The Brief

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here.

When it comes to California’s climate future, the most important figure in the state’s chaotic governor’s race may not be any of the candidates on the debate stage. It may not even be outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom, or President Donald Trump.

Instead, it might just be Chevron, the multinational oil company that was founded in the Golden State more than 100 years ago. It is among the largest producers, refiners, and sellers of petroleum products in a state rapidly shifting toward electric vehicles. Depending on which candidate is talking, the company is an example of how Big Oil is strangling consumers or an example of how climate regulations are strangling the state economy.

The behemoth — it reported $12.3 billion in profit last year — took the spotlight last month when an interviewer asked leading Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra about Chevron’s contributions to his campaign. The former state attorney general and Biden-era health secretary gave what seemed to be a candid response:

“Chevron, that’s the problem with politics. They’re not the bad guy. Does everybody here drive an electric vehicle? You need Chevron. I need Chevron. My people of the state of California need Chevron … Chevron wants to give me a check, that’s — that’s their prerogative.”

The phrase “I need Chevron” soon appeared in anti-Becerra videos by the likes of climate hawk Jane Fonda, implying that the candidate was saying he needs Chevron to get elected. Progressive billionaire Tom Steyer, Becerra’s lead Democratic opponent, urged him to return the contribution and said he is “doing [the] bidding” of Big Oil. Representative Katie Porter, another leading Democrat, said in a statement that she “hasn’t made millions off Big Oil or taken their checks.”

Becerra is not entirely wrong. California consumes around 13 billion gallons of gasoline annually, all of it specifically formulated to meet the state’s stringent clean air standards. Most of it comes from just six refineries, and Chevron owns two that account for one-third of the state’s production. That gives the company and its peers tremendous leverage. But California’s gas consumption has declined by about 15% from a peak in 2004 due to improved fuel economy in conventional vehicles and growing adoption of electric vehicles. It could fall by half over the next two decades.

The primary is June 2. The challenge for the next governor will be to continue the energy transition while retaining the infrastructure needed to move and refine oil. This has never been accomplished in a place as large as California, which was the world’s fifth-largest economy in 2025. The risks are tremendous: If the state moves too quickly, it could create shortages and price spikes for drivers already paying the highest prices in the country. If it moves too slowly, it could lock in decades of air pollution and hinder global climate progress.

“It’s messy,” said Emily Grubert. She is a civil engineer and sociologist at Notre Dame who has studied fossil fuel transitions and advised the state government on oil infrastructure. “As soon as you realize that actually transitioning away from fossil fuels means you have to close things, people get really freaked out.”

Newsom spent much of his governorship going after Big Oil, an effort that included a series of executive actions to restrict fracking in Kern County oil fields. When the war in Ukraine sent gas prices surging, Newsom and Democrats in the Legislature passed a series of bills to stop what he called “price gouging.” These laws empowered a new oil-focused watchdog agency, created a tool that could impose refinery price caps, and required refineries to maintain certain storage reserves, all of which cut profit margins for Chevron and others. The new refinery rules added to multiple carbon taxes that make selling gasoline in California more expensive.

However, there is some evidence refiners have overcharged Californians. Even after accounting for state taxes, environmental fees, and production costs, a gap remains between gas prices in the Golden State and everywhere else. This gap appeared in 2015 after a refinery fire in Torrance and has come to be known as the “mystery gasoline surcharge.” It now averages about $1. Last fall, a state regulator concluded that refiners’ monopoly power may be the reason for the price spikes.

Oil companies accused Newsom of trying to regulate them out of existence, and many threatened to leave. Two major refiners, Wilmington and Benicia, announced last year that they would close their operations, forcing a state that already imports about 60 percent of its oil to rely on imports of gasoline refined in Asia. Chevron relocated its corporate headquarters from the San Francisco suburb of San Ramon to Houston in 2024, and it has delivered a series of ominous warnings this year as climate regulators have revised the state’s almost 15-year-old carbon tax.

“The proposed regulation will cripple the survivability of the state’s remaining refineries, which will result in California losing the entire industry,” Andy Walls, the president of Chevron’s refinery business, wrote in an open letter to Newsom in March. The implication was clear: unless you relax your regulations, we will leave the state and strand you without gasoline. That would mean paying Asian refiners to produce more of the state’s specific blend, at significant cost.

The Newsom administration spent much of 2025 trying to work out a grand bargain with the industry. The Legislature eased rules governing drilling in Kern County oil fields, helping maintain a stable supply of crude to refineries, It also delayed implementing a refinery profit cap, and allowed the temporary sale of gasoline with higher concentrations of ethanol. The state’s climate regulator has also suggested giving refineries free allowances under the state’s cap-and-trade system, even if it means less money for big projects like high-speed rail and sustainable housing. The idea is to give investors enough certainty that they’re willing to remain in California even as the state uses less gasoline.

Experts believe it will take a lot more than that to manage inevitable changes.

“You actually can’t have a smooth and safe and effective transition without some form of coordinating function for that decline,” said Grubert. She believes a degree of state ownership of refineries will be necessary to keep facilities open if they stop being profitable. The wrong approach, she says, would be to respond to each potential a refinery closure with ad hoc subsidies and state support, since that would allow refiners to extort the state one by one. 

That point was reinforced this month by a report from the California Energy Commission that has not received much notice. The analysis of the state’s shaky fuel system found that “California cannot sustainably manage this transition through repeated crisis interventions at an asset-by-asset level.” It suggested options that included “legal obligations to operate,” “centralized planning of closures,” and “direct state management or ownership of assets.”

The Iran war will accelerate a decline in both the supply of, and demand for, oil. Gas retailers like Chevron are already struggling to find additional imports of refined fuel, and some experts predict shortages if the Strait of Hormuz does not open within weeks. Meanwhile, electric vehicles continue gaining market share, and Newsom plans to roll out subsidies for them this year. Wider adoption of these vehicles, and hybrids, will further crimp demand, making any remaining refineries more likely to shutter.

Chevron’s Kern River Oil Field near Bakersfield is one of the largest oil fields in California. The state’s climate policies have helped reduce gasoline demand by more than 15 percent over the past decade.

(

Mark Ralston

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

All of this helps explain the showdown between the leading Democrats in the governor’s race, who are each trying to find a lane in a field that at one time included more than 50 candidates.

Becerra has given lip service to clean energy, but many public statements suggest a friendliness toward oil producers. As attorney general, he initiated a few lawsuits against petroleum companies, and supported other state climate lawsuits, but punted on major investigations. He has focused his gubernatorial campaign on vows to fight Donald Trump and protect healthcare, and has made controversial promises to freeze utility and insurance rates. On decarbonization, he has noted that “climate action only succeeds if it is affordable, reliable, and fair.”

After the chaos of the early primary, many oil producers have decided that Becerra is their candidate. Chevron last month contributed the maximum allowable amount of $39,200 to his campaign, the first time in a decade it has backed a gubernatorial candidate. Last week, the company contributed another $500,000 to an independent political committee supporting Becerra. California Resources Corporation, the state’s largest driller, also gave $500,000 to a Becerra committee. And gas companies like Sempra are among the donors to an anti-Steyer political committee that has raised more than $24 million.

Steyer, meanwhile, has made attacking Big Oil the focus of his campaign, as it was during his 2020 presidential run. He says he would lower gas prices by activating the refining profit cap that Newsom has declined to use, investigating what is causing high gas prices (something the state has already done), and taxing private jet fuel. When refineries “inevitably” close, he says he will stockpile an oil reserve and import more refined fuel for as long as California needs it.

Steyer has also had to address his own fossil fuel ties. The hedge fund he founded, Farallon Capital, remains a major player in coal power finance abroad, including in Indonesia and Australia. Steyer still holds a stake in the firm, which he left in 2012, but his campaign says he no longer receives dividends from its fossil fuel investments.

California uses a “jungle primary” in which the top two candidates advance to the general election, regardless of party. The latest poll shows Becerra essentially tied with former Fox News host Steve Hilton, a Republican, with Steyer trailing at around 15 percent. The most likely outcome is that one of Becerra or Steyer will make it to the general election. (The other Democrats, including Porter and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, trail behind in the double digits.)

Railing against Big Oil has long proven to be good politics in California. But in the wake of Trump’s second election victory, Democrats have sought to downplay climate issues and focus instead on affordability. The question in the governor’s race is how best to achieve that in the long run. Is it better to use a bully pulpit against companies like Chevron in an effort to break their market power, or conciliate them in the hope that they don’t flee?

Mike Madrid, a veteran California political operative, believes Becerra’s approach will resonate more with the young and Latinos, both of whom often decide statewide elections.

“This attack on Chevron, it works for the base Steyer already has,” he said. “Young Latino working-class men are the demographic most affected by gas prices. Do you think they’re saying we need to get rid of Chevron? Of course not.”

Steyer’s campaign may not get him over the line in the primary, but he has at least been consistent. In a 2013 blog post for this very publication, he celebrated the result of the Virginia governor’s race, where a climate-focused Democrat beat a fossil-fuel friendly Republican with help from Steyer’s own war chest.

“A new political dynamic is emerging,” he wrote at the time. “Climate change is a winner, not a loser,” and is “no longer electoral Kryptonite.”

If Chevron has its way, next week’s primary results will prove otherwise.

Los Angeles has handily broken its record for most days of coastal flooding in a year. And that’s without including October in the tally and with a wet El Niño winter ahead — a worrying sign for coastal homes and infrastructure.

Researchers can’t yet project how many more days of flooding we’ll have in 2026 — but we’re already well ahead of what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s models had forecast up to this point.

NOAA oceanographer Karen Kavanaugh said models had predicted three to six flood days between May 2026 and April 2027. Those models took El Niño and sea level rise into account. She said that there have already been nine flood days in that window and added that the 12 flood days so far in the calendar year are “abnormally high.”

The number of days of coastal flooding observed at NOAA’s tide gauge in San Pedro is the highest recorded since observations started being taken in 1923. The previous record was set at nine in 1983, during another El Niño event.

When might we see more flooding?

Kavanaugh couldn’t say with certainty when flooding might occur, but noted that high-risk times ahead coincide with Thanksgiving and Christmas. Around then, the moon will be at its closest point to the Earth. The stronger gravitational pull from the moon causes what are commonly known as king tides, a nonscientific term for the highest predicted tides of the year.

In addition to these factors, the wide range of events affecting our tides this year, including storms, climate change, El Niño and related Kelvin waves, could very well cause other flooding events or cause the existing ones to become stronger.

Kavanaugh said a combination of factors — specifically Kelvin waves and astronomical high tides — was exactly what was responsible for the flooding seen this week.

“That could happen, perhaps, again in November and December if we have another pulse of a Kelvin wave,” Kavanaugh said.

Flooding inundated coastal communities around Southern California this week, including Orange County's Sunset Beach.

(

Robert Gauthier

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

How high will the tides be?

Unfortunately, Kavanaugh said, there’s no way to predict the severity of upcoming king tide events at this moment in time.

“But as we move closer to an event, there are good models that the National Weather Service uses to forecast flooding,” she added. “But they need it to be within seven days, sometimes shorter timelines.”

How to prepare for high tide conditions

Kavanaugh recommended keeping an eye on National Weather Service reports for the latest information and predictions. (There are separate pages for Los Angeles and Orange counties.)

Kavanaugh stressed that, given this year's unpredictability so far, people should be as prepared as possible.

“It's an unusual type of phenomenon to plan for for some communities,” she said. “We're used to planning for a big storm, maybe, and flooding from that, but not planning for, ‘Oh, it's gonna be beautiful sunny weather, and also you might have flooding on the roads.’”

Kavanaugh also recommended paying close attention to local emergency officials’ guidance and being mindful not to park cars in low-lying areas that could end up being inundated.

“If [local officials are] asking you to get sandbags or things like that, keep those sandbags because you might need them again in a few weeks,” she said.

The federal government must pull three taxpayer-funded Trump administration ads that appear to have been made for political or propaganda purposes, including one touting the president’s claim that every American will get $5,000 if Republicans keep control of Congress in the upcoming election, a judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York sided with a coalition, including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, in ordering the government to take down the advertisements titled “$5,000 to Americans,” “Every Democrat Voted Against No Tax on Tips,” and “Cost of Socialism.” She declined to pull several other ads.

She said the three ads must be taken off official government websites, including social media sites such as YouTube, Instagram and the like. Rochon also ordered the cancellation of any plans for the airing or distribution of the ads through authorized third parties, including by President Donald Trump’s flagship super PAC, MAGA Inc.

Rochon was nominated to the court by then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, and once served as a law clerk for Trump’s sister, the late Maryanne Trump Barry, a longtime federal appeals court judge.

Responding to the ruling, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said: “This Biden-appointed activist judge issued a lawless order to stop the administration from sharing patriotic videos.”

Rochon ruled during a hearing in which she considered expanding a temporary restraining order she issued two weeks ago, when she banned a series of ads that glorify Trump and echo his political messaging going into the midterms.

The plaintiffs sought the removal of at least 13 ads, but Rochon only ordered that the three be pulled, at least for now. She noted that the Government Accountability Office has observed that there are instances when the president’s office is entitled to inform the public of its policies, justify its policies and respond to attacks on its policies.

Rochon said the plaintiffs were seeking to restrict the office in ways that were “broad and far reaching” and she found herself concluding that the government will ultimately prevail legally with regard to many of the ads.

The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements akin to what past administrations have made to promote various policies. But the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements because they don’t try to help the public benefit from specific government programs, according to the plaintiffs.

After Rochon issued the order, she noted that she was doing so on a Friday afternoon and that the government would have no excuse to delay taking them down immediately.

A government lawyer acknowledged that he would be able to immediately notify relevant individuals responsible for taking down the ads.

“Everyone is here. Everyone can hear my order. No one is at the theater,” the judge quipped in a reference to excuses offered by government lawyers when her recent order, issued over a weekend, wasn’t immediately obeyed.

Rochon said irreparable harm could result to the plaintiffs if she didn’t ban the ads while the court case proceeds, though she noted that she could reverse herself and restore the ads or ban additional ads after hearing more evidence in the coming weeks.

“This court can neither postpone an election nor turn back the clock,” Rochon said after concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims regarding the ads and would suffer harm if they were not taken down.

“This temporary restraining order will stop the administration’s wanton disregard for the law while the court hears the full case,” said Bradley Girard, a lawyer with Democracy Forward. “Congress has made clear that partisan ads cannot be funded with taxpayer dollars, and we are proud to work with this coalition to earn today’s result.”

In court papers, the coalition’s lawyers wrote that Congress did not appropriate funds to the president’s office “to run a PR shop to help the President’s allies and attack his perceived ideological opponents.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher wrote in response to the plaintiffs that there was nothing wrong with White House staff compiling advertisements to “inform the public about his policies and to rebut attacks on those policies and his Administration.”

___

Associated Press writer Michael R. Sisak contributed to this report.

Thousands of military veterans with VA-backed mortgages have been hit with higher interest rates and monthly payments since last year, when the Trump administration shut down a low-interest program designed to help them.

Among veterans who had their loans modified after a financial hardship, more than 15,000 saw their monthly payments increase by at least $150, according to an NPR investigation that obtained previously unreported data from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

More than 700 veterans suffered payment increases of $1,000 or more.

Lenders offer loan modifications to enable homeowners to catch up on missed payments. It involves changing the loan terms, and for the vast majority of Americans, it either lowers their payment or keeps it the same, depending on what they can afford. But that's not the case for VA loans, since the VA abruptly ended the program.

NPR found that 63% of veterans who received a loan modification were hit with a payment increase, compared with just 2% for modifications of loans guaranteed by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which cover most of the U.S. mortgage market.

"This is the height of insanity," said California Democratic Rep. Mark Takano, the ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, after NPR shared its findings.

"These are veterans that are already financially distressed — they were already in trouble," he said.

Veterans like Scott Boyd are literally paying the price.

When Boyd was a teenager, his dad died of cancer. He said he saw the military as a clear path to start helping his family.

"My mom signed paperwork when I was 16," Boyd recalled. "I'm like, 'I'm sending my checks home to take care of my mom.'"

He started out in the infantry and saw combat. Later, Boyd worked in Army intelligence in some dangerous places. When he got out in 2002, he had skills that set him up for a career in tech. In 2021, he bought a house near Columbus, Ohio, using a VA home loan. Like other buyers at the time, he got a nice low-interest rate. "I felt very blessed," he said.

But a few years later, Boyd hit a crisis: He lost his job in a mass layoff, and he said his time in combat came back to haunt him in the form of PTSD. He checked himself into the Dayton VA hospital for treatment but fell behind on his mortgage.

Boyd and thousands of other veterans were pushed into much-higher-cost modified home loans. Hundreds are paying at least $1,000 more a month.

(

Maddie McGarvey for NPR

)

Most Americans can get help in a situation like this. Mortgage companies don't want to foreclose because both they and the homeowner experience losses. So they have levers they can pull to help people who've fallen behind on payments.

Boyd's lender told him that he didn't have to worry because the VA had a loan forbearance program that would allow him to pause his payments and provide him with an affordable way to catch up after.

"I later found out that wasn't true," he said.

It wasn't true because the Trump administration then shut down a key part of the VA's home loan program. It was called the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase (VASP) program. Without it, vets like Boyd were stranded with no option but a much-higher-cost modified home loan at today's higher interest rates.

In Boyd's case, he is now stuck paying $1,181 more — every month.

"This is outrageous," said Boyd. "I remember just thinking to myself, 'This is just so broken.'"

Some in Congress agree.

"The VA home loan program should not be making things worse and more stressful for that veteran, a combat veteran, who's been through hell," said Takano, about Boyd's case in particular.

Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., speaks on Capitol Hill in 2025.

(

Rod Lamkey

/

AP

)

Illinois Republican Rep. Mike Bost, chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, did not respond to NPR's repeated requests for comment. NPR also reached out to Wisconsin Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a committee member who led the call to wind down the VASP program. He also did not respond to requests for comment.

The VA said in a statement that it helps thousands of veterans "retain homeownership and/or avoid foreclosure through programs like payment forbearance, loan modifications and individualized repayment plans."

The VA was warned this would happen

Before it was shut down, the VASP program was helping tens of thousands of veterans who had fallen behind on their home loan payments by rolling those missed payments into a new mortgage with a low 2.5% interest rate. That made the program a lifeline for vets in today's higher-interest-rate environment.

And Boyd said his mortgage company had been telling him that he too could use VASP when he was able to resume paying his mortgage.

" I would constantly ask them, 'OK, this is getting further and further behind,' and they were like, 'You have this last lever to pull.'"

This was in the spring of 2025, just months into the second Trump administration. Key Republicans on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee vocally opposed VASP, which the Biden administration created after its own VA home loan disaster. Republicans warned that VASP was putting taxpayers on the hook for thousands of loans to vets who had trouble paying.

"If the Biden version of VASP was allowed to continue, I fear that the home loan will not exist in the future for my fellow veterans," said Van Orden during a House Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on March 11, 2025.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., speaks in Eau Claire, Wis., on Oct. 20. He is currently in a tight race for reelection.

(

Ellen Schmidt

/

AP

)

But at the same hearing, as well as in letters to Congress and press releases, the mortgage industry and housing groups explicitly warned the Trump administration not to kill the program without first creating another viable option for vets. They said if the VA shut down the program before standing up a replacement, vets would be left with far worse options than other American homeowners. With interest rates up around 7%, they warned that the only option left would be a modified loan at the current higher rates, which would result in foreclosures for those who couldn't afford the higher payments. And that's exactly what has been happening.

" I was doing the math in my head as they were telling me, you know?" Boyd said about the loan modification he was presented with. "If I'm going from 2.75 to 6.75 … it seemed ridiculous," he said. Not only would that jump in his interest rate boost his payment by nearly $1,200 every month, but his loan term was extended to 40 years. So he went from about half of his monthly payment going toward principal to now more than 90% of his payment going to cover just the interest.

"This was a foreseeable outcome of abruptly ending a program without a replacement in place," said Matthew Douglas, of the Housing Policy Council. He represents the largest mortgage companies in the U.S. and was among those warning the VA not to kill VASP. Asked about NPR's findings, he said, "It's a mathematical certainty that borrowers are going to have those kind of shocking payment increases." 

Despite the warnings, the Trump administration ended the VASP program on May 1, 2025 — apparently in coordination with House Republicans, who announced the move before the Department of Veterans Affairs did, even though VASP was ended administratively, with no vote from Congress.

"We — along with many of our colleagues — had serious concerns about the impact VASP would have on not only the future of VA's home loan program, but the mortgage lending business as a whole. Today, the Trump administration rightfully put an end to VA's VASP program," Bost and Van Orden said in a joint press release at the time.

In his statement to NPR, VA press secretary Quinn Slaven wrote: "many leading voices in Congress supported the termination of VASP, which put the entire VA home loan program at risk."

The VA's new program slowly rolls out

Boyd lives with his partner and her four children, whom they are raising together.

(

Maddie McGarvey for NPR

)

At the same time Van Orden was calling for VASP to be scuttled, he had written a bill to replace it with a new VA Partial Claim Program (PCP). Congress quickly passed that bill with broad bipartisan support in the wake of the VA scuttling VASP. It directed the VA to create an option for vets behind on payments, enabling them to move their missed payments to the back of their loan term. That way, vets could keep their original mortgage and not be forced into a higher-cost loan.

But after ending VASP, it took the VA more than 13 months to design and announce the details of the new program, which it did in June of this year. And the industry was then given another 180 days to implement it. Most mortgage companies still do not offer it.

In that gap, thousands of veterans got modified loans with higher interest rates and payments. The VA's new PCP program won't do anything to help those vets — they'll remain stuck in those modified loans.

Congress could help

Boyd holds a challenge coin from the Department of Defense that was given to him during his military service.

(

Maddie McGarvey for NPR

)

NPR asked the VA about the vets who fell into the gap between the two programs. Slaven, the VA spokesman, said in his statement that the VA home loan program "is based on the premise that while Veterans may need some assistance, they must generally be able to make their mortgage payments."

Industry groups say raising a struggling homeowner's payment makes it more likely for them to redefault and face foreclosure. Foreclosures on VA loans rose to a 10-year high after VASP was killed, according to industry data. Experts warned in a congressional roundtable in September that time is running out for the government to help these vets or a wave of foreclosures is still to come.

Rep. Takano told NPR that the VA, if it chose to, could put these vets back into lower-cost mortgages or that Congress could pass a law to do it.

"We could do something for those veterans who saw a jump in their interest rates," Takano said.

Hanging on to home 

Boyd says he feels defeated after receiving worse loan options from the VA.

(

Maddie McGarvey for NPR

)

Outside Columbus, Ohio, Scott Boyd is still managing to make those higher mortgage payments.

When he bought the home, he said, it felt like a guarantee of shelter and stability for him, his partner and the four kids they are raising together.

" I made a commitment, saying no matter what, I want to build a home that is big enough. …  I wanted to get them in better schools and things like that," he said.

He was even able to help when his father-in-law became ill recently; they moved him into the finished basement, where he got home hospice care.

So when he was presented with the terms of that loan modification, he had not only kids in the house but his dying father-in-law too. He'd just gotten back on his feet financially and was being told his options were the loan modification or foreclosure.

"My job was still new, and that still felt shaky. … My PTSD was shaky. … It seemed like the right thing to do was just to take the modification," he said.

Two weeks after Boyd signed the loan modification, the VA launched the new Partial Claim Program that would have allowed him to keep his original loan terms with the same monthly payment and low 2.75% interest rate. It took two more months before the first mortgage company offered vets access to the PCP, and most of the industry is still working to stand up the program before the deadline that the VA gave it of Nov. 28.

Boyd said that he doesn't often talk about his service and that he doesn't feel entitled to be treated better than any other American. But he did not expect the VA to give him worse options than those of people who never served.

" I really felt hurt more than anything. I wasn't angry. I was just like, I felt so defeated," Boyd said.

"Everything that I've done for this country and the things that I've been through, the things that I've seen, the things I've had to deal with … it's come down to, 'Yeah, I'm sorry — it's not in our systems yet. … There's nothing we can do about it.'"
Copyright 2026 NPR

Very early on Wednesday morning, Dover, N.J., Councilwoman Sandra Wittner started getting messages about immigration agents. A dozen or more were gathering outside a Walgreens, according to the messages she was getting. Throughout the day, neighbors in north New Jersey saw a spike in Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity.

And New Jersey is not alone. In the weeks ahead of the midterms, various cities and states across the country are reporting a notable rise in ICE activity, according to reports gathered by NPR and its member stations.

"The tactics that the administration has been deploying in communities really appear to be designed to try to intimidate voters," says Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School. Despite that, early turnout is surging.

"There was definitely a lot of apprehension and fear," Wittner recalls. "We just really weren't sure if something huge was about to happen. People were not feeling very comfortable or safe."

Wittner is not sure who was detained or where, which is unsurprising: these days it's difficult to report on ICE crackdowns as they happen, because the Department of Homeland Security no longer publicly shares timely information on its operations.

NPR wrote to the agency to ask if there has been a recent surge. It responded: "ICE agents uphold our nation's immigration laws in all 50 states, seven days a week, 24 hours a day."

And yet NPR and its member stations have received tips from rural Illinois, Oregon, Detroit and California about surges in ICE enforcement throughout October.

An official within New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani's office who was not authorized to speak publicly confirmed that they have noted a surge in ICE activity in the city.

"We're certainly witnessing an uptick in activity, and have been since the summer," says a member of a volunteer group of neighbors in New York. She asked that NPR not use her name, as she is worried about retaliation. Her group goes to the scene where an ICE operation is happening, documents it, reminds those being detained of their rights, and alerts neighbors.

"In the past few weeks we've seen numerous large operations, or what we call cluster raids, multiple agents going to one spot and then the next," she said.

On the other side of the country, Oregon Public Broadcasting reporter Troy Brynelson has reported on a similar trend. "What we were seeing in early October and what we've seen continue, at least anecdotally throughout this month, is that ICE activity has really picked up in Portland." Brynelson says it seems to be concentrated in commercial areas. "I'd say it's a noticeable uptick compared to what we've seen over the summer."

Juan Proaño of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), a civil rights organization, says he's concerned because this is happening so close to the midterm elections. "It's not about ICE at the actual polling station, it's ICE at the perimeter of the polling station," he says.

"Mass enforcement actions could be away from the polls, but with social media and the news, it could be enough to dissuade somebody from actually going out to vote."

Weiser of the Brennan Center says there's no indication the raids are affecting turnout. On the contrary, she says there has been a surge in early voting in minority communities across the country. "The good news is: it isn't working. Americans are tuning this out and we are not seeing a significant impact on participation. And we are actually seeing huge surges in participation in communities of color, and in Latino communities, and in all the communities that have been targeted by ICE and DHS."

Even so, she says that intimidation at the polls is illegal, and should be reported.
Copyright 2026 NPR