Born in Iran in the 1970s, the woman doesn't know what happened to her birth parents or why she was placed in an orphanage. At the time of her adoption, she said her American father was working in Iran as a U.S. government contractor.

An archival childhood family photograph of an adoptee brought to the United States by her American parents from Iran as a young child, photographed in California on Feb. 21.

(

Stella Kalinina

/

NPR

)

Fast forward, three decades later, the woman had finished paying off her student loans and wanted to travel outside the country. But when she applied for a passport, she realized something was wrong.

Pretty soon into the application process, the woman received a letter saying her parents did not complete her naturalization when she was a child. She recalled reaching out to an immigration attorney, who told her point blank, " You're deportable to Iran."

"I couldn't stop crying," she said. "I just, through my tears, kept asking like, I don't understand this. How could this happen?" 

The California woman was brought to the U.S. on a tourist visa, which was fairly common to use when adopting from countries that did not have formal intercountry adoption systems in place, according to Joy Alessi, a Korean adoptee who is with the Adoptee Rights Campaign.

"These nonimmigrant statuses routinely expired before state adoption proceedings could conclude," she said. "The status lapse required a formal adjustment to permanent residency."

The California woman firmly believes that her parents took the necessary steps to naturalize her. She points to a local newspaper article in which her parents mentioned working toward her citizenship, which NPR reviewed. Among her father's belongings, the woman said she found a document requesting lost citizenship paperwork. She added that her mother repeatedly insisted she was indeed a citizen.

An undated photo of the adoptee's father, who served in the military.

(

Provided by the adoptee.

)

Over the years, the woman said she has spent tens of thousands of dollars and sought help from several lawyers to track down missing documents and rectify what she believes is a clerical error.

"There was just paperwork and a paper trail letting me know and I'm grateful for that," she said. "And I stand by the fact that my dad loved me and he made sure that he did his part to make me an American in this country."

'I fight for myself, but at the same time, I fight for my dad's legacy'

Up until her passport debacle, the woman said she never thought of herself as an immigrant. 

"I didn't know what a green card was, alien number, I had no clue," she said. "But obviously now through this journey, I know it really well."

Now, she winces every time she turns on the news and hears about Trump's crackdown on immigration. Since she received the DHS letter, the woman has kept a low profile — switching to remote work and rarely leaving her house or driving her car. The woman also shares her location with her friends in case she is detained by ICE. 

"It used to be that, before some of the laws were changed, that you were safe in hospital spaces, churches, schools," she said. "Some of those places that I should be able to come and go are not safe havens for me anymore."

A "Home Sweet Home" decoration along with family portraits of an adoptee's American family in her home in California on Feb. 21.

(

Stella Kalinina

/

NPR

)

Her case is scheduled before an immigration judge next month, which she does not have to appear in-person for. Although she's terrified, part of her has always wanted to resolve her legal status and put an end to the fear she has been carrying.

"I welcome fixing this. I've always wanted to fix this," she said. "I feel like I haven't been able to freely embrace my life."

As painful as this time has been, the woman attributes her strength to her father, a retired Air Force officer who was a prisoner of war in Germany during World War II. She imagines that if her father was alive today, he'd be angry on her behalf. 

"I fight for myself, but at the same time, I fight for my dad's legacy and what my dad wanted for me and how he prepared me for this life," she said. "And I'm not gonna let somebody take it from me."
Copyright 2026 NPR

In November, California voters may have to referee a multimillion-dollar battle among Uber, attorneys and doctors. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for anybody who uses the state’s roads and highways.

Uber last fall filed a proposed ballot measure that would cap personal injury lawyers’ contingency fees and limit medical damages for all vehicle crashes in California, even those not involving an Uber. The company paints its effort as a way to rein in attorneys who take advantage of those who get hurt in a crash. Crash survivors often hire attorneys on a contingency basis, meaning the lawyers only get paid if they win the case.

That got attorney groups fired up: They responded by proposing three ballot initiatives that would expand the ride-hailing giant’s liability for passenger injuries; increase its liability for sexual misconduct against riders or drivers; and ban new state laws that interfere with people’s ability to retain lawyers.

Doctors and other medical providers also got organized and formed a political action committee, Providers for Patient Care, last October to oppose Uber’s initiative.

Despite the substantial opposition, legal experts acknowledge Uber’s proposed ballot initiative could appeal to Californians.

“This measure could backfire for Uber, but it’s certainly possible that California voters will approve (the company’s) initiative because it has a ‘bumper sticker quality’ to it,” said Stanford University law professor Nora Engstrom, a litigation expert. She said she has no formal role in the opposition to Uber’s initiative, but she has researched contingency fees’ effects on competition and has written an op-ed opposing the measure.

Engstrom told CalMatters the measure might look good because it seems “unthreatening”; who would oppose crash survivors keeping more of their settlements? But capping contingency fees is equivalent to a price control, and economists generally agree that price controls hurt consumers, she said. She and other lawyers say the initiative could discourage attorneys from taking on cases and helping crash survivors secure compensation for any losses or injuries.

Arriving passengers walk with their luggage as they prepare to board vehicles at the 'LAX-it' ride-hail passenger pickup lot at LAX.

(

Mario Tama

/

Getty Images

)

A very expensive battle

Uber has put about $32.5 million into its effort since last fall, according to campaign finance records. The opposition has committed about $55 million to fight Uber as well as to promote its own competing initiatives. Consumer Attorneys of California, whose members are lawyers who represent consumers, has led the way with $30 million so far, while more than 400 other attorneys and law firms have spent a combined $20 million to fight the Uber initiative and promote their three measures. The medical providers have raised about $5 million so far and are aiming to raise a total of $10 million, said Pamela Lopez, a campaign representative.

As each side collects signatures to try to get their initiatives on the ballot, they have also spent that money on two different TV commercials that aired during the Super Bowl.

The last time Uber spent tens of millions of dollars on a California ballot measure was on Proposition 22 in 2020, when the state’s voters approved a law written by Uber and other gig companies, which allowed them to create a carveout from labor law and continue to treat their drivers and delivery workers as independent contractors instead of employees. Top spender Uber — along with its Postmates subsidiary — funded more than $70 million out of the total $205 million the winning campaign.

Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine who focuses on labor and opposed Uber’s Prop. 22 five years ago, said: “Uber is trying once again to misuse the democratic process and to disclaim legal responsibility — this time, not just towards their drivers but also towards consumers.”

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office wrote that if Uber’s ballot measure passes, the state could be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars of increased Medi-Cal costs, such as for health care that the state wouldn’t be able to recover. On the other hand, the state could save tens of millions of dollars a year in court costs because there could be fewer auto accident cases, the LAO wrote.

Uber’s ‘expansive’ measure

Uber’s proposed initiative calls for victims of vehicle crashes to retain 75% of any settlement they receive. In addition, it limits how much can be awarded for medical expenses and raises the burden of proof for recovering them. For liens and future medical expenses, the limit would be 125% of the Medicare reimbursement rate for a service, and 170% of the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate. The measure would also ban law firms from referring clients to a health care provider in which they have a financial interest.

The company says it’s necessary to stop lawyers from inflating crash victims’ medical costs then pocketing a big chunk of a settlement. Uber has sued lawyers and medical practices in California, New York and Florida over such allegations.

“Californians deserve a system that prioritizes victims over ambulance lawyers, and that’s exactly what this measure does,” said Nathan Click, a spokesperson for Uber’s campaign, in a statement.

Opponents of the measure said that if it qualifies for the November ballot and voters approve it, accident victims may not be able to sue for the compensation they deserve because lawyers will not have enough incentive to take on their cases if they know they will get only 25% of the settlement — or less — as opposed to the average 33% or more.

“Uber wrote it to be expansive, to keep victims from finding attorneys,” said Doug Saeltzer, president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, which is spearheading the opposition to Uber’s initiative and proposed the competing ballot measures.

Lawyers and Uber are also battling over legalese about who would be responsible for paying medical bills after a crash. The lawyers say Uber’s initiative would require medical expenses to get paid from the attorney’s share of the settlement. Uber says the medical bills are likely to get paid by the client.

The way Saeltzer and other opponents of the measure read it is that medical expenses from a vehicle accident must come out of an attorney’s 25% share of a settlement. Jamie Court, president of consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, said it’s because of the language that a victim must retain 75% of the total amount recovered, and this part: “Medical expenses, including liens incurred by the automobile accident victim… are not deductible disbursements or costs.”

Uber spokesperson John Finley told CalMatters in an email that the company strongly disputes the lawyers’ interpretation. He said medical bills are likely to be paid by the client, “which is why the client needs a guarantee that they’ll have enough to pay those bills instead of being left with little to no portion of their recovery.”

Engstrom, the Stanford law professor, said: “No doubt, the language is pretty convoluted… If Uber wanted to create a clear medical bill carveout, it surely could have. They have lots of smart lawyers. You have to wonder why they didn’t.”

Changing medical-cost recovery

Mary-Beth Moylan is a University of the Pacific law professor and an expert on California initiatives. When she read that Uber’s measure also proposes limits for medical costs for crash survivors, she said: “I mean, what?”

Moylan said the many details in Uber’s initiative could have unintended consequences. “This is the danger of this particularized policy-making by initiative,” she said.

Lopez, the Providers for Patient Care representative, said uninsured or underinsured survivors of vehicle crashes may not get the medical care they need because the limits mean providers may decline to treat some patients out of fear they will not be reimbursed for most of the costs.

“This is an attempt by Uber to get out of paying for patient care,” Lopez said, adding that such care could be needed long term and that limiting what a responsible party would pay would affect those without health insurance. That could help drive up medical costs for everyone else, she said.

“This will affect you, me, anyone who’s ever injured in an auto accident in California,” Lopez said.

Uber based its proposed limits on a state law that caps payments to out-of-network providers at 125% of Medicare reimbursement rates, said Uber spokesperson Zahid Arab in an email.

“The current system creates incentives to overbill and overtreat auto accident victims, which increases legal costs and raises premiums statewide,” Arab said.

Because it would be a constitutional amendment, Uber’s measure requires a higher threshold to qualify for the ballot: more than 874,000 signatures by June 8. By the first week of February, it had collected at least 25% of that number, according to the California Secretary of State.

Lawyers’ initiatives

Two of the attorney groups’ proposed measures would treat Uber and other ride-hailing providers like other common transportation carriers such as taxis, buses and trains.

One initiative would expand Uber and other ride-hailing companies’ liability for sexual misconduct against riders or drivers. It would require additional background checks for drivers; monthly reports of sexual assaults and misconduct; disclosure of a driver safety-risk assessment score based on the driver’s history of sexual misconduct to customers; and more. As an initiative statute, it needs to collect 546,651 signatures by July 1 to get on the ballot and reached the 25% threshold a couple of weeks ago.

Another measure would expand the ride-hailing giant’s liability for passenger and public injuries. It would hold the companies responsible for harm to their riders and the public, regardless of the classification of drivers as independent contractors.

The third measure would prohibit new laws that interfere with people hiring lawyers of their choice. It would be a constitutional amendment, and would void Uber’s initiative if both that one and this one are approved by voters.

Uber by the numbers

Uber’s top executives have told investors during their most recent earnings calls that they expect the company’s lower insurance costs to help drive higher revenue growth. The San Francisco-based company brought in more than $14 billion in revenue last year. The executives have mentioned “legal abuse” and their legislative efforts in different states to drive Uber’s legal and insurance costs down.

The company has tried to enact measures similar to the one it’s pushing in California elsewhere. Last year, the Nevada Supreme Court found that Uber’s description of the effects of a measure that would have capped attorneys’ contingency fees in civil cases to 20% was “misleading and confusing.” The company and lawyers in that state later reached a deal on a bill related to insurance liability.

In California, Uber recently won a bid to reduce its costs by going not to the voters but through the Legislature. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that reduced how much insurance ride-hailing companies are supposed to carry for crashes involving uninsured and underinsured motorists, from $1 million to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. State Sen. Chris Cabaldon, the Napa Democrat who authored the law, said he wanted to help lower fares for rides.

Fares for Uber rides in California have generally risen in the past several years. From 2019 to 2025, the average Uber fare in the state rose from $14.11 to $27.15, according to Gridwise, which makes an app that allows gig workers to track their earnings and expenses. Gridwise says its data encompasses more than 800 million trips and more than $8.5 billion in tracked driver earnings.

That aligns with the trajectory of the data from Obi, an app maker that allows users to compare ride-hailing and taxi fares, which shows that from 2021 to 2025, the average Uber fare in California rose from $26.96 to $29.93. Obi’s data is based on information it collects from its 1 million users.

President Donald Trump will address a joint session of Congress tonight for his first State of the Union address since returning to the White House just over one year ago.

It's an opportunity for the president to tout his agenda and shape his party's messaging ahead of this year's midterm elections.

But the prime-time address comes at a moment when the president has seen his agenda complicated on multiple fronts. That includes trade, where his tariff policies were dealt a rebuke last week by the U.S. Supreme Court, and immigration, where Trump and congressional Democrats are deadlocked over funding the Department of Homeland Security.

Plus, Americans are divided on whether Trump's first year has been a success. Six in 10 believe the country is worse off than last year, according to the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, and a majority think the state of the union is not strong.

Here's what you need to know ahead of tonight's speech.

What time is the address?

The president is expected to begin at 6 p.m. PT., and if history is any indication, prepare for a long night. Last year, in what was technically not a State of the Union speech, Trump addressed Congress for over 90 minutes, breaking records as the longest joint address in at least 60 years.

NPR will be covering all of it with live special coverage and analysis. You can listen on NPR.org, on many public radio stations, in the NPR app or by telling your Alexa device to "Ask NPR to play Special Coverage" starting at 6 p.m.

Why does this happen every year? 

This is part of the gig for every president. The Constitution requires that the president "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union." It's intended to be a recap of sorts of their previous year in office.

So it's a formality, yes, but there are political stakes. Trump's speech comes at the start of a crucial election year, and his party is on the defensive. GOP lawmakers are fighting to maintain control of the Senate, where they currently hold a 53 to 47 majority, and the House, where their margin is even smaller, 218 to 214. Trump is battling low approval numbers, which are often seen as a warning sign, given that since World War II the party controlling the White House historically loses an average of 27 House seats in the midterms and four in the Senate.

What will Trump talk about?

Expect a big focus on immigration, which has been a key pillar of Trump's second term. The administration has defended its enforcement agenda, arguing it's aimed at removing people living in the country illegally who have committed dangerous crimes. However, lawmakers have raised concerns about the tactics used by federal immigration agents in cities around the country, especially after two U.S. citizens were killed in Minneapolis last month.

It will also be worth watching how Trump talks about tariffs. He has long defended imposing import taxes on foreign goods as a way to strengthen American manufacturing, but in a major ruling last Friday, the Supreme Court struck down the main lever the president has used to carry out this policy.

The tariff ruling is part of a broader economic messaging challenge facing the White House. A majority of Americans already say they think tariffs are more likely to hurt than help the economy. Trump has also dismissed affordability concerns as a Democratic "hoax," even though voters report struggling to keep up with the cost of living.

Tonight's address is also happening at a crucial moment in U.S. foreign policy. Trump is pressuring Iran to disband its nuclear program, and he has not ruled out using force to make that happen. In recent days, the American military has expanded its presence in the Middle East, sending additional fighter jets and a second aircraft carrier to the region.

It's the latest move by Trump in what has been a more muscular approach to foreign policy compared to his first term. The president has approved strikes on countries around the world, announced the U.S. will "run" Venezuela after arresting the country's leader and has threatened to buy Greenland. At the same time, Trump has repeatedly labeled himself a peacemaker, despite facing steep challenges in achieving his goals of rebuilding Gaza and brokering an end to Russia's war in Ukraine.

What will the response from Democrats look like?

Newly sworn-in Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is slated to provide the party's official rebuttal. Spanberger was one of several Democrats who won their races last November, delivering some of the most high-profile victories since the party's bruising losses across the country in 2024.

She may also provide a potential preview of how Democrats may approach their own midterm messaging. On the campaign trail, Spanberger centered her message on affordability concerns and criticized the administration's treatment of federal workers through mass layoffs and the longest government shutdown in history.

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger speaks after being sworn in to office at the Virginia State Capitol in January. Spanberger will deliver the official Democratic response to President Trump's State of the Union address.

(

Win McNamee

/

Getty Images

)

California Sen. Alex Padilla is tapped to deliver the Spanish-language response for Democrats. It's another notable pick for Democrats as they refine their election message, particularly on immigration. Padilla has been an outspoken critic of Trump's immigration agenda and was forcibly removed from a Homeland Security press conference over the summer.

There's also a group of roughly a dozen House and Senate Democrats who plan to boycott Trump's speech and instead hold a counter-rally dubbed the "People's State of the Union." It comes as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has urged lawmakers to either "attend with silent defiance" or skip the event.

Follow for more coverage:

📧 NPR Politics newsletter: Breaking down the big stories and why they matter
🎧 NPR Politics Podcast: Our experts provide insights into what's happening
Copyright 2026 NPR